5 ms·

How do you get from reducing voter fraud to it being a bad thing for elections. If the problem is that some basic form of government I.D. is hard to come by the

How do you get from reducing voter fraud to it being a bad thing for elections. If the problem is that some basic form of government I.D. is hard to come by then fix that, not make it so anyone can walk in and vote. The other stuff about making polling places close early and stuff, I agree, is riduculous, but I don't see how requiring proper identification is a bad thing.

usefulcat 10y ago
As I understand it, in many (most?) places voter fraud was already pretty rare. If that's the case, then it's not hard to see how a "solution" to the problem of voter fraud could actually prevent more legitimate votes than illegitimate votes simply by making things slightly more difficult for some or all legitimate voters.
- Idontagree 10y ago
  Pretty rare? Ok, it's pretty rare that people try my door handle at night, but I'm still not going to leave it unlocked. I think voting is a pretty serious issue, if we're meant to take to it seriously.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    If you had no history of break-ins in your neighborhood, and your door continually malfunctioned and locked you out on a weekly basis, you'd probably end up leaving it unlocked.
  - usefulcat 10y ago
    It's a question of costs and benefits. Which is worse: 1 illegitimate vote being cast, or 10 legitimate voters not voting at all?
    - Idontagree 10y ago
      Yea after mulling it over, I guess I can agree with that. I admit it seems like it would be very difficult to get enough people to commit fraud when it was just identification making the difference. Still wouldn't want to be the victim of it, though.
jrowley 10y ago
Giving people government IDs is not a trivial problem to solve. Its costs a lot and is hard, while allowing anyone to vote really increases voter turn out (and generally the rates of this type of fraud are very low)
- Idontagree 10y ago
  Well, I don't think the fact that it's difficult to do implies we should just give up on it.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Right! And let's force people to do 20 pushups before voting too. Sure it's hard, and will exclude a lot of people, but it will be just as effective as a photo ID at preventing voter fraud.
    - Idontagree 10y ago
      What?
  - jrowley 10y ago
    I agree, the task of providing gov IDs to every American although difficult is a good idea. So once everyone has an ID, then lets enforce the stricter rules. I think that is a fair compromise. But placing the onus on the voter isn't fair, because so many people simply don't have the time, resources, or ambition to get a new ID. When was the last time you went to the DMV just to upload your civic duty of voting? You have an ID because it affords you other luxuries - luxuries that many people (e.g. the poor, the disabled) don't have.
pavel_lishin 10y ago
Voter-fraud-elimination programs generate many more false negatives than there are false positives under the current system.
snowwrestler 10y ago
> not make it so anyone can walk in and vote This is not how it works now. Even without photo ID, a voter must confirm that they are registered before they are permitted to vote. At my precinct this consists of giving my full name and address, which the poll worker confirms against a list they have of currently registered voters. If you wanted to steal my vote, you would need to know in which precinct I'm registered, then you would have to go there and give them my full name and address. Not impossible but not "anyone can walk in and vote" either. Requiring photo ID only makes sense to people who don't understand how the voting system works now. It's very hard to mess up more than a few votes in person. It would be impossible to steal an election that way. And numerous studies of actual elections have shown that to be true. Meanwhile, the requirement for photo ID reliably messes up the vote for hundreds of thousands of people, mostly poor and minority. Which is the whole point, of course.
- Idontagree 10y ago
  Not impossible? In today's world finding your full name and address is incredibly easy. Yes, finding which precinct you vote in isn't as easy, but I don't understand why the system is such that having a government issued I.D. is so difficult to obtain. If that's really stopping people from voting, then there's something wrong with our DMVs, etc.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    If you want to steal my vote, specifically, you can certainly do it. Better get there early though, I vote in the morning. To scale such an effort up to materially affect an election would be incredibly difficult to do, and easy to spot. > If that's really stopping people from voting, then there's something wrong with our DMVs, etc. The DMV sucks: this is news?
    - Idontagree 10y ago
      On the one hand, I can agree with you. I don't see someone managing to fake 1000s of votes by walking in without identification. That would require a lot of manpower, I imagine. On the other, I think you or I would still be pretty annoyed if someone had walked in and voted for us.
sulam 10y ago
"Fraud is bad" is a pretty simple formulation that we all can agree on. Here's another one: "disenfranchising people is bad". Voter ID laws are _known_ to disenfranchise people who should legally be able to vote at a rate that is so far beyond the rate of voting fraud that it's clear what the actual intent is. This effect is precisely the point of such laws. They are not trying to combat voter fraud, because there is essentially no voter fraud. If voter ID laws did not disproportionately disenfranchise the young and the poor, they wouldn't exist.

usefulcat 10y ago

As I understand it, in many (most?) places voter fraud was already pretty rare. If that's the case, then it's not hard to see how a "solution" to the problem of voter fraud could actually prevent more legitimate votes than illegitimate votes simply by making things slightly more difficult for some or all legitimate voters.

