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.

 Verviedi wrote:
So, I suppose that libertarianism can work, provided the people in our theoretical libertarian/anarchist society are all rational, reasonable people. Which isn't likely.

The problem, though, is that in order for libertarianism to work you start with a utopia that's already solved all our problems. How do you get a libertarian utopia? First start with utopia, then make it libertarian


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don't endorse communism though. If you've worked hard, you deserve your perks.

As a nitpick, there is nothing in communism that states everyone has to earn the same amount. In Soviet Russia doctors did earn more than manual labourers. It's just the difference was nothing like as much as we see in the US/UK etc today, and the pay rates were set by government fiat, not market forces.

The big step between socialism and communism is really more about state control of business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Subsidizing something is not an effective way to get less of something.

Reducing everything down to economic equations decided by rational actors is an awful approach to a whole lot of policies. For your argument to make sense, you'd have to believe that when Cindy decides to let Johnny go bareback, that her decision isn't just a combination of hormones and teenage insecurity, but also includes assessing the risk of pregnancy and the impact that possible pregnancy would be expected to have on her life, with and without government support. It's ridiculous.

Humans don't base every decision on those kinds of material calculus. This is a large reason why despite increasing government support for young mothers, the rate of such pregnancies has been in decline for a long time now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double.

The issue is that the argument that we shouldn't worry about income shares, but instead should just increase everyone's income has been at the centre of right wing policy on incomes since Reagan and Thatcher. And the problem is that it was a crock. The policies to lower top marginal tax rates and slash capital gains taxes didn't produce greater growth than we otherwise saw. Reality is that growth isn't impacted by ordinary levels of redistribution, and so reducing redistribution doesn't produce more growth.

Nobody is arguing that low income unwed mothers shouldn't receive assistance but if low income unwed mothers are a problem for society than simply handing them a check from the govt every month isn't a solution to that problem. The goal of govt assistance should be to help people not need govt assistance anymore not to create govt dependencies that perpetuate generational cycles of a disadvantaged poverty stricken underclass.

I agree that the goal should be to end poverty cycles and get people in to positions where they can earn a decent living for themselves. I disagree completely that government monthly cheques aren't a part of that solution. Having parents away from the house for excessive hours is known to damage a child's development. It also stops that parent studying, which prevents them getting a better job down the line.

Your assumption is also wrong in that it is only unwed, low income mothers who need assistance. Even when a mother and father are both there for the kid the hours that need to be worked to provide for that kid can be excessive. That reality drove a lot of the thinking behind the bi-partisan EITC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:
"n-dimensional hypervolume" indeed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
This occurred to me earlier as well but in the context of CRA.

I don't really give a gak what people do with their lives, or in their heads. I might have an opinion to share about it but as far as government power does I don't think it belongs there. Go be racist if you want. Be gay. Be an absolute man whore. Really just... don't care. I don't like hate speech but I don't want to ban it. I don't like "at will" laws, but I'm not really interested in forcing employers to keep around employees they don't want either. All of that sounds awfully Libertarian socially (I'm definitely more authoritarian than libertarian on economics). I like government transparency and want more if it, and I've increasingly come to the opinion that if you have to keep something secret from the public then you probably shouldn't be doing whatever the feth it is you're doing (exceptions for military technology and intelligence gathering, but still kind of iffy there).

But then I'm all for banning people from refusing to serve someone on account of skin color and such not simply because of the social ramifications of how that can spiral out of control.

Is that more Libertarian, or Authoritarian? Just enough Authoritarianism that the Libertarianism doesn't collapse in on itself? Applied Authoritarian / Limited Libertarian? Horseshoe Effect? XD Don't know. It's kind of funky.

