7 ms·

As a European I don't understand how requiring an ID to vote is disenfranchising voters? It just stinks of voter fraud, and in light of the latest Project Verit

As a European I don't understand how requiring an ID to vote is disenfranchising voters? It just stinks of voter fraud, and in light of the latest Project Veritas videos I can only conclude that the establishment parties and democrats in this case are engaged in massive electoral fraud and fight these initiatives not on principle but to maintain mechanisms by which they can influence the result. It's just weird, especially since the US has been very vocal in judging others with regards to their electoral processes. Pot calling the kettle black it seems.

evgen 10y ago
If you believe the project veritas videos you should look harder at the source and his history of creating misleading videos. The problem is that in the US it is quite possible to get along just fine without a government-issued ID; mandating such ID can be considered a barrier to voting since it is actually inconvenient to get such an ID in the first place. Your assumption that there is massive electoral fraud in the US is simply incorrect and in fact there is far more voter fraud across Europe than there is in the US. Most voting in the US occurs in-person, and in such cases voter fraud is incredibly rare (as in less than 100 known cases over billions of ballots cast.)
- dudul 10y ago
  How is it inconvenient to get an ID?
- 3princip 10y ago
  You mean, if I believe my own eyes and ears rather than someone insulting me on the internet? You're funny. If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. Civic responsibility is not an inconvenience, it's what keeps civilization running. Taking a few moments out of your daily routine to be informed and choose your government is the least one should expect.
  - evgen 10y ago
    If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. And when those people without IDs happen to be poor and minority voters, so much the better, right? Getting a government ID is not 'taking a few moments out of your daily routine', or we would not be having this conversation. How about you ask an American how fast and easy it is for them to just waltz in the the DMV and walk out a few minutes later with their shiny new ID card. State IDs are done by the same agency, and a lot of those poor people have one or two jobs they are working where taking an entire day to get an ID could cost them serious money or their job itself.
    - squozzer 10y ago
      I think in the US you have to have an ID to get a job. Last time I looked at an I-9, it required 1) proof of citizenship or right to work (GC); 2) proof of identity.
      - evgen 10y ago
        If you take a look at the actual documents which are required for an I-9, they are a lot more flexible than what are required by most of the voter ID laws the courts are throwing out left and right. The proof of citizenship can be a birth certificate or a social security card, while the proof of identity can be a school ID, a local government ID card or a military ID. If you started your job before 1986 you never needed to provide the information, nor would you if you were a retiree or on disability.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - CWuestefeld 10y ago
      You're repeatedly making the argument that requirements to obtain ID are too onerous. Perhaps what's broken is the process for getting that ID. Let's look for ways to streamline that process so that it's less of a burden.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  >If you believe the project veritas videos you are a gullible moron I don't think this has a place on HackerNews?
  - evgen 10y ago
    You are probably correct. Edited to remove my intense distaste for believing things you see on a web site without doing a bit of basic research.
lg 10y ago
it's actually two mechanisms hand in hand: - require an ID to vote; - make it difficult to get an ID: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/alabamas-dmv-shutdown-has-everything-do-race https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/alabamas-dmv-shutdown...
- trendia 10y ago
  What if you: - require an ID to vote - issue ID's for free - if someone shows up to vote and doesn't have an ID, take their photo At least with the third option, you don't require that people spend TWO days (one to get the ID, one to vote) but only ONE day (show up to vote, get picture taken), and it would eliminate the "voter fraud" that may or may not exist
  - pjc50 10y ago
    That would be a simple, workable system, which of course is why it won't get implemented.
    - trendia 10y ago
      This is too true. While I think that ID should be free and required for voting, I am concerned that either of the two parties will exploit it for their own advantage. (I support ID in theory because another form of disenfranchisement is dilution of voting power; if someone is able to vote twice, that reduces the power of people who vote once. Not sure I support it in practice).
  - hood_syntax 10y ago
    > issue ID's for free This really is the crux of the issue, and I think it's a great idea. Prevent fraud, make everyone's life easier at the same time.
Kristine1975 10y ago