Idontagree 10y ago
Pretty rare? Ok, it's pretty rare that people try my door handle at night, but I'm still not going to leave it unlocked. I think voting is a pretty serious issue, if we're meant to take to it seriously.
- scott_s 10y ago
  If you had no history of break-ins in your neighborhood, and your door continually malfunctioned and locked you out on a weekly basis, you'd probably end up leaving it unlocked.
- usefulcat 10y ago
  It's a question of costs and benefits. Which is worse: 1 illegitimate vote being cast, or 10 legitimate voters not voting at all?
  - Idontagree 10y ago
    Yea after mulling it over, I guess I can agree with that. I admit it seems like it would be very difficult to get enough people to commit fraud when it was just identification making the difference. Still wouldn't want to be the victim of it, though.

jrowley 10y ago

Giving people government IDs is not a trivial problem to solve. Its costs a lot and is hard, while allowing anyone to vote really increases voter turn out (and generally the rates of this type of fraud are very low)

Idontagree 10y ago
Well, I don't think the fact that it's difficult to do implies we should just give up on it.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Right! And let's force people to do 20 pushups before voting too. Sure it's hard, and will exclude a lot of people, but it will be just as effective as a photo ID at preventing voter fraud.
  - Idontagree 10y ago
    What?
- jrowley 10y ago
  I agree, the task of providing gov IDs to every American although difficult is a good idea. So once everyone has an ID, then lets enforce the stricter rules. I think that is a fair compromise. But placing the onus on the voter isn't fair, because so many people simply don't have the time, resources, or ambition to get a new ID. When was the last time you went to the DMV just to upload your civic duty of voting? You have an ID because it affords you other luxuries - luxuries that many people (e.g. the poor, the disabled) don't have.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

Voter-fraud-elimination programs generate many more false negatives than there are false positives under the current system.

snowwrestler 10y ago

> not make it so anyone can walk in and vote This is not how it works now. Even without photo ID, a voter must confirm that they are registered before they are permitted to vote. At my precinct this consists of giving my full name and address, which the poll worker confirms against a list they have of currently registered voters. If you wanted to steal my vote, you would need to know in which precinct I'm registered, then you would have to go there and give them my full name and address. Not impossible but not "anyone can walk in and vote" either. Requiring photo ID only makes sense to people who don't understand how the voting system works now. It's very hard to mess up more than a few votes in person. It would be impossible to steal an election that way. And numerous studies of actual elections have shown that to be true. Meanwhile, the requirement for photo ID reliably messes up the vote for hundreds of thousands of people, mostly poor and minority. Which is the whole point, of course.

Idontagree 10y ago
Not impossible? In today's world finding your full name and address is incredibly easy. Yes, finding which precinct you vote in isn't as easy, but I don't understand why the system is such that having a government issued I.D. is so difficult to obtain. If that's really stopping people from voting, then there's something wrong with our DMVs, etc.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  If you want to steal my vote, specifically, you can certainly do it. Better get there early though, I vote in the morning. To scale such an effort up to materially affect an election would be incredibly difficult to do, and easy to spot. > If that's really stopping people from voting, then there's something wrong with our DMVs, etc. The DMV sucks: this is news?
  - Idontagree 10y ago
    On the one hand, I can agree with you. I don't see someone managing to fake 1000s of votes by walking in without identification. That would require a lot of manpower, I imagine. On the other, I think you or I would still be pretty annoyed if someone had walked in and voted for us.

sulam 10y ago

"Fraud is bad" is a pretty simple formulation that we all can agree on. Here's another one: "disenfranchising people is bad". Voter ID laws are _known_ to disenfranchise people who should legally be able to vote at a rate that is so far beyond the rate of voting fraud that it's clear what the actual intent is. This effect is precisely the point of such laws. They are not trying to combat voter fraud, because there is essentially no voter fraud. If voter ID laws did not disproportionately disenfranchise the young and the poor, they wouldn't exist.