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.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Ok I know I'm going to seem like an idiot for asking this, but what's wrong with asking for an ID to vote?

If all I need is a driver's license or something I don't see how that's a huge deal. Most people will have one already and those that don't can get a regular state ID for fairly cheap.

I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.

Requireing a drivers license means requireing people to stand in line at the DMV.

Such a cruel requirement boggles my moral and ethical compass.



In all seriousness I consider it a onerous requiremnt to meet before you can vote.

Seeing as there is no problem being prevented by voter ID

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Ok I know I'm going to seem like an idiot for asking this, but what's wrong with asking for an ID to vote?

If all I need is a driver's license or something I don't see how that's a huge deal. Most people will have one already and those that don't can get a regular state ID for fairly cheap.

I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.

Requireing a drivers license means requireing people to stand in line at the DMV.

Such a cruel requirement boggles my moral and ethical compass.

If I have to go through that hell than everyone should

 Frazzled wrote:
There is evidence of voter fraud, whether or not you accept that evfidence is different (more people voting then registered that sort fo thing). As noted however, if we assume such fraud is minor, then an equally noninvasive check is appropriate.

But that's not the question here. Requiring an ID to vote does not deal with all cases of voter fraud. It does absolutely nothing to stop someone from tampering with the ballot count, and it does absolutely nothing to stop someone from voting illegally if they have succeeded in registering to vote in the first place. The only thing it could possibly stop is the case where someone steals the identity of a legal voter but isn't able to get a good fake ID. And your proposal isn't even very effective against that case since you've broadened the range of acceptable IDs to include ones (school IDs, for example) that are much less secure than a state-issued driver's license. So since the method of "security" is so laughably ineffective it's a safe bet that anyone advocating it is doing so in the hope of influencing the outcome of the election, not out of non-partisan desire to have fair elections.

If you want to stop voter fraud then you need to do it effectively, through securing the ballot counting process more effectively (and with more transparency) and keeping illegal voters off the registry.

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Ok I know I'm going to seem like an idiot for asking this, but what's wrong with asking for an ID to vote?

If all I need is a driver's license or something I don't see how that's a huge deal. Most people will have one already and those that don't can get a regular state ID for fairly cheap.

I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.

Requireing a drivers license means requireing people to stand in line at the DMV.

Such a cruel requirement boggles my moral and ethical compass.



In all seriousness I consider it a onerous requiremnt to meet before you can vote.

Seeing as there is no problem being prevented by voter ID

hence the addition of any pic ID being available to be used, or just bring in your water or power bill like the Canadians do eh. If you brought your registration card (that all voters get FYI) then you'd be golden too.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.

Sure, but you don't have a protected right to have easy access to alcohol* enshrined in the constitution. As voting is the cornerstone of our democracy - in fact, the very foundation upon which all of our other rights lie - any impingement or barriers to exercising it should be carefully constructed to have the least possible impact.


*Although lord knows Ben Franklin tried, he just couldn't get the other guys on board.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Ok I know I'm going to seem like an idiot for asking this, but what's wrong with asking for an ID to vote?

If all I need is a driver's license or something I don't see how that's a huge deal. Most people will have one already and those that don't can get a regular state ID for fairly cheap.

I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.

Requireing a drivers license means requireing people to stand in line at the DMV.

Such a cruel requirement boggles my moral and ethical compass.



In all seriousness I consider it a onerous requiremnt to meet before you can vote.

Seeing as there is no problem being prevented by voter ID

hence the addition of any pic ID being available to be used, or just bring in your water or power bill like the Canadians do eh. If you brought your registration card (that all voters get FYI) then you'd be golden too.

Not everyone will have a water or power bill in their name.

A Photo ID can be faked by anyone with serious intent on comiting voter fraud.

If the photo ID needs to be electronically verified than you have the added cost and problems of electronic technology.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There is evidence of voter fraud, whether or not you accept that evfidence is different (more people voting then registered that sort fo thing). As noted however, if we assume such fraud is minor, then an equally noninvasive check is appropriate.

But that's not the question here. Requiring an ID to vote does not deal with all cases of voter fraud. It does absolutely nothing to stop someone from tampering with the ballot count, and it does absolutely nothing to stop someone from voting illegally if they have succeeded in registering to vote in the first place. The only thing it could possibly stop is the case where someone steals the identity of a legal voter but isn't able to get a good fake ID.

