3 ms·
The problem is that anything that changes the number of voters is going to change election outcomes, and both sides think they know in advance the direction of
by nkurz 8y ago
The problem is that anything that changes the number of voters is going to change election outcomes, and both sides think they know in advance the direction of the change. Thus rather than making it a "non-issue", any movement toward or away from universal ID is correctly perceived to have disparate partisan impact. This doesn't mean it's impossible, but makes it much more likely to be opposed by side who thinks it will hurt them politically.
A change to the situation will likely involve either one side getting sufficiently far ahead to be able to change the rules further toward their advantage, or will involve a change in the perception such that both sides think that the same change will be to their side's benefit. But since these decisions are made on a state-by-state basis, any change will likely be incremental rather than all at once.
- pas 8y agoI especially meant a movement within the Dem Party, to make them more resilient to potential upcoming voter ID laws?
- nkurz 8y agoYes, it seems like it would make sense for the Democratic party to sponsor efforts to get more voter ID's for more potential voters in states where such laws exist or are likely to exist. No, I'm not really aware of any major efforts concentrated on helping people get appropriate ID. Voter registration drives are common, but the ones I've noticed put the emphasis on registering otherwise eligible voters rather than increasing the pool of eligible voters. I wonder how cost effective a "free driver's license" charity would be at creating eligible voters. It wouldn't even have to be directly supported by a political party, but by targeting a particular demographic it would likely be quite effective in creating new voters of a particular type. And unlike straight voter registration drives, getting a driver's license gives other direct benefits to the recipient.