I think you've captured the complexity of trying to apply these labels. I think at the end of the day these kinds of general categories laid out on an axis are a useful general tool, and they're okay for describing general tendencies within a population, but they're pretty hopeless at describing any individual's politics. Though asking people to self-identify can be a pretty interesting thing - it doesn't tell us too much about anyone's real political beliefs but it tells us a bit about how they like to see themselves.

 sebster wrote:


I think you've captured the complexity of trying to apply these labels. I think at the end of the day these kinds of general categories laid out on an axis are a useful general tool, and they're okay for describing general tendencies within a population, but they're pretty hopeless at describing any individual's politics. Though asking people to self-identify can be a pretty interesting thing - it doesn't tell us too much about anyone's real political beliefs but it tells us a bit about how they like to see themselves.

This should probably be the first post on all of theses discussions!

it doesn't tell us too much about anyone's real political beliefs but it tells us a bit about how they like to see themselves

Perhaps unpacking how one wants to see oneself can clarify or bring consistency to one's political beliefs. Some years ago, this kind of came up in terms of Voter ID laws pushed by Republicans. Starting from a "libertarian" POV (in the context of our spectrum ITT), this amounts to using direct government power to tighten restrictions around a fundamental political right - i.e., a position one would expect libertarian-leaning people to reflexively oppose. It's not that a libertarian-leaning person could never accept a Voter ID law. But at the very least, the proponents of such a law should have to make a very convincing case that (a) voter fraud is a significant enough problem to meaningfully call into question the legitimacy of election results and (b) that the proposed law would actually mitigate the problem. To my mind, proponents of Voter ID laws have never been able to establish (a), rendering (b) moot. So, consistent with my own libertarian principles, I consider Voter ID laws not only unnecessary but furthermore morally suspect.

But of course a lot of folks who identify as libertarian support these laws. Are they authoritarians posing as libertarian? Or are they genuinely libertarian and would change their minds if the issue was laid out as above? Or are they genuinely libertarian but they believe points (a) and (b) are apparent/have been clearly established? Or maybe their analysis is that the right to vote is so fundamental that expanding government regulation to "protect" it, even from hypothetical fraud, is acceptable?

In any case, I think it is helpful to be able to identify Voter ID laws and similar policies as authoritarian impulses.

And it also depends on what lens you view it from. Living where I do, there are three large towns a half hour or so away from me or less that had large groups of illegals deported multiple times because of certain factories/processing plants that either turned a blind eye to such things, or didn't do their due diligence in that regard.


Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections. Hell, one lady from... Texas, I think? ...had been caught committing voter fraud over a decade ago and wound up getting pinched again, but deported this time.

Now, I'm no fan of government control, and consider myself very Libertarian as far as that goes. But you DO have an issue with a massive number of undocumented immigrants in the country who DO vote, committing fraud, and tightening our border isn't going to solve the entire problem. Finding them all takes time, and one of those controls is indeed voter ID laws. Said immigrant presents fake ID to vote, quick sweep of database throws red flags, gets to answer questions and potentially get uncovered and deported.


I really wish it were more cut and dry, but until we get away from our immigration problem I see ID laws as a necessary evil. For now.

A pure libertarian or anarco capitalism society can't work just because people with power normally like to use that power.

The State, even as many people want to put it as some kind of boogieman or big brother totally external to society... actually is suppose to represent the "Nation". The people that live into a country. The weak people band together for the greater good and have a "voice". Isn't a perfect system, of course.

But I doubt that the law of the jungle is better. "In a pure libertarian world the State isn't needed because everybody is free!" Yeah... and how exactly do you stop people from using that freedom to restrain the freedom of others? One can talk about social unions between peoples to defend themselves agains't others. But at the end we go back to mini-goverments.

Humans are a social and political animal. We need each other to work as a race. Thats why the sentiment of "Nation" is a natural result of history.

That and individuals and small bands of humans are terrible at large scale projects. Like road maintenance. And international shipping. You enjoy modernity? Someone's gotta make it work, and if that someone ain't you, it's gonna be your taxes.