The problem isn't requiring an ID per se, but the requirements for obtaining such an ID: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States#Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_St... For example: > A 2009 study found that 84.2% of white registered voters in Indiana had access to photo ID to comply with that state's ID law, as compared to 78% of black voters on the rolls there
myrion 10y ago
Getting an ID takes time and money. To get such an ID, you have to go through institutions like the DMV which do not have convenient opening hours or are in inconvenient locations. Many people, especially poor people, cannot afford to take the time to jump through the hoops to get an ID - and this is explicitly intended by those who write such voter ID laws. There have been several instances where conversations were leaked that revealed the purpose behind voter ID laws being not fraud prevention (which is overkill anyway) but keeping Democrat-leaning groups from voting. Then again, your main source is Project Veritas, which despite the name is spearheaded by convicted fraudster James O'Keefe. His MO is to lie and deceive to advance his ultra-conservative cause, so anything that comes from him is to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Of course, even he might stumble upon something real, but so far his videos have always been edited to show what he wants, instead of reality.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  I don't understand. ID is something everyone needs over there, no? Elections are after every 4 yours, people really can't take time to fix this problem? I'm euro but with the whole id thing I agree with Republicand. This whole system screams FRAUD.
  - myrion 10y ago
    Not really, in many cases. And no, a LOT of people can't afford to take time off in the US. Their employment systems really are that fucked up in certain cases. Plus, not all IDs are valid for voting! Hell, it's a hassle here in Switzerland to get your ID renewed. We don't need it to vote, though.
    - angry-hacker 10y ago
      Sorry, but that's a stupid excuse. Getting an ID takes time everywhere. For how long are they valid? If you use that excuse, Americans don't have time for a lot of things. Getting an ID should be a priority. It's common sense. I don't understand Americans. One side thinks Earth is 6000 years old and other think that having ID to vote is racist. What is this bullshit?
nkohari 10y ago
Okay, so... your first mistake was watching the Project Veritas videos, and your second mistake was believing them. In the US, there is no federally-issued photo ID. The most common ID is a state-issued driver's license, but not everyone is licensed to drive. States can issue photo ID cards which can be used in voting, but not everyone has one, they cost money, and can be difficult to obtain. I live in North Carolina. Our voter ID law was recently struck down by a federal court as being clearly intended to disenfranchise minority voters. Here's an explanation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...
- 3princip 10y ago
  Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't watch videos that they might not agree with, or which might contain propaganda? If that was the criteria for consuming information, no one should ever watch/read any media outlet. Also, I still don't understand why I should not believe what was said in the video?
- sp332 10y ago
  > In the US, there is no federally-issued photo ID. Well, you can get a passport. But that's a whole different process.
- camiller 10y ago
  I would not have a problem a problem with requiring photo ID's be free in states that requiring them for voting.
amalcon 10y ago
There's only one type of vote fraud that voter ID laws have a hope of defending against, which is in-person voter impersonation. In-person voter impersonation statistically doesn't happen in the U.S, and there's a reason. In-person voter impersonation is just about the least efficient and highest risk way to manipulate an election. You would need to physically go to a polling station, impersonate a registered voter, hope nobody recognizes you as not that person, cast a vote, hope that person doesn't actually show up later to vote, and then travel to another polling station to do it again. And also hope nobody just notices that you voted at both places, a real concern in this age of ubiquitous cameras. You have something like 18 hours at most to do this, so with optimistic assumptions, an individual could vote maybe 36 times at a high risk of getting caught. Even something like absentee ballot fraud is more efficient and less risky. However, absentee ballot fraud is still less efficient than gray and even positive/legal uses of your time. Gray methods would mostly include voter suppression in districts that don't favor your outcome. The town I grew up in made national news this last primary for having a massive traffic snarl and long lines around its single polling station, after closing the second one for budgetary reasons. People were giving up after waiting multiple hours to vote. There may not be anything illicit there (certainly nothing provable), but you can see how that might be done "accidentally". Positive and legal methods would mostly include things like voter registration drives, phone work to remind and encourage people to vote, and even physically transporting people to the polls.
- jack9 10y ago
  I'm really interested in how you came to these conclusions as it seems you have trivialized the basic cognitive ability of the people who might engage in these acts. > In-person voter impersonation is just about the least efficient and highest risk way to manipulate an election. That is incorrect, as it is done in almost every election for the last 2 decades (iirc). I remember multiple stories about democratic fraud from as far back as 1994 (I usually vote democrat). "Hope nobody recognizes you" is not a concern across county lines, much less state lines. Did you even take a moment to read up on how it HAS been done? Republicans are much bigger on the absentee fraud. It's also very effective (and cost effective). Since nothing much has been done in the past 20 years, I don't expect anything to change when you inevitably find people on camera.
pistle 10y ago
I'm not going to get into parsing the video you watched, but the source raises monumental red flags when it comes to any sort of journalistic integrity. Project Veritas is the same folks who did the widely discredited hack-editing to swat at Planned Parenthood and ACORN. They are partisan hacks well-understood to be either the pot or the kettle. To your point on American, entrenched parties controlling and applying many of the levers of power, that is mostly a forgone conclusion. The only way out is for one party to splinter cleanly and then the other could as well. The parties seed, raise, and harvest grist for the mills to feed the party itself. I would suggest massive voter fraud is not feasible. There are many quality checks that limit the potential. There are disconnects in how many Americans think about the registration and voting process which, when played out, inspire suspicions or contempt. Busing voters, encouraging political engagement from the religious pulpit, etc. We have or can get the data. Between census, voter roles, etc. Fraud can be detected and surfaced - but it rarely is. Also, all sober reviews of voting has supported the argument that the ID issue follows the narrative that one tribe is trying to apply ID laws to disenfranchise to their benefit and the other is trying to enfranchise to their benefit. Nobody stakes a purer claim to virtue on the matter. But, in a democracy enfranchisement > disenfranchisement, so in this case, Democrats are in closer alignment with the spirit of democracy. In terms of how and why voter ID is being used in recent US cycles, review North Carolina where they collected and applied data on voter access to certain types of valid ID (there are multiple) and then applied that data for max political effect. It's a turf war. You won't find Republicans arguing to hand out voter ID's or making it trivial to get them. Just picking certain forms of ID to make it more cumbersome for certain people to vote.
- trendia 10y ago
  I would like to propose the following counter-argument: not everyone who supports voter ID is doing so because they want to disenfranchise a certain class of voter; not everyone who opposes voter ID wants to commit fraud. From there, we can assume that there is a reason to have Voter ID, and that is that it prevents a certain type of disenfranchisement: the dilution of your vote because someone else votes twice. That is, Voter ID ensures that nobody gets more than the 1 vote they are allotted in a Democracy. There have been successful voter ID laws, and they usually are successful because they are bipartisan. Specifically, in Crawford v. Marion, the Supreme Court found that it was legal to have a voter ID law that included (1) the ability to vote up to 30 days before the election at a courthouse, and (2) free voter ID. Further, the plaintiffs were unable to provide a single case of anyone who was unable to vote as a result of this law. So, while voter ID is currently a controversial and partisan topic, it doesn't need to be: it is possible to both ensure that people only vote once, and ensure that they also get to vote. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...
room271 10y ago
There are European countries which don't require ID (for example the UK). The thing you're perhaps missing is that if you don't have a compulsory national identity card of some kind, then many people will not have an easily available 'official' ID. The problem is worse in the states because so many people don't own a passport. In any case, there is very little evidence for substantial voter fraud in the US as far as I'm aware. The general point about the US being perhaps overly smug about its democracy is valid however. Just not because of a lack of voter ID requirement (in fact, the introduction of requirements is more likely a source of undermining democracy there).
room271 10y ago
There are European countries which don't require ID (for example the UK). The thing you're perhaps missing is that if you don't have a compulsory national identity card of some kind, then many people will not have an easily available 'official' ID. The problem is worse in the states because so many people don't own a passport. In any case, there is very little evidence for substantial voter fraud in the US as far as I'm aware. The general point about the US being perhaps overly smug about its democracy is valid however. Just not because of a lack of voter ID requirement (in fact, the introduction of requirements is more likely a source of undermining democracy there).