True that. This would be just one measure with other measures to address those issues.

And your proposal isn't even very effective against that case since you've broadened the range of acceptable IDs to include ones (school IDs, for example) that are much less secure than a state-issued driver's license. So since the method of "security" is so laughably ineffective it's a safe bet that anyone advocating it is doing so in the hope of influencing the outcome of the election, not out of non-partisan desire to have fair elections.

Its watered down to take into account the objections of those against voter ID. You can't accuse someone of impure motive when they actually icorporate the concerns of the other side into the proposed legislation. thats kind of coockoo.
It would really only come into play if a real voter attempts to vote but the system notes two (or more voters) using the same alias. hence it being provisional.

If you want to stop voter fraud then you need to do it effectively, through securing the ballot counting process more effectively (and with more transparency) and keeping illegal voters off the registry.

I couldn't agree more.

 Ouze wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I go through more hassle trying to buy alcohol to be honest.

Sure, but you don't have a protected right to have easy access to alcohol* enshrined in the constitution. As voting is the cornerstone of our democracy - in fact, the very foundation upon which all of our other rights lie - any impingement or barriers to exercising it should be carefully constructed to have the least possible impact.


*Although lord knows Ben Franklin tried, he just couldn't get the other guys on board.

I have a right to bear arms.

I can't wily-nily walk into a Gun Store and purchase a gun w/o an ID....right?

In just about ALL WALK OF LIFE, in any social economic spectrum, everyone has some sort of ID. How is that impinging on one's right to vote?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Answer the actual question please.

It does answer the question. Since there has yet to be any credible evidence of a problem that will be fixed by stricter ID requirements the inevitable conclusion is that those requirements are being implemented with malicious intent. So even if the argument seems like a good one superficially there's a very good reason to oppose it until it is established that it is anything more than a solution in need of a problem.

There is evidence of voter fraud, whether or not you accept that evfidence is different (more people voting then registered that sort fo thing). As noted however, if we assume such fraud is minor, then an equally noninvasive check is appropriate.

If a minor check is required for something that is pretty much a non-problem, does that mean you would be fine with a much stricter check and requirement for ID, proof of lawful eligibility etc for purchasing a gun? You know, because gun crime is a very real, very widespread problem in the USA?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Answer the actual question please.

It does answer the question. Since there has yet to be any credible evidence of a problem that will be fixed by stricter ID requirements the inevitable conclusion is that those requirements are being implemented with malicious intent. So even if the argument seems like a good one superficially there's a very good reason to oppose it until it is established that it is anything more than a solution in need of a problem.

There is evidence of voter fraud, whether or not you accept that evfidence is different (more people voting then registered that sort fo thing). As noted however, if we assume such fraud is minor, then an equally noninvasive check is appropriate.

If a minor check is required for something that is pretty much a non-problem, does that mean you would be fine with a much stricter check and requirement for ID, proof of lawful eligibility etc for purchasing a gun? You know, because gun crime is a very real, very widespread problem in the USA?

Considering that already occurs, yep. Its called an NCIS check boyo.

I'll put it this way,

You can have your national voter ID law if I get a national gun control law that takes all your guns away.

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Isn't it funny, when it comes to discussion about guns (another constitutional right) and gun control we have advocates saying that we should be more like other developed countries. Yet when it comes voter ID laws it is a complete 180

Isn't it funny that when it comes to discussion about how large goverment should be we have advocates saying we should have small goverment and less spending.

Yet when it comes to voter ID laws its a complete 180 and they want more bureaucracy and an expensive new national program.

I know. Imagine wanting to protect the cornerstone of your political system. What heartless b*stards








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Sure, but you don't have a protected right to have easy access to alcohol* enshrined in the constitution. As voting is the cornerstone of our democracy - in fact, the very foundation upon which all of our other rights lie - any impingement or barriers to exercising it should be carefully constructed to have the least possible impact.

But we do to have a protected right concerning firearms, and look at the ID and background checks that we need for that

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
I'll put it this way,

You can have your national voter ID law if I get a national gun control law that takes all your guns away.

At least my id is required when I buy my guns.

Personally, I'd be fine if within the 4 years between elections you had to show proof you passed the US citizenship test that immigrants have to take to become naturalized.

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering that already occurs, yep. Its called an NCIS check boyo.