 Selym wrote:
That and individuals and small bands of humans are terrible at large scale projects. Like road maintenance. And international shipping. You enjoy modernity? Someone's gotta make it work, and if that someone ain't you, it's gonna be your taxes.

I think thats the biggest problem. I'm sure that, with a more efficient goverment, people is more willing to pay higger taxes, because you see how they are used and the actual improvement in your life. Even if it doesn't affect directly to you. Maybe you are healty all of your life and you are lucky to don't go never to the hospital, but if you see how the hospitals have better equipement and service paid by your taxes, is much better than notice after notice of corruption, public funding being spend in irrelevant things, etc...

Neither is a purist totalitarian society desirable or perhaps even possible. Again, the point of this thread isn't the obvious conclusion that such extreme fantasies are unrealistic/terrible.

 Manchu wrote:
Neither is a purist totalitarian society desirable or perhaps even possible. Again, the point of this thread isn't the obvious conclusion that such extreme fantasies are unrealistic/terrible.

Well, I have meet some Anarcho-Capitalist that defend with very entusias that "unrealistic/terrible" extreme fantasy. The funny thing is how they call "communism" uthopyc at the same time.

 Just Tony wrote:

Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections.

I'm calling BS on this claim as it doesn't back all the other data that came out. It would be major front page news if this were true.

 skyth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections.

I'm calling BS on this claim as it doesn't back all the other data that came out. It would be major front page news if this were true.

Oh, it's front page. You just aren't reading the "right" sources.

 feeder wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections.

I'm calling BS on this claim as it doesn't back all the other data that came out. It would be major front page news if this were true.

Oh, it's front page. You just aren't reading the "right" sources.

Ha!

 Just Tony wrote:
And it also depends on what lens you view it from. Living where I do, there are three large towns a half hour or so away from me or less that had large groups of illegals deported multiple times because of certain factories/processing plants that either turned a blind eye to such things, or didn't do their due diligence in that regard.


Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections. Hell, one lady from... Texas, I think? ...had been caught committing voter fraud over a decade ago and wound up getting pinched again, but deported this time.

Now, I'm no fan of government control, and consider myself very Libertarian as far as that goes. But you DO have an issue with a massive number of undocumented immigrants in the country who DO vote, committing fraud, and tightening our border isn't going to solve the entire problem. Finding them all takes time, and one of those controls is indeed voter ID laws. Said immigrant presents fake ID to vote, quick sweep of database throws red flags, gets to answer questions and potentially get uncovered and deported.


I really wish it were more cut and dry, but until we get away from our immigration problem I see ID laws as a necessary evil. For now.

Honestly, I agree here.

Fact is, you need a ID to do almost anything, whether that's using private or public services.

You need an id to rent a car, open a bank account, hell even buying alcohol, I don't think it's offensive to ask people to have id when participating In our democratic process.

Make them free of course.

 Supertony51 wrote:
I don't think it's offensive to ask people to have id when participating In our democratic process.

It's an expansion of government. Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is no evidence that the underlying problem exists. Do you still support the expansion of the government needed to address this alleged problem?

 Galas wrote:
Well, I have meet some Anarcho-Capitalist that defend with very entusias that "unrealistic/terrible" extreme fantasy.

It's not difficult to track down all kinds of loonies using the internet. The existence of a fringe doesn't make it less fringe.

 Galas wrote:
A pure libertarian or anarco capitalism society can't work just because people with power normally like to use that power.

The State, even as many people want to put it as some kind of boogieman or big brother totally external to society... actually is suppose to represent the "Nation". The people that live into a country. The weak people band together for the greater good and have a "voice". Isn't a perfect system, of course.

But I doubt that the law of the jungle is better. "In a pure libertarian world the State isn't needed because everybody is free!" Yeah... and how exactly do you stop people from using that freedom to restrain the freedom of others? One can talk about social unions between peoples to defend themselves agains't others. But at the end we go back to mini-goverments.

Humans are a social and political animal. We need each other to work as a race. Thats why the sentiment of "Nation" is a natural result of history.