evgen 10y ago

If you believe the project veritas videos you should look harder at the source and his history of creating misleading videos. The problem is that in the US it is quite possible to get along just fine without a government-issued ID; mandating such ID can be considered a barrier to voting since it is actually inconvenient to get such an ID in the first place. Your assumption that there is massive electoral fraud in the US is simply incorrect and in fact there is far more voter fraud across Europe than there is in the US. Most voting in the US occurs in-person, and in such cases voter fraud is incredibly rare (as in less than 100 known cases over billions of ballots cast.)

dudul 10y ago
How is it inconvenient to get an ID?
3princip 10y ago
You mean, if I believe my own eyes and ears rather than someone insulting me on the internet? You're funny. If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. Civic responsibility is not an inconvenience, it's what keeps civilization running. Taking a few moments out of your daily routine to be informed and choose your government is the least one should expect.
- evgen 10y ago
  If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. And when those people without IDs happen to be poor and minority voters, so much the better, right? Getting a government ID is not 'taking a few moments out of your daily routine', or we would not be having this conversation. How about you ask an American how fast and easy it is for them to just waltz in the the DMV and walk out a few minutes later with their shiny new ID card. State IDs are done by the same agency, and a lot of those poor people have one or two jobs they are working where taking an entire day to get an ID could cost them serious money or their job itself.
  - squozzer 10y ago
    I think in the US you have to have an ID to get a job. Last time I looked at an I-9, it required 1) proof of citizenship or right to work (GC); 2) proof of identity.
    - evgen 10y ago
      If you take a look at the actual documents which are required for an I-9, they are a lot more flexible than what are required by most of the voter ID laws the courts are throwing out left and right. The proof of citizenship can be a birth certificate or a social security card, while the proof of identity can be a school ID, a local government ID card or a military ID. If you started your job before 1986 you never needed to provide the information, nor would you if you were a retiree or on disability.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - CWuestefeld 10y ago
    You're repeatedly making the argument that requirements to obtain ID are too onerous. Perhaps what's broken is the process for getting that ID. Let's look for ways to streamline that process so that it's less of a burden.
Kristine1975 10y ago
>If you believe the project veritas videos you are a gullible moron I don't think this has a place on HackerNews?
- evgen 10y ago
  You are probably correct. Edited to remove my intense distaste for believing things you see on a web site without doing a bit of basic research.

lg 10y ago

it's actually two mechanisms hand in hand: - require an ID to vote; - make it difficult to get an ID: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/alabamas-dmv-shutdown-has-everything-do-race https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/alabamas-dmv-shutdown...

trendia 10y ago
What if you: - require an ID to vote - issue ID's for free - if someone shows up to vote and doesn't have an ID, take their photo At least with the third option, you don't require that people spend TWO days (one to get the ID, one to vote) but only ONE day (show up to vote, get picture taken), and it would eliminate the "voter fraud" that may or may not exist
- pjc50 10y ago
  That would be a simple, workable system, which of course is why it won't get implemented.
  - trendia 10y ago
    This is too true. While I think that ID should be free and required for voting, I am concerned that either of the two parties will exploit it for their own advantage. (I support ID in theory because another form of disenfranchisement is dilution of voting power; if someone is able to vote twice, that reduces the power of people who vote once. Not sure I support it in practice).
- hood_syntax 10y ago
  > issue ID's for free This really is the crux of the issue, and I think it's a great idea. Prevent fraud, make everyone's life easier at the same time.

