# Why not have voting IDs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332 "2012-09-20T23:18:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/101 "2012-09-23T16:47:55Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Your gotcha ya kind of fell flaccid. Look right above your posts. Brilliant! Or, in other words, you figured out your error, but somehow it’s my fault? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/102 "2012-09-23T16:54:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Hold on there Bricker, let’s not paint an inaccurate picture of what happened. > > I said: > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > Keeping thousands of people from voting will distort the election much more than your imaginary in-person voter fraudsters. > > > > Look, you’ve already failed utterly to argue your case in the other two threads, why trot it out again? > > My post is factual. We know that there are hundreds of thousands or millions of people who do not have the ID currently. We also know that all of them getting the ID before the election, is very unlikely or impossible given the systems in place. > > It is also factual that there are next to zero cases of in-person voter fraud. You may pretend that there are more, but that’s what you’d be doing. > > The last part of my post is just a friendly suggestion that you, for the sake of your blood-pressure. Feel free to ignore the advice. And the claim that I have “utterly failed to argue my case?” Gosh, **Lobohan** , is that also factual? That’s poisoning the well, which is in fact a logical fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/103 "2012-09-23T17:12:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And the claim that I have “utterly failed to argue my case?” Gosh, **Lobohan** , is that also factual? > > That’s poisoning the well, which is in fact a logical fallacy. It’s not poisoning the well when we’ve already drunk our fill. Your argument boils down to, “It’s not impossible for these people to get their IDs, so a minor inconvenience (hours or days of effort) is okay, given that the legitimate use of these laws is to increase _voter confidence_. There don’t need to be any cases of voter fraud at all.” You’ll sum up your argument, I’m sure, if I’ve done a bad job. Which I may have. I don’t recite partisan liturgy very well. You’re saying it’s okay to put a work-tax of several hours to several days on a segment of the voting population. And that it’s okay to do this because it will increase _voter confidence_, which is strained due to _voter fraud_. But your whole argument is nonsense, because many more people would be inconvenienced from voting than would have committed _voter fraud_. Which would decrease _voter confidence_. If the hurdles put in by partisan Republican legislatures keep a million people from voting across the country, and 10 would have committed in-person voter fraud, that’s not a successful program. Unless you count suppressing the vote successful. Do you? You’re literally arguing for a solution to an all but non-existent problem, that makes the problem worse. Your argument is a partisan declaration, not rational thought. And we’ve been over it a dozen times. But thirteenth is the charm, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/104 "2012-09-24T03:39:22Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It’s not poisoning the well when we’ve already drunk our fill. I notice you aren’t speaking for yourself alone here. Is this the royal we, or is there an intestinal parasite involved? Or is it the safe, comforting group-think hive mind of the LDMB? You cannot, by fiat, declare an argument over, especially when you acknowledge that you don’t quite grasp it. To do so is poisoning the well, and strawmanning, two fallacies from the guy who moments ago indignantly denied any fallacies in his repertoire. You, as you are welcome to do, weigh the benefits against the inconveniences and find them wanting. Others, to include the legislatures that have passed the laws and the vast majority of the populace that support them, perform the same weighing analysis and reach an opposite conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/105 "2012-09-24T06:13:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I notice you aren’t speaking for yourself alone here. Is this the royal we, or is there an intestinal parasite involved? We, as in everyone who has dealt with you in the previous threads about this subject. You simply have failed utterly to make a case. > [@](#): > > Or is it the safe, comforting group-think hive mind of the LDMB? Anyone is more than free to back up your position any time. I’d look forward to it. But as of yet, no reasonable argument has been put forward for a law that keeps more people form voting than it prevents fraudulent votes. It’s simply a stupid law, and your loving it for partisan reasons doesn’t make it better reasoned. > [@](#): > > You cannot, by fiat, declare an argument over, especially when you acknowledge that you don’t quite grasp it. Reread my post. Your last two attempts at asserting this have failed. I was wondering why you thought it would be different this time. Do you have anything new? > [@](#): > > To do so is poisoning the well, and strawmanning, two fallacies from the guy who moments ago indignantly denied any fallacies in his repertoire. No, you have made arguments time and again, and failed so utterly that you are forced to simply laugh and declare victory because the law is on your side. You’ve done it in two threads, and now you pull out the same arguments here. Where have I strawmanned you? Explain it in detail, if you would. I tried to portray your position as well as I could, but I suspect I may have missed some of the nuance. Please, do fill in. > [@](#): > > You, as you are welcome to do, weigh the benefits against the inconveniences and find them wanting. Others, to include the legislatures that have passed the laws and the vast majority of the populace that support them, perform the same weighing analysis and reach an opposite conclusion. And again you bring out the popularity. Don’t you get ashamed when you have to sink to this? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/106 "2012-09-24T13:48:55Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > And again you bring out the popularity. Don’t you get ashamed when you have to sink to this? How do you imagine laws get made, in a representative democracy such as ours? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/107 "2012-09-24T13:55:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How do you imagine laws get made, in a representative democracy such as ours? I’m arguing whether a law is sensible and a good idea. You are arguing whether it is popular. The law is popular, owing to the outright lies and misinformation that the folks on the right popularize. Particularly about ACORN. Also about the New Black Panthers. So the popularity doesn’t mean the law is a good idea. It means that the misinformation campaign run by the same people that created the laws to enshrine lasting partisan electoral advantage was successful. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/108 "2012-09-24T17:14:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree it’s one in a million. I posit it’s one in 25,000. > > So in the vast majority of elections, it makes no difference. > > But in Washington State, the governor’s race was decided by 137 votes in 2004. > > Under those conditions, one in 25,000 becomes a result-changer. Going back to this just as a note 1 in 25000 it still would not have been a game changer. Final results were: Christine Gregoire 1,373,361 Dino Rossi 1,373,232 Ruth Bennett 63,465 that’s a total of: 2810058 1 in 25000 would have only have made up 112 total votes Also if there reason to believe even if the rate of fraudulently cast ballots is 1 in 25000, that fraud would occur in favor of a single party? ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/109 "2012-09-24T17:26:50Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Also if there reason to believe even if the rate of fraudulently cast ballots is 1 in 25000, that fraud would occur in favor of a single party? Of course! Fraudulent voters are exclusively illegal aliens and felons, all of whom are known to be 100% Democratic voters. Well, all except that Canadian gun nut guy, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/110 "2012-09-25T14:51:22Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Going back to this just as a note 1 in 25000 it still would not have been a game changer. > > Final results were: > Christine Gregoire 1,373,361 > Dino Rossi 1,373,232 > Ruth Bennett 63,465 > that’s a total of: 2810058 > > 1 in 25000 would have only have made up 112 total votes > > Also if there reason to believe even if the rate of fraudulently cast ballots is 1 in 25000, that fraud would occur in favor of a single party? The moment the fraud numbers are close to – or exceed – the margin of victory, the election’s result is in doubt. That said, I am comfortable in speculating that more felons and illegal aliens votye Democratic. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/111 "2012-09-25T17:40:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The moment the fraud numbers are close to – or exceed – the margin of victory, the election’s result is in doubt. > > That said, I am comfortable in speculating that more felons and illegal aliens votye Democratic. The thing you are not addressing (which of course you know) is that the moment the number of people who are kept from voting is close to — or exceeded — by the number of fraudulent votes, election’s legitimacy is in doubt. This is so simple, you can’t possibly not understand it. Never mind that only in your imagination can you assume that many more Democrats commit in-person voter fraud. I’d like to see evidence for that before we go around suppressing legitimate Democratic vote, howsabout? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/112 "2012-09-26T03:26:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That said, I am comfortable in speculating that more felons and illegal aliens votye Democratic. By what margin? As I pointed out if it was 100% it still wouldn’t have changed the results. If it’s less then a hundred percent it’s even further from changing the results. Elections are called into question even without fraudulent ballots. An election being called into question isn’t a very good standard for determining what level of fraud is worth pursuing at the cost of excluding actual voters at higher margins. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/113 "2012-09-26T04:05:07Z")
Late to this party. When all the voter ID zealots get on board with a national ID that can be used for voting preferences, then I’m willing to listen. In that vein, why is it OK for States to have their own standards for who can vote in National elections? Some states like Maine and Vermont allow felons to vote while in prison, while other states disenfranchise felons for life, yet there is also a middle ground where felons get voting rights back after incarceration and/or parole and/or probations. > **[State Voting Laws & Policies for People with Felony Convictions - Felon...](https://felonvoting.procon.org/state-felon-voting-laws/)** > > Some states have laws on the books that contradict current state policy as enacted by the current governor. Here we have tried to list the current policy as it impacts those with felony convictions. Please note the last updated date on this page and... ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/114 "2012-09-26T04:56:31Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > In that vein, why is it OK for States to have their own standards for who can vote in National elections? How do you mean “OK”? Legally, the Constitution seems to endorse the idea with things like “the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/115 "2012-09-26T20:56:21Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Late to this party. When all the voter ID zealots get on board with a national ID that can be used for voting preferences, then I’m willing to listen. > > In that vein, why is it OK for States to have their own standards for who can vote in National elections? Some states like Maine and Vermont allow felons to vote while in prison, while other states disenfranchise felons for life, yet there is also a middle ground where felons get voting rights back after incarceration and/or parole and/or probations. > > [Felon Voting | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Voting Rights, Conviction, & Penalty | Britannica](http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286) It’s OK because our country is a dual-sovereign system. The federal government and the states are both sovereign. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/116 "2012-09-27T04:17:16Z")
In the US, we don’t have any “national elections.” ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/117 "2012-09-27T04:32:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s OK because our country is a dual-sovereign system. The federal government and the states are both sovereign. but the same citizen being allowed to vote in one State but not allowed to vote in another for a national election just doesn’t make a lot of logical sense. A convicted felon having served their debt to society and no longer on probation, can never vote in 4 states (Florida, Kentucky, Virginia and Iowa), yet the same person can vote in 38 states plus DC upon completion of their sentence, in some states there is a time lag before being able to vote, other states require an application to have voting rights restored, and in Maine or Vermont the same perp can vote while serving out their sentence in jail. I’m a simple guy, the above seems to fly in the face of equality ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/118 "2012-09-27T04:51:45Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > but the same citizen being allowed to vote in one State but not allowed to vote in another for a national election just doesn’t make a lot of logical sense. What do you consider to be a “national election”? ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/119 "2012-09-27T05:23:34Z")
Coming from Oregon, this whole Voter ID thing is so frustrating. Mail-in voting works VERY well. I don’t understand why the entire country can’t do it this way. It’s convenient, it’s cheaper, there is an ACTUAL PAPER TRAIL (as opposed to shady electronic voting machines), people can vote on their own time and research the issues as they are looking at their ballots, etc. Seriously, we should just pass an amendment to outlaw anything but mail in voting for federal elections. ETA: Kudos to Washington for also doing the mail-in voting thing. Any other states want to step up and become as responsible 😃 ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332/120 "2012-09-28T02:56:08Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > What do you consider to be a “national election”? President [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-have-voting-ids/635332.md?page=7)