I think you may be confusing certain aspects of libertarianism and anarchy.

Libertarians understand the need of a government to provide certain things, like common defense, police, fire department, roads..etc etc.

We also believe, that outside of providing for those things, the governments role in our personal lives, and in the economy, should be very limited.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
I don't think it's offensive to ask people to have id when participating In our democratic process.

It's an expansion of government. Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is no evidence that the underlying problem exists. Do you still support the expansion of the government needed to address this alleged problem?

 Galas wrote:
Well, I have meet some Anarcho-Capitalist that defend with very entusias that "unrealistic/terrible" extreme fantasy.

It's not difficult to track down all kinds of loonies using the internet. The existence of a fringe doesn't make it less fringe.

I don't believe it's really an expansion of government, and even if it is, it's enforcing a policy that ensures the validity of our democratic process.

Provide the ID's at no cost to citizens, to preserve the integrity of the election, I don't see the injustice in this.

It's certainly an expansion - it expands government authority (authorizing it to do something it could not before), expands government logistically (systems will be have to be created to exercise the new authority), and self-evidently expands the cost of government. There will most definitely be a cost to citizens for the ID - it will just be paid in taxes rather than an individualized fee.

So again, the question is: do you support the expansion of government to address hypothetical problems?

I believe you have answered YES and that your rationale is that, even if there is no actual problem of voter fraud, even the purely hypothetical threat to legitimate elections requires government action.

I would characterize this line of thought as definitely authoritarian.

 Supertony51 wrote:

We also believe, that outside of providing for those things, the governments role in our personal lives, and in the economy, should be very limited.

^ This.

This is what allows me to look at things like Britain's mass surveillance, extreme amounts of litigation, and somewhat dodgy political system, and not think the state is collapsing around us. Just wandering around, you actually have to go out of your way to find trouble before you notice the state stepping in. Failure of government is failure for all, but the UK is consistently rated one of if not the best countries in the world for personal freedom.

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

From the 2016 editions' "the whole publication":

(Page 178 by paper, 181 by PDF)

Human Freedom 6/159 (tied with Australia and Canada)

Personal Freedom Score: 9.29/10
Slightly heavy-handed rule of law, and state-media relations aside, the UK has a perfect or near-perfect score in each category.


Meanwhile, the USA has a Human Freedom ranking of 23/159, and a Personal Freedom score of 8.79/10.
Mostly being dragged down by a even heavier-handed rule of law, and restrictions of freedom of movement (especially that of foreigners).

Bear in mind, this is in a pre-Brexit, pre-Trump dataset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Supertony51 wrote:

Provide the ID's at no cost to citizens, to preserve the integrity of the election, I don't see the injustice in this.

There is no such thing as "at no cost to citizens". The money has to come from somewhere, especially if there is no up-front charge. That somewhere will be taxes. Either from a rise, or from cuts. Or from borrowing, which will result in an increased national debt.

In Spain we have the "DNI" (Documento Nacional de Identidad) or National Identity Document. Everyone has to do it after they reach a certain age (12-14 years)

Is basically a "citizenship carnet" with your basic information and a number.



Is very very usefull, and you basically use it to everything in relation with the goverment but for other things, like making a Bank Account, receiving packages, etc, etc...

But at the same time is something that comes from the Franquism, so yes, it is a "authoritarian" thing. But as I said, nobody really has suffer anything from having it. The pros are much bigger that the cons.
You pay something like 20-30€ when you made it, and when you renew it that is something you have to do every 4 years when you are between 12 and 25 (Because it has a photo of you) every 10 years between 25 and I don't remember what, and after a certain age basically 20 years (But is more probably that you will just die before having the need to renovate it)

 Galas wrote:


But at the same time is something that comes from the Franquism, so yes, it is a "authoritarian" thing. But as I said, nobody really has suffer anything from having it. The pros are much bigger that the cons.