It's clearly not enough given the amount of gun crime that occurs, wouldn't you think? Especially since you seem keen to introduce checks to stop, what? 40 detected crimes per year (or whatever cycle was quoted earlier). I'd suggest that your time and effort is far better spent trying to reduce the massive number of gun crimes and indeed gun deaths than crusading for voter ID...

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
I'll put it this way,

You can have your national voter ID law if I get a national gun control law that takes all your guns away.

Yes.... because preventing an abuse of the democratic process with free IDs is comparable to the mass confiscation of property

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering that already occurs, yep. Its called an NCIS check boyo.

It's clearly not enough given the amount of gun crime that occurs, wouldn't you think? Especially since you seem keen to introduce checks to stop, what? 40 detected crimes per year (or whatever cycle was quoted earlier). I'd suggest that your time and effort is far better spent trying to reduce the massive number of gun crimes and indeed gun deaths than crusading for voter ID...

Yeah. It's stop criminals. It has nothing to do with the actual guns. The number of guns crimes in the United States when compared to the the number of firearms is less than 1%.

 whembly wrote:
A bunch of folks in GA obviously felt there was a problem. *shrugs*

Begging the question.

I have no doubt they felt there was a problem. The question is with what?

 Frazzled wrote:
Its watered down to take into account the objections of those against voter ID. You can't accuse someone of impure motive when they actually icorporate the concerns of the other side into the proposed legislation. thats kind of coockoo.

Of course you can make that accusation. It's just like how if you see a scam you can immediately reject it. Strictly looking at the deal that is offered you'd be insane to reject it. Of course you'd pay $1000 to get $1 million (once the exiled king gets their bank account unlocked). But yet in the real world we don't have any problem noticing the obvious fact that the scammer is not offering an honest deal and rejecting it. We don't say "but you don't know he has an impure motive" and insist that accepting the deal is a good idea.

The same is true for stricter ID requirements. Even if it's superficially a good tradeoff between security and convenience the fact that it is utterly ineffective at addressing any demonstrated problem makes it perfectly clear that anyone advocating those requirements is just doing it because they think it will help them win the next election.

It would really only come into play if a real voter attempts to vote but the system notes two (or more voters) using the same alias. hence it being provisional.

But stricter ID requirements have nothing to do with this. If you have duplicate votes then you have a situation that calls for more than just a glance at the second guy's college ID card.

 cincydooley wrote:
Yeah. It's stop criminals. It has nothing to do with the actual guns. The number of guns crimes in the United States when compared to the the number of firearms is less than 1%.

However, the number of gun crimes per 100,000 population puts you way ahead of the rest of the developed world, almost right up there with countries actively engaged in civil war...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering that already occurs, yep. Its called an NCIS check boyo.

It's clearly not enough given the amount of gun crime that occurs, wouldn't you think? Especially since you seem keen to introduce checks to stop, what? 40 detected crimes per year (or whatever cycle was quoted earlier). I'd suggest that your time and effort is far better spent trying to reduce the massive number of gun crimes and indeed gun deaths than crusading for voter ID...

Moving your goalposts. To your point it already occurs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
I'll put it this way,

You can have your national voter ID law if I get a national gun control law that takes all your guns away.

I already have to have ID for my Second Amendment right. No reason to not have to have ID for my right to vote.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Yeah. It's stop criminals. It has nothing to do with the actual guns. The number of guns crimes in the United States when compared to the the number of firearms is less than 1%.

However, the number of gun crimes per 100,000 population puts you way ahead of the rest of the developed world, almost right up there with countries actively engaged in civil war...

The majority of which is gang violence, which for all intents and purposes is a form of domestic war.

And not only that, but crime rates in the US continue to fall nationwide.

But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its watered down to take into account the objections of those against voter ID. You can't accuse someone of impure motive when they actually icorporate the concerns of the other side into the proposed legislation. thats kind of coockoo.

Of course you can make that accusation. It's just like how if you see a scam you can immediately reject it. Strictly looking at the deal that is offered you'd be insane to reject it. Of course you'd pay $1000 to get $1 million (once the exiled king gets their bank account unlocked). But yet in the real world we don't have any problem noticing the obvious fact that the scammer is not offering an honest deal and rejecting it. We don't say "but you don't know he has an impure motive" and insist that accepting the deal is a good idea.

