Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You guys do know that in 2000, Bush narrowly won Florida by 537 votes... right?

Voter fraud may seem like a small issue, but keep in mind that it could "swing" an entire election if the votes are close.

Every single voter who wants to vote should prove that they're doing so legally.

At the end of the day, it's sad that this is a partisan issue, rather than defining the framework of meaningful voting practices.

There is no evidence that in person voter fraud (the kind voter ID laws would prevent) is even as common as 500 times in an election though!

The real problem is in people registered that shouldn't be, due to either residency in another state, lack of citizenship, or death. That's at least a tangible and real problem, and while I feel the efforts to clean that up is equally partisan, I think that providing some proof of citizenship isn't out of line when registering to vote.

Voter ID laws are designed to prevent the achingly uncommon practice of voter impersonation, which even the right wing news forums I browsed couldn't come up with more than isolated instances.

Sure... I think that's largely under reported that most of the voter fraud occurs at local level (state reps, mayors, etc...).

Also, in most instances Voter ID laws (ie, that Indiana one) does include "scrubbing" the voter registration rolls.

Once such scrubbing is completed, then ensuring that you are who you say you are isn't a burden at all if you want to vote.

That's like saying that buying a cinema ticket isn't a burden if you want to go to the cinema.

Back on topic, the ironic thing is that Voter ID laws might have the perverse effect of increasing the chance of getting away with voter impersonation.

This is because impersonation is most frequently discovered by someone arriving to vote and finding "they have already voted" i.e. someone stole their voter identity and voted earlier.

By discouraging registration and presentation at the polling station -- which we know from empirical experience to be a genuine effect of Voter ID laws -- a larger pool of easily impersonable voters is created.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Back on topic, the ironic thing is that Voter ID laws might have the perverse effect of increasing the chance of getting away with voter impersonation.

This is because impersonation is most frequently discovered by someone arriving to vote and finding "they have already voted" i.e. someone stole their voter identity and voted earlier.

By discouraging registration and presentation at the polling station -- which we know from empirical experience to be a genuine effect of Voter ID laws -- a larger pool of easily impersonable voters is created.

I don't know about all that, but I know that these laws have almost nothing to do with preventing misrepresentation.

Ostensibly they do, even though that is the least common type of voting fraud.

 Ouze wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
You need legal id for doing many things from driving a car, renting a house, buying a gun or such.

What makes voting special. ?

Something about the constitution or some such rubbish i guess

literally every thread ever on this topic hits exactly the same beats, at this point maybe Lego can just write a script to automate it and save us a lot of hassle

Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...

How is does the US Constitution matter in this case when it is just a few states and not the country as a whole that are doing there best to solve a non-existent problem while hurting those who vote for their political enemies? Do we really think it is a coincidence that these laws are brought up by Republicans and hurt Democrats the most?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...

Expect your list does nothing of the sort, but go ahead and keep pretending that it does.

 Ahtman wrote:
Do we really think it is a coincidence that these laws are brought up by Republicans and hurt Democrats the most?

Except, there's no evidence of that in States that has recently implemented Voter ID laws.

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Do we really think it is a coincidence that these laws are brought up by Republicans and hurt Democrats the most?

Except, there's no evidence of that in States that has recently implemented Voter ID laws.

9:47 in the video. Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...

Expect your list does nothing of the sort, but go ahead and keep pretending that it does.

Purchasing a firearm....


I will say to that though, that it has been federally accepted by the people that there should be some limits to firearm ownership, and as such the entire country has opted for the filling out of the 4473 (or whatever form number it is) for the NICS background check, and the showing of ID. In this particular case, showing ID isn't the impediment to owning a firearm, it's the background check.


I think that pretty much any list that includes more than voting and firearms as "constitutionally protected rights" does go into pretend land.

Purchasing a firearm isn't a right, owning a firearm is. There's a pretty important difference between the two.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...

Expect your list does nothing of the sort, but go ahead and keep pretending that it does.