Just reminded me of the PAYE system "Pay (taxes) As You Earn". So long as you are employed by a registered employer (other than yourself), your pay goes through a taxation system that calculates how much money you are earning and how suddenly a pay rise occurs, and deducts taxes accordingly. It's also part of a financial system that looks for unauthorised payments into your accounts, in an attempt to tackle fraud and money laundering.

Totally authoritarian, but actually increases personal freedom by not forcing everyone (including the overworked or incompetent) to have to do the darn thing manually. You can't ever fail to pay your taxes, because the system does it for you. And if it fails, it's the government's fault.

 Manchu wrote:
It's certainly an expansion - it expands government authority (authorizing it to do something it could not before), expands government logistically (systems will be have to be created to exercise the new authority), and self-evidently expands the cost of government. There will most definitely be a cost to citizens for the ID - it will just be paid in taxes rather than an individualized fee.

So again, the question is: do you support the expansion of government to address hypothetical problems?

I believe you have answered YES and that your rationale is that, even if there is no actual problem of voter fraud, even the purely hypothetical threat to legitimate elections requires government action.

I would characterize this line of thought as definitely authoritarian.

Once again, expansion or no, the government has a obligation to preserve the integrity of the election. That would be a basic obligation to ensure the proper function of the government on a most basic level.

Hey, quick question, are US politics threads OK again now? Because oooh boy, are there some news stories I'd like to post if true.

 Selym wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

We also believe, that outside of providing for those things, the governments role in our personal lives, and in the economy, should be very limited.

^ This.

This is what allows me to look at things like Britain's mass surveillance, extreme amounts of litigation, and somewhat dodgy political system, and not think the state is collapsing around us. Just wandering around, you actually have to go out of your way to find trouble before you notice the state stepping in. Failure of government is failure for all, but the UK is consistently rated one of if not the best countries in the world for personal freedom.

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

From the 2016 editions' "the whole publication":

(Page 178 by paper, 181 by PDF)

Human Freedom 6/159 (tied with Australia and Canada)

Personal Freedom Score: 9.29/10
Slightly heavy-handed rule of law, and state-media relations aside, the UK has a perfect or near-perfect score in each category.


Meanwhile, the USA has a Human Freedom ranking of 23/159, and a Personal Freedom score of 8.79/10.
Mostly being dragged down by a even heavier-handed rule of law, and restrictions of freedom of movement (especially that of foreigners).

Bear in mind, this is in a pre-Brexit, pre-Trump dataset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Supertony51 wrote:

Provide the ID's at no cost to citizens, to preserve the integrity of the election, I don't see the injustice in this.

There is no such thing as "at no cost to citizens". The money has to come from somewhere, especially if there is no up-front charge. That somewhere will be taxes. Either from a rise, or from cuts. Or from borrowing, which will result in an increased national debt.

I think the cost would be pretty nominal, basically paying to verify citizenship and issuing a laminated piece of plastic. given that the purpose would be to preserve the proper function of the democracy, I'd say it's a worthwhile investment.

I believe the government has a few obligations which it is completely responsible for, defense, common security, and basic infrastructure that we all use (roads) and common sense legislation (I.E. No dumping industrial waste into lakes).

Outside of that, I believe the role of the federal government should be limited.

 Supertony51 wrote:
Once again, expansion or no, the government has a obligation to preserve the integrity of the election. That would be a basic obligation to ensure the proper function of the government on a most basic level.

But if there actually is no demonstrable threat to the integrity of elections then you are left with expanding government authority/appealing to government power for the purely theoretical sake of the authority itself. That would be prototypical authoritarianism. Your politics on this issue, at least, are not only not libertarian but also pretty explicitly contrary to libertarianism.

 Ouze wrote:
are US politics threads OK again now?

Not so far as I have heard.

 Ouze wrote:
Hey, quick question, are US politics threads OK again now? Because oooh boy, are there some news stories I'd like to post if true.

