5 ms·

I support a national ID... But for people who don't, what is the functional difference between a SSN today and a national ID, apart from SSNs being broken for s

by Jach 7y ago

I support a national ID... But for people who don't, what is the functional difference between a SSN today and a national ID, apart from SSNs being broken for such a purpose? It still gets asked for very broadly (not just for credit-related things... let alone for social security related things) and people very easily give them up. One might also ask the same question when IDs for different purposes are used -- why not a fuss over driver's licenses and passports, which are context-dependent IDs? We can always call it something else. "National signature card". The ideal implementation would be something like Estonia's ID card.

darkpuma 7y ago
Drivers licenses are already contentious in some respects, and a National ID is likely to be contentious in those same respects. Namely, if you create one, is it then acceptable to require voters to present it before allowing them to vote? Partisan disagreement over this issue is likely to stall progress.
- tzs 7y ago
  I'm not sure it would remain a partisan issue if a national ID were used, assuming that there were also good mechanisms in place to make sure everyone can easily get their ID card for free. The reasons attempts to require voter ID at polling places is currently a partisan issue include: 1. The level of voter fraud is very low, and what little there is almost always would not be prevented by voter ID at the polling place. It usually takes place by absentee ballots, or is based on registering people to vote who should not be eligible (which can be addressed someone by ID requirement--but at registration, not at the polls). 2. When deciding what forms of ID are acceptable, there has been a remarkable correlation between whether a given form is allowed, and whether or not a significantly larger fraction of white voters have that form of ID than do black or Hispanic voters. 3. The same people that pass these voter ID laws have also, in many states, cut the budgets of the state agencies that issue IDs, generally be closing offices that can issue IDs and reducing the hours of those that remain. The closures have tended to be of offices that serve largely black or Hispanic populations, and the cutbacks in hours of the remaining offices have tended to eliminate weekend and evening service. I've read several stories about people who to get an ID had to take a two hour bus ride to reach one of the remaining offices, and had to take a day off work to do it, which was quite a hardship for them. In short, the current push for voter ID has almost nothing to do with insuring the integrity of the election process. It's about trying to make it harder for to vote for groups of voters that have historically voted against the party that is pushing for voter ID laws. If we had a national ID, issued by the Federal government rather than state governments, with a strong commitment to make sure everyone who was eligible received their card, and a Federal law that said any state voter ID check must accept the national ID card, it could probably be done in a way that avoids #2 and #3.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Maybe it hypothetically could happen, but I don't think it's likely to. I don't think either side of the aisle has any real interest in discussing the matter.
freehunter 7y ago
The problem isn't the name. America has an absolutely huge number of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who honestly believe that a national ID card is the Mark of the Beast that's talked about in Revelation 13:16-17. Even mentioning it as a politician will cause large sections of the country to start referring to you as the Anti-Christ (it's not even political: it happened with Bill Clinton and it happened with Bush just the same). The people who believe this vote at a much higher rate than the people who don't. And even the people who don't directly believe it, many of them are influenced by the people who do. "I don't actually believe Politician X is the actual Anti-Christ, but Preacher Y does make a good point about their tax policy..." Anything new that could be called a "national ID" is going to be met with a lot of money saying it's the Mark of the Beast.
- glitcher 7y ago
  > The people who believe this vote at a much higher rate than the people who don't I noticed as I read that statement my first instinct was to blindly agree with you, because it feels like it might be true (from inside my bubble). But on second thought, do we actually have voting stats to back up this idea, or is it more of the phenomenon that the minority opinions making the most noise seem to be more numerous than the population who generally keep to themselves?
  - freehunter 7y ago
    "white Evangelicals were an identical 26 percent of the electorate in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018" [1] even though they're only 15% of the population [2]. That number is dropping sharply as younger generations are less likely to be part of an Evangelical church. Millennials and Gen Z are the biggest voting bloc at 27% of the population, but only represent 20% of the votes cast [3]. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/in-midterms-white-evangelicals-stood-up-for-their-party.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/in-midterms-white-eva... [2] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18070630/white-evangelicals-turnout-midterms-trump-2020 https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18070630/white-evangelicals-tu... [3] https://medium.com/s/youthnow/ruined-entire-generation-of-young-voters-gen-z-politics-democracy-140d9ead1fa2 https://medium.com/s/youthnow/ruined-entire-generation-of-yo...
ppseafield 7y ago
There has in fact been fuss over driver's licences, specifically as a requirement for voting. Voting is a guaranteed right of the US constitution, but there are some real barriers for some people for getting state issued ID. It's has a monetary cost, it expires, it now requires a birth certificate. If you're poor, older, or happened to have your birth hospital's or county office's records destroyed by a fire (not uncommon at all), you may not be able to get a valid, state-issued ID. For instance, my mother was born to Irish parents with US citizenship through naturalization (granted under a law according citizenship to people who fought for the allies in WWII). When she moved to a new state and needed to renew her driver's license, it took months to get someone to accept her documents and explanation even though she had been a US citizen all her life (but born outside the country). Whatever national ID system would be implemented, it would have to be bulletproof. Otherwise it could incidentally disenfranchise people.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  > Voting is a guaranteed right of the US constitution, There are some guarantees yes. But it's not universal. For example, voting eligibility is frequently denied on the basis of age and criminal history.
  - ppseafield 7y ago
    You're right - I misspoke. Voting eligibility is a subject with a complex history. There are many guarantees laid out in several amendments and acts. I simply meant to point out that something as conceptually simple as "just a national ID system" could have far-reaching effects such as disenfranchisement.
formercoder 7y ago
As do I. It’s crazy to me that we don’t have them.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> But for people who don't, what is the functional difference between a SSN today and a national ID, apart from SSNs being broken for such a purpose? There have actually been requirements enacted prohibiting SSNs from being used for anything other than social security, but they haven't been enforced, and that's the problem with SSNs. The answer isn't to have a national ID, it's to get rid of SSNs, or at least restrict them to social security. You shouldn't need a SSN to open a bank account. The bank should issue you a bank ID (i.e. a debit/credit card) which allows you to get/spend the money you've deposited. You have a credit card number, you have a bank routing number, what do you need a SSN for? Only surveillance, nothing else. If you stop using SSNs for anything other than social security, you can't have Equifax. Databases tracking everything about everybody are not required to exist, do not benefit people, and national ID numbers only exist to enable them.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  What do you need an SSN for? Taxes. (There was a time when bank accounts actually paid enough interest to matter on your taxes...)
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    That should only be required for an interest-bearing account and only if the interest exceeds the reporting threshold. It should at least be possible to have an account without providing the SSN. They could still withhold the interest until you provide the SSN in the uncommon case that both of those are satisfied, but that should be very uncommon indeed because if you have enough money to reach the reporting threshold, you would make more investing it in even low risk securities, so only foolish or extremely conservative people should ever have done that. (And if we want to go into a different policy discussion, you wouldn't need SSNs at all if we would switch to VAT+UBI, because then there is no income tax, the UBI handles making it progressive, and the VAT is handled by the selling business, so there is no need to track anyone's personal dealings whatsoever.)
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago

by Jach 7y ago

darkpuma 7y ago

Drivers licenses are already contentious in some respects, and a National ID is likely to be contentious in those same respects. Namely, if you create one, is it then acceptable to require voters to present it before allowing them to vote? Partisan disagreement over this issue is likely to stall progress.

tzs 7y ago
I'm not sure it would remain a partisan issue if a national ID were used, assuming that there were also good mechanisms in place to make sure everyone can easily get their ID card for free. The reasons attempts to require voter ID at polling places is currently a partisan issue include: 1. The level of voter fraud is very low, and what little there is almost always would not be prevented by voter ID at the polling place. It usually takes place by absentee ballots, or is based on registering people to vote who should not be eligible (which can be addressed someone by ID requirement--but at registration, not at the polls). 2. When deciding what forms of ID are acceptable, there has been a remarkable correlation between whether a given form is allowed, and whether or not a significantly larger fraction of white voters have that form of ID than do black or Hispanic voters. 3. The same people that pass these voter ID laws have also, in many states, cut the budgets of the state agencies that issue IDs, generally be closing offices that can issue IDs and reducing the hours of those that remain. The closures have tended to be of offices that serve largely black or Hispanic populations, and the cutbacks in hours of the remaining offices have tended to eliminate weekend and evening service. I've read several stories about people who to get an ID had to take a two hour bus ride to reach one of the remaining offices, and had to take a day off work to do it, which was quite a hardship for them. In short, the current push for voter ID has almost nothing to do with insuring the integrity of the election process. It's about trying to make it harder for to vote for groups of voters that have historically voted against the party that is pushing for voter ID laws. If we had a national ID, issued by the Federal government rather than state governments, with a strong commitment to make sure everyone who was eligible received their card, and a Federal law that said any state voter ID check must accept the national ID card, it could probably be done in a way that avoids #2 and #3.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Maybe it hypothetically could happen, but I don't think it's likely to. I don't think either side of the aisle has any real interest in discussing the matter.

freehunter 7y ago

The problem isn't the name. America has an absolutely huge number of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who honestly believe that a national ID card is the Mark of the Beast that's talked about in Revelation 13:16-17. Even mentioning it as a politician will cause large sections of the country to start referring to you as the Anti-Christ (it's not even political: it happened with Bill Clinton and it happened with Bush just the same). The people who believe this vote at a much higher rate than the people who don't. And even the people who don't directly believe it, many of them are influenced by the people who do. "I don't actually believe Politician X is the actual Anti-Christ, but Preacher Y does make a good point about their tax policy..." Anything new that could be called a "national ID" is going to be met with a lot of money saying it's the Mark of the Beast.

glitcher 7y ago
> The people who believe this vote at a much higher rate than the people who don't I noticed as I read that statement my first instinct was to blindly agree with you, because it feels like it might be true (from inside my bubble). But on second thought, do we actually have voting stats to back up this idea, or is it more of the phenomenon that the minority opinions making the most noise seem to be more numerous than the population who generally keep to themselves?
- freehunter 7y ago
  "white Evangelicals were an identical 26 percent of the electorate in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018" [1] even though they're only 15% of the population [2]. That number is dropping sharply as younger generