3 ms·
> That may be true but has nothing to do with my original point, which I perhaps didn't make clear enough originally, is that the lack of discussion around ease
by maym86 8y ago
> That may be true but has nothing to do with my original point, which I perhaps didn't make clear enough originally, is that the lack of discussion around ease and cost of IDs tends to result in the tacit assumption that the only suitable IDs would be existing, state-issued ones, whereas easier, cheaper options could be mandated.
This wasn't clear thanks for clarifying. But I have little faith that a new form of ID would be any easier to obtain than current options. Ideally we'd just make the current state IDs easier to obtain but even then they still shouldn't be necessary for voting if we truely want to count the opinion of as many citizens as possible.
- mmt 8y ago> I have little faith that a new form of ID would be any easier to obtain than current options. It's hard to see how having yet another option could make getting any ID overall more difficult, but, of course, merely easier isn't adequate. It has to be so easy and frictionless (in addition to being free) as to avoid voter suppression. As such, it would have to be at least as easy as current voter registration (which itself is not necessarily easy enough to begin with). I have more faith that, if this is possible, it would be doable by augmenting existing election bureacracies to include photo ID issuance, than retrofitting existing DMV bureacracies (and adding locations?!). (I also think that even just attempting a DMV retrofit is likely to end up being a boondoggle/moneypit of breathtaking proportions, at least for the larger states [1]) [1] Witness http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/14/local/la-me-dmv-project-20130215 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/14/local/la-me-dmv-proj...