Purchasing a firearm....


I will say to that though, that it has been federally accepted by the people that there should be some limits to firearm ownership, and as such the entire country has opted for the filling out of the 4473 (or whatever form number it is) for the NICS background check, and the showing of ID. In this particular case, showing ID isn't the impediment to owning a firearm, it's the background check.


I think that pretty much any list that includes more than voting and firearms as "constitutionally protected rights" does go into pretend land.

Glad that someone was paying attention, I thought it was too obvious but evidently not. Also the organizing of a demonstration (First Amendment) may be considered a Constitutional right.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in case anyone actually wants to claim that the right to bear arms does not include the right to buy them
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21275-judge-second-amendment-includes-the-right-to-purchase-guns

And again, you don't need an ID to buy a gun. I've bought one without before.

But in considering how smart you are, I'm sure you knew that already.

Wow!

I didn't know John Oliver could make an argument that didn't involve stating the current year.

 Ahtman wrote:
How is does the US Constitution matter in this case when it is just a few states and not the country as a whole that are doing there best to solve a non-existent problem while hurting those who vote for their political enemies? Do we really think it is a coincidence that these laws are brought up by Republicans and hurt Democrats the most?

In the post I was responding to, Jhe asked what the difference was between voting and anything else that requires ID, specifically driving. I mentioned voting is a right enshrined in the constitution in like, 5 places along with innumerable other statutes, whereas driving isn't even a right at all.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
And again, you don't need an ID to buy a gun. I've bought one without before.

But in considering how smart you are, I'm sure you knew that already.

I wouldn't make that assumption. I've seen vigorous arguments on the idea from allegedly smart people pretending you can't make a person to person gun sale without ID or a background check despite the fact that you clearly can in many states.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Piston Honda wrote:
Wow!

I didn't know John Oliver could make an argument that didn't involve stating the current year.

I don't watch his show generally, but I did see and enjoyed the one about The feth Barrel. It's worth a watch imo.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
For anyone pursuing the disenfranchises minorities/racism angle;

What you've given is a great big long list of things where fraud would be incredibly common if ID wasn't required. You've then compared it to something where fraud is incredibly rare, even without any ID requirements.

And it never occurred to why those two might be very different things.


Anyhow, 11%. Reality vs common sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except I don't buy that they actually would cause that. You say people will get disenfranchised. Yet in order for that to be true they must also be unemployed and a ton of other things, and my guess is that someone who that applies to probably isn't going to be voting anyway as they have much bigger problems.

Wow. And here's an argument that its okay to disenfranchise people because they probably wouldn't vote anyway. Something that ridiculous would be funny, but it's an attitude that I suspect is very common and that makes it very scary.

If there was a fraud issue then that'd be worth addressing, but there isn't and so the only thing that matters is getting as many people as possible in the ballot box every election. But look at this thread. It's fething terrible.

I didn't know John Oliver could make an argument that didn't involve stating the current year.

The only place I have ever seen that meme perpetuated is 4chan.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
You need legal id for doing many things from driving a car, renting a house, buying a gun or such.

What makes voting special. ?

Something about the constitution or some such rubbish i guess

literally every thread ever on this topic hits exactly the same beats, at this point maybe Lego can just write a script to automate it and save us a lot of hassle

Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...

Your list is also incorrect on a ton of those things. I am currently on Unemployment and getting Food Stamps, I never had to show my ID. I rent the place I live at, never had to show an ID. Bought a car, never had to show an ID. Bought a cell phone, never had to show an ID. Bought an M Rated Video Game, never had to show an ID.

Your list, it lacks what we call, truth.

I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?

 n0t_u wrote:
I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?

The issue is that compelling people to do this addresses a problem that basically doesn't exist, voter impersonation, and has been found to disenfranchise a proportion of the population who for one or another reason have difficulty in obtaining the necessary ID.

 n0t_u wrote:
I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?