The same is true for stricter ID requirements. Even if it's superficially a good tradeoff between security and convenience the fact that it is utterly ineffective at addressing any demonstrated problem makes it perfectly clear that anyone advocating those requirements is just doing it because they think it will help them win the next election.

It would really only come into play if a real voter attempts to vote but the system notes two (or more voters) using the same alias. hence it being provisional.

But stricter ID requirements have nothing to do with this. If you have duplicate votes then you have a situation that calls for more than just a glance at the second guy's college ID card.

Er no. If the argument is that its too onerous then that is taken into account you can't then say Hah! its too easy when you're the one arguing its too onerous in the first place.

 Frazzled wrote:


I already have to have ID for my Second Amendment right. No reason to not have to have ID for my right to vote.

In fact Frazz, I think one could make the exact same argument about required IDs for firearms as for voting. Requiring an ID to purchase a firearm unfairly infringes upon my right to own a firearm because I don't have an ID.

 cincydooley wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Yeah. It's stop criminals. It has nothing to do with the actual guns. The number of guns crimes in the United States when compared to the the number of firearms is less than 1%.

However, the number of gun crimes per 100,000 population puts you way ahead of the rest of the developed world, almost right up there with countries actively engaged in civil war...

The majority of which is gang violence, which for all intents and purposes is a form of domestic war.

And not only that, but crime rates in the US continue to fall nationwide.

But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.

Ooh I like that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering that already occurs, yep. Its called an NCIS check boyo.

It's clearly not enough given the amount of gun crime that occurs, wouldn't you think? Especially since you seem keen to introduce checks to stop, what? 40 detected crimes per year (or whatever cycle was quoted earlier). I'd suggest that your time and effort is far better spent trying to reduce the massive number of gun crimes and indeed gun deaths than crusading for voter ID...

Moving your goalposts. To your point it already occurs.

My point was that you intend to push something which will take a not immodest amount of resources; money, time, goodwill, etc, to "solve" a problem that statistically does not even exist. If you were to put a proportional amount of effort into combating a real issue (gun crime), you would be talking about putting chips into guns to recognise their owner, tracking them from space, full background checks, interviews with neighbours, colonoscopy, etc before you could buy a gun.

 Frazzled wrote:
Er no. If the argument is that its too onerous then that is taken into account you can't then say Hah! its too easy when you're the one arguing its too onerous in the first place.

Sure I can. You're making the assumption that there is a level of difficulty which provides meaningful security improvements without imposing an unfair burden on anyone. I'm just arguing that there isn't. Once you've reduced the burden enough to be reasonable you're left with something that is completely ineffective at addressing the supposed problem. The solution isn't to try to find some magical balance, it's to accept that voter ID is not an effective approach to stopping fraud and concentrate on the methods that are more likely to accomplish something.

 cincydooley wrote:
But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.

So, you want a national register of fingerprints too? And would you be fingerprinting your actual ballot paper so anyone who cared to could check exactly how you voted?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.

So, you want a national register of fingerprints too? And would you be fingerprinting your actual ballot paper so anyone who cared to could check exactly how you voted?

No... just dip you finger in ink after voting. That'll stop some of it... Like they do in Iraq:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Sure, but you don't have a protected right to have easy access to alcohol* enshrined in the constitution. As voting is the cornerstone of our democracy - in fact, the very foundation upon which all of our other rights lie - any impingement or barriers to exercising it should be carefully constructed to have the least possible impact.

But we do to have a protected right concerning firearms, and look at the ID and background checks that we need for that

And I think that's a perfect example of a restraint on a right that required it be balanced out by a clear state interest in doing so.

There is a clear government interest in preventing felons, the mentally disturbed, those with open restraining orders, and suchlike from being able to exercise that right freely. It's unambiguous. The state interest is compelling.

Since in-person voter fraud of the type this is purportedly to address is nearly nonexistent, the state interest in being able to impede that right is substantially diminished.

 whembly wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.

So, you want a national register of fingerprints too? And would you be fingerprinting your actual ballot paper so anyone who cared to could check exactly how you voted?

No... just dip you finger in ink after voting. That'll stop some of it... Like they do in Iraq:

Ah, yes... like they used in Malaysia...

But I guess that at least if you were beaten because you had not voted you wouldn't try to wash it off...