Kristine1975 10y ago

The problem isn't requiring an ID per se, but the requirements for obtaining such an ID: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States#Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_St... For example: > A 2009 study found that 84.2% of white registered voters in Indiana had access to photo ID to comply with that state's ID law, as compared to 78% of black voters on the rolls there

myrion 10y ago

Getting an ID takes time and money. To get such an ID, you have to go through institutions like the DMV which do not have convenient opening hours or are in inconvenient locations. Many people, especially poor people, cannot afford to take the time to jump through the hoops to get an ID - and this is explicitly intended by those who write such voter ID laws. There have been several instances where conversations were leaked that revealed the purpose behind voter ID laws being not fraud prevention (which is overkill anyway) but keeping Democrat-leaning groups from voting. Then again, your main source is Project Veritas, which despite the name is spearheaded by convicted fraudster James O'Keefe. His MO is to lie and deceive to advance his ultra-conservative cause, so anything that comes from him is to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Of course, even he might stumble upon something real, but so far his videos have always been edited to show what he wants, instead of reality.

angry-hacker 10y ago
I don't understand. ID is something everyone needs over there, no? Elections are after every 4 yours, people really can't take time to fix this problem? I'm euro but with the whole id thing I agree with Republicand. This whole system screams FRAUD.
- myrion 10y ago
  Not really, in many cases. And no, a LOT of people can't afford to take time off in the US. Their employment systems really are that fucked up in certain cases. Plus, not all IDs are valid for voting! Hell, it's a hassle here in Switzerland to get your ID renewed. We don't need it to vote, though.
  - angry-hacker 10y ago
    Sorry, but that's a stupid excuse. Getting an ID takes time everywhere. For how long are they valid? If you use that excuse, Americans don't have time for a lot of things. Getting an ID should be a priority. It's common sense. I don't understand Americans. One side thinks Earth is 6000 years old and other think that having ID to vote is racist. What is this bullshit?

nkohari 10y ago

Okay, so... your first mistake was watching the Project Veritas videos, and your second mistake was believing them. In the US, there is no federally-issued photo ID. The most common ID is a state-issued driver's license, but not everyone is licensed to drive. States can issue photo ID cards which can be used in voting, but not everyone has one, they cost money, and can be difficult to obtain. I live in North Carolina. Our voter ID law was recently struck down by a federal court as being clearly intended to disenfranchise minority voters. Here's an explanation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...

3princip 10y ago
Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't watch videos that they might not agree with, or which might contain propaganda? If that was the criteria for consuming information, no one should ever watch/read any media outlet. Also, I still don't understand why I should not believe what was said in the video?
sp332 10y ago
> In the US, there is no federally-issued photo ID. Well, you can get a passport. But that's a whole different process.
camiller 10y ago
I would not have a problem a problem with requiring photo ID's be free in states that requiring them for voting.

amalcon 10y ago

There's only one type of vote fraud that voter ID laws have a hope of defending against, which is in-person voter impersonation. In-person voter impersonation statistically doesn't happen in the U.S, and there's a reason. In-person voter impersonation is just about the least efficient and highest risk way to manipulate an election. You would need to physically go to a polling station, impersonate a registered voter, hope nobody recognizes you as not that person, cast a vote, hope that person doesn't actually show up later to vote, and then travel to another polling station to do it again. And also hope nobody just notices that you voted at both places, a real concern in this age of ubiquitous cameras. You have something like 18 hours at most to do this, so with optimistic assumptions, an individual could vote maybe 36 times at a high risk of getting caught. Even something like absentee ballot fraud is more efficient and less risky. However, absentee ballot fraud is still less efficient than gray and even positive/legal uses of your time. Gray methods would mostly include voter suppression in districts that don't favor your outcome. The town I grew up in made national news this last primary for having a massive traffic snarl and long lines around its single polling station, after closing the second one for budgetary reasons. People were giving up after waiting multiple hours to vote. There may not be anything illicit there (certainly nothing provable), but you can see how that might be done "accidentally". Positive and legal methods would mostly include things like voter registration drives, phone work to remind and encourage people to vote, and even physically transporting people to the polls.