In the US, you register to vote when you turn 18. Thereafter, you get a voter registration card showing you where your polling place is, and then you show up to vote thereafter. At the actual polls, you say who you are, they check you off a list, and then you vote. You do not have to show a photo ID for this process. In the US, you are not required to have ID the way you are in other countries, although you will need ID for many activities. Additionally, which you may or may not know, the US has a long and sordid history of restricting and denying voting rights to minority populations for racist reasons, as a result of which, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. I mention this because this is a game this country has played for a long, long time.

Anyway, many people do not have valid photo ID in the US for a variety of reasons, such as only working off the books, having their license lapsed from a decade ago because they don't drive anymore, never having gotten a license because they don't own a car, etc etc etc. The pool of people who tend to lack valid photo ID isn't a even distribution, demographically - it includes more poor people, more ethnic minorities, and so on, which also tend to vote more Democratic than Republican. As a result, the GOP has pursued a strategy of passing laws requiring valid photo ID to actually vote, because this will tend to depress a small percentage of the population that can legally vote, tends not to vote republican, and doesn't have a voter ID.

The rationale for passing these laws is to prevent in-person voting fraud, which in addition to being super illegal, statistically does not exist in the US - in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2012, there have only been around 10 cases of in-person voter fraud. There were 120 million votes cast for President in 2012 alone, so it functionally does not exist.

As has been said by Sebster, the laws requiring photo ID rarely to never include provisions or funding for getting an ID for everyone. Going a step further, at least one state has greatly restricted the hours and/or closed offices in locations that vote primarily Democratic.

Anyway, we have a thread on this every few months, where otherwise bright people pretend to be complete fething idiots and pretend that this isn't an organized strategy, and that it isn't for the purposes above, and that what's the big deal anyway, and so on and so forth, because feigned obtuseness is a valuable tool for scoring points for your team.

 Ouze wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?

In the US, you register to vote when you turn 18. Thereafter, you get a voter registration card showing you where your polling place is, and then you show up to vote thereafter. At the actual polls, you say who you are, they check you off a list, and then you vote. You do not have to show a photo ID for this process. In the US, you are not required to have ID the way you are in other countries, although you will need ID for many activities. Additionally, which you may or may not know, the US has a long and sordid history of restricting and denying voting rights to minority populations for racist reasons, as a result of which, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. I mention this because this is a game this country has played for a long, long time.

Anyway, many people do not have valid photo ID in the US for a variety of reasons, such as only working off the books, having their license lapsed from a decade ago because they don't drive anymore, never having gotten a license because they don't own a car, etc etc etc. The pool of people who tend to lack valid photo ID isn't a even distribution, demographically - it includes more poor people, more ethnic minorities, and so on, which also tend to vote more Democratic than Republican. As a result, the GOP has pursued a strategy of passing laws requiring valid photo ID to actually vote, because this will tend to depress a small percentage of the population that can legally vote, tends not to vote republican, and doesn't have a voter ID.

The rationale for passing these laws is to prevent in-person voting fraud, which in addition to being super illegal, statistically does not exist in the US - in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2012, there have only been around 10 cases of in-person voter fraud. There were 120 million votes cast for President in 2012 alone, so it functionally does not exist.

As has been said by Sebster, the laws requiring photo ID rarely to never include provisions or funding for getting an ID for everyone. Going a step further, at least one state has greatly restricted the hours and/or closed offices in locations that vote primarily Democratic.

Anyway, we have a thread on this every few months, where otherwise bright people pretend to be complete fething idiots and pretend that this isn't an organized strategy, and that it isn't for the purposes above, and that what's the big deal anyway, and so on and so forth, because feigned obtuseness is a valuable tool for scoring points for your team.

I see so the move would be to hide voting behind a paywall of people who would be able to have the ID?

 n0t_u wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?

In the US, you register to vote when you turn 18. Thereafter, you get a voter registration card showing you where your polling place is, and then you show up to vote thereafter. At the actual polls, you say who you are, they check you off a list, and then you vote. You do not have to show a photo ID for this process. In the US, you are not required to have ID the way you are in other countries, although you will need ID for many activities. Additionally, which you may or may not know, the US has a long and sordid history of restricting and denying voting rights to minority populations for racist reasons, as a result of which, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. I mention this because this is a game this country has played for a long, long time.

Anyway, many people do not have valid photo ID in the US for a variety of reasons, such as only working off the books, having their license lapsed from a decade ago because they don't drive anymore, never having gotten a license because they don't own a car, etc etc etc. The pool of people who tend to lack valid photo ID isn't a even distribution, demographically - it includes more poor people, more ethnic minorities, and so on, which also tend to vote more Democratic than Republican. As a result, the GOP has pursued a strategy of passing laws requiring valid photo ID to actually vote, because this will tend to depress a small percentage of the population that can legally vote, tends not to vote republican, and doesn't have a voter ID.

The rationale for passing these laws is to prevent in-person voting fraud, which in addition to being super illegal, statistically does not exist in the US - in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2012, there have only been around 10 cases of in-person voter fraud. There were 120 million votes cast for President in 2012 alone, so it functionally does not exist.

As has been said by Sebster, the laws requiring photo ID rarely to never include provisions or funding for getting an ID for everyone. Going a step further, at least one state has greatly restricted the hours and/or closed offices in locations that vote primarily Democratic.

Anyway, we have a thread on this every few months, where otherwise bright people pretend to be complete fething idiots and pretend that this isn't an organized strategy, and that it isn't for the purposes above, and that what's the big deal anyway, and so on and so forth, because feigned obtuseness is a valuable tool for scoring points for your team.

I see so the move would be to hide voting behind a paywall of people who would be able to have the ID?

Land of the Free, woop woop

 n0t_u wrote:
I see so the move would be to hide voting behind a paywall of people who would be able to have the ID?

Paywall is a bit of a strong way to put it, but yes, establishing obstacles for those voters is the goal. Voter turnout in the US isn't very good, and there are some races that have been so close that just keeping a tiny fraction of voters from showing up would easily swing it.

 Ouze wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?

In the US, you register to vote when you turn 18. Thereafter, you get a voter registration card showing you where your polling place is, and then you show up to vote thereafter. At the actual polls, you say who you are, they check you off a list, and then you vote. You do not have to show a photo ID for this process. In the US, you are not required to have ID the way you are in other countries, although you will need ID for many activities.

...

 Ouze wrote:


Anyway, we have a thread on this every few months, where otherwise bright people pretend to be complete fething idiots and pretend that this isn't an organized strategy, and that it isn't for the purposes above, and that what's the big deal anyway, and so on and so forth, because feigned obtuseness is a valuable tool for scoring points for your team.

This essentially is the same system as the UK uses. Like the USA and Japan, there is no national ID card system, so there is no reason for anyone to have a photo ID document, For decades there would have been no way of validating people's identities at the polling station, but it hasn't mattered. Poll fraud started to become a problem when the law on postal voting was changed a few years ago.

(Absentee ballots are the main source of voter fraud in the USA too.)

It's only in the past 10 years or so that UK driving licences have had to feature a photo, and of course not everyone has a driving licence. Even if you do, you only have to change it when you move house.

I don't think feigned obtuseness scores any real points. If you oppose the concept, you either think the people actually are stupid, or that they are liars.

In either case, it's a good reason not to take any proper notice of their arguments. I think it's more of a self-validation strategy, preaching to the converted if you will.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
You need legal id for doing many things from driving a car, renting a house, buying a gun or such.

What makes voting special. ?

Something about the constitution or some such rubbish i guess

literally every thread ever on this topic hits exactly the same beats, at this point maybe Lego can just write a script to automate it and save us a lot of hassle

Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...

Your list is also incorrect on a ton of those things. I am currently on Unemployment and getting Food Stamps, I never had to show my ID. I rent the place I live at, never had to show an ID. Bought a car, never had to show an ID. Bought a cell phone, never had to show an ID. Bought an M Rated Video Game, never had to show an ID.

Your list, it lacks what we call, truth.

Really? A quick Google search reveals;

Unemployment;
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/uia_1538_81121_7.pdf
"Driver license number or state ID number"

Unemployment;
http://www.wikihow.com/Apply-for-Unemployment-in-Illinois
"Social Security Number (SSN) and name, as it appears on your SSN card.
The SSNs of any dependents you are claiming.
Employer's name, mailing address, phone numbers, employment dates, and separation reason for all the employers you worked for in the past 18 months.
If you are not a U.S. citizen, your Alien Registration Information.
If you have worked since the Sunday of the week of your application, the amount of gross wages (amount earned before any deductions) earned in that week—including lodging, meals, or earned compensation of any form.
If you are a recently separated veteran, bring in the Member 4 Copy of DD form 214/215.
In addition to the above, if you are filing in person you must bring 2 forms of identification—at least one of which includes your Social Security Number."

Unemployment;
http://www.in.gov/dwd/2508.htm
"Complete name and address
Social Security number
Personal identification"

Renting
http://ohmyapt.apartmentratings.com/required-documents-for-renting-an-apartment.html
"The required documentation you’ll need to present when renting an apartment can vary from city to city. It can also depend on whether you’re renting from an individual property owner, or from an apartment complex owned by a corporation or real estate company. Whatever the situation is, you’ll need to show at least some of the following documents when renting an apartment.

Your Driver’s License

Presenting your driver’s license allows a property owner to do several things. He or she can verify your identity with it. Your driver’s license can also be used to run a credit check. Potential landlords want to know if you’re a person who can be trusted to pay their bills (specifically their rent) on time. Your driver’s license will also be used as part of a background check. Some property owners will check to see if you have a criminal history, or if you’re a registered sex offender.

If you don’t have a driver’s license, another form of photo ID will be required, such as a passport or military ID, but other documents could then be required in order to run a credit check.

Your Social Security Number

Be very careful when giving out your social security number. Many landlords will tell you that this number is required for a rental application, but it’s not required by law. Your driver’s license number is sufficient for someone to run a background or credit check on you. If you have any doubts about a property manager or potential landlord, it’s best to not provide this. You wouldn’t want to have your identity stolen while applying to rent an apartment."

SNAP (Food stamps)
http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/
“The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact.

Buying a car
http://www.dmv.org/in-indiana/buy-sell/used-cars/paper-work-when-buying-a-car.php
"When you buy a car from a private seller in IN, the seller should sign the Vehicle Title, then give it to you.

You'll then need to go to a license branch to transfer the title into your name and register the car. Be sure to take:

The signed vehicle title.
The bill of sale from the seller OR a receipt for your purchase, showing how much you paid for it.
Proof of car insurance for the vehicle.
Verification of your Social Security number."


In every case you objected to your identity is eligible to be verified. The only one you have an arguable case on is purchasing a cell phone as for a contract phone an ID is required. In all other cases you are mistaking anecdotes for evidence.

Shockingly enough, not every body lives in Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois. I eould go so far to say thst [i]most[\i] people don't.

That feeling when you have to pull info from 15 different states to try and make fetch happen.

Also, LOL at using a site for SNAP (food stamps) which explicitly says you don't need photo ID, to "prove you need photo ID to get food stamps".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
SNAP (Food stamps)
http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/
“The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact..

Well done.

Is it worth bringing up that there has historically been profound republican opposition to any sort of national ID standards?

 Polonius wrote:
Is it worth bringing up that there has historically been profound republican opposition to any sort of national ID standards?

I can't speak for everyone in the party, but I see it as pointless.


State driver's licenses, State I.D. cards, and Military I.D.s are sufficient for anything requiring a photo I.D. to confirm identity, And pretty much universally accepted for such across the 50 States.