^This... I'm ready to dog-pile on Sessions "re-instated" rule...

EDIT: ninja'ed... dang it!

 Manchu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
are US politics threads OK again now?

Not so far as I have heard.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's certainly an expansion - it expands government authority (authorizing it to do something it could not before), expands government logistically (systems will be have to be created to exercise the new authority), and self-evidently expands the cost of government. There will most definitely be a cost to citizens for the ID - it will just be paid in taxes rather than an individualized fee.

So again, the question is: do you support the expansion of government to address hypothetical problems?

I believe you have answered YES and that your rationale is that, even if there is no actual problem of voter fraud, even the purely hypothetical threat to legitimate elections requires government action.

I would characterize this line of thought as definitely authoritarian.

Once again, expansion or no, the government has a obligation to preserve the integrity of the election. That would be a basic obligation to ensure the proper function of the government on a most basic level.

... adding to this thread. Another way to look at this is the Government's purpose. That is to protect our rights.

By and large (not including SC fiasco...whoa) voter ID laws are more than just "hey... show some IDs to pickup your ballot". They also direct the state's Secretary of State to perform periodic review of the voter rolls.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Hey, quick question, are US politics threads OK again now? Because oooh boy, are there some news stories I'd like to post if true.

^This... I'm ready to dog-pile on Sessions "re-instated" rule...

EDIT: ninja'ed... dang it!

 Manchu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
are US politics threads OK again now?

Not so far as I have heard.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's certainly an expansion - it expands government authority (authorizing it to do something it could not before), expands government logistically (systems will be have to be created to exercise the new authority), and self-evidently expands the cost of government. There will most definitely be a cost to citizens for the ID - it will just be paid in taxes rather than an individualized fee.

So again, the question is: do you support the expansion of government to address hypothetical problems?

I believe you have answered YES and that your rationale is that, even if there is no actual problem of voter fraud, even the purely hypothetical threat to legitimate elections requires government action.

I would characterize this line of thought as definitely authoritarian.

Once again, expansion or no, the government has a obligation to preserve the integrity of the election. That would be a basic obligation to ensure the proper function of the government on a most basic level.

... adding to this thread. Another way to look at this is the Government's purpose. That is to protect our rights.

By and large (not including SC fiasco...whoa) voter ID laws are more than just "hey... show some IDs to pickup your ballot". They also direct the state's Secretary of State to perform periodic review of the voter rolls.

Exactly, preserving the integrity of the election also preserves the right to vote.

But again we stipulated for the sake of argument that the integrity of the election is under no demonstrable threat.

Wait. Can people vote in USA without an identification document?

 Galas wrote:
Wait. Can people vote in USA without an identification document?

I would guess they'd need a voter card that gets posted to them. I have not looked into this. Here in the UK, every registered voter gets a piece of card with some basic details, instructions on when and where to vote, and anything else the local council thinks is relevant. To vote, you must hand in your card.

 Selym wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Wait. Can people vote in USA without an identification document?

I would guess they'd need a voter card that gets posted to them. I have not looked into this. Here in the UK, every registered voter gets a piece of card with some basic details, instructions on when and where to vote, and anything else the local council thinks is relevant. To vote, you must hand in your card.

We had that too but at the moment to actually vote in the box you need to present your DNI and they check if you have already voted.

You walk into the polling place assigned to the residence you registered under. You tell your name to a volunteer who has a book of people registered there. Then you sign your name in the book so you can't vote twice. Then you get to go vote.

Now, to have your name in the book in the first place you have to have confirmed your place of residence with the election authority, through a process that can be sometimes very involved depending on what state you live in. That's when they verify who you are and that you are not registered in a different district.


Oh yeah, there are also other volunteers from the parties and civic groups who may challenge your registration. It doesn't stop you from voting, they just put your anonymous ballot in a separate pile. That way if multiple people try to vote under the same registration at the same place they can resolve the problem later.