jack9 10y ago
I'm really interested in how you came to these conclusions as it seems you have trivialized the basic cognitive ability of the people who might engage in these acts. > In-person voter impersonation is just about the least efficient and highest risk way to manipulate an election. That is incorrect, as it is done in almost every election for the last 2 decades (iirc). I remember multiple stories about democratic fraud from as far back as 1994 (I usually vote democrat). "Hope nobody recognizes you" is not a concern across county lines, much less state lines. Did you even take a moment to read up on how it HAS been done? Republicans are much bigger on the absentee fraud. It's also very effective (and cost effective). Since nothing much has been done in the past 20 years, I don't expect anything to change when you inevitably find people on camera.

pistle 10y ago

I'm not going to get into parsing the video you watched, but the source raises monumental red flags when it comes to any sort of journalistic integrity. Project Veritas is the same folks who did the widely discredited hack-editing to swat at Planned Parenthood and ACORN. They are partisan hacks well-understood to be either the pot or the kettle. To your point on American, entrenched parties controlling and applying many of the levers of power, that is mostly a forgone conclusion. The only way out is for one party to splinter cleanly and then the other could as well. The parties seed, raise, and harvest grist for the mills to feed the party itself. I would suggest massive voter fraud is not feasible. There are many quality checks that limit the potential. There are disconnects in how many Americans think about the registration and voting process which, when played out, inspire suspicions or contempt. Busing voters, encouraging political engagement from the religious pulpit, etc. We have or can get the data. Between census, voter roles, etc. Fraud can be detected and surfaced - but it rarely is. Also, all sober reviews of voting has supported the argument that the ID issue follows the narrative that one tribe is trying to apply ID laws to disenfranchise to their benefit and the other is trying to enfranchise to their benefit. Nobody stakes a purer claim to virtue on the matter. But, in a democracy enfranchisement > disenfranchisement, so in this case, Democrats are in closer alignment with the spirit of democracy. In terms of how and why voter ID is being used in recent US cycles, review North Carolina where they collected and applied data on voter access to certain types of valid ID (there are multiple) and then applied that data for max political effect. It's a turf war. You won't find Republicans arguing to hand out voter ID's or making it trivial to get them. Just picking certain forms of ID to make it more cumbersome for certain people to vote.

trendia 10y ago
I would like to propose the following counter-argument: not everyone who supports voter ID is doing so because they want to disenfranchise a certain class of voter; not everyone who opposes voter ID wants to commit fraud. From there, we can assume that there is a reason to have Voter ID, and that is that it prevents a certain type of disenfranchisement: the dilution of your vote because someone else votes twice. That is, Voter ID ensures that nobody gets more than the 1 vote they are allotted in a Democracy. There have been successful voter ID laws, and they usually are successful because they are bipartisan. Specifically, in Crawford v. Marion, the Supreme Court found that it was legal to have a voter ID law that included (1) the ability to vote up to 30 days before the election at a courthouse, and (2) free voter ID. Further, the plaintiffs were unable to provide a single case of anyone who was unable to vote as a result of this law. So, while voter ID is currently a controversial and partisan topic, it doesn't need to be: it is possible to both ensure that people only vote once, and ensure that they also get to vote. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...

room271 10y ago

There are European countries which don't require ID (for example the UK). The thing you're perhaps missing is that if you don't have a compulsory national identity card of some kind, then many people will not have an easily available 'official' ID. The problem is worse in the states because so many people don't own a passport. In any case, there is very little evidence for substantial voter fraud in the US as far as I'm aware. The general point about the US being perhaps overly smug about its democracy is valid however. Just not because of a lack of voter ID requirement (in fact, the introduction of requirements is more likely a source of undermining democracy there).

room271 10y ago