4 ms·

You clearly have no idea what bureaucracy in third world countries is like

• pgeorgi 8y ago
  Even if the process is onerous having one is miles ahead for the purpose of identifying eligible voters compared to the American system which barely knows who exists within the country, much less where they live.
  • rohit2412 8y ago
    Isn't this reasoning cyclic? You can't have an id in USA because the current system doesn't have a list of people with their addresses? So the current system needs to be a system of all the people and their addresses, including citizens, with some sort of unique identifier for quick retrieval? You know, an id?
    • pgeorgi 8y ago
      It's cyclic, yes, but only because we went off on a tangent. The US isn't prepared for that because they refuse to have a registry of their citizens. India has one (or two, currently). Therefore "infrastructure to obtain ID in India and the US is of somewhat similar quality" is false. Therefore "Apparently some people believe that poor people or minorities in America find it harder than even the poorest Indians to go get identification" is a false equivalence: The poorest of all Indians still have a government that keeps track of the data required to vote (whatever fault it may have in other ways). Americans do not and therefore have to work around the no-registration policy with an ad-hoc registration procedure every two years that might require significant hoop-jumping - which is easier when you have some extraneous time and/or money you can throw at the problem (that is, you're not poor).