4 ms·
Scope and distribution is a good point, and I'm not trying to say that this is an issue that routinely affects elections (and if it is I would look at small loc
by travisoneill1 8y ago
Scope and distribution is a good point, and I'm not trying to say that this is an issue that routinely affects elections (and if it is I would look at small local elections with tiny turnout), but it can't be disproven in the current system and this is a problem.
A system that ties each registered voter to a unique ID which is basically implemented for you if you require ID at the polls will have a false positive rate of ~0 much lower than our current system. This is actually a side benefit.
- beat 8y agoThat fails to address my points, either that there will be a cost in false positives (have fun stopping that), or that the motivation for making political hay out of this is partisan advantage from the false positives, not actually reducing a threat to democracy.
- travisoneill1 8y agoActually pretty easy. Thought of it after that post. No physical id requirement. Look into camera and enter SSN/DOB/name into PIN pad. If no match no vote. In case of identity theft there will be a collision and in that case let them through but send the photos and data to the police to arrest the faker.
- CydeWeys 8y agoFun fact, not everyone has a social security number, and they thus aren't required to vote. There is no single national ID number that would work for this purpose. The closest thing would be some kind of state-based voter registration ID, but no one is going to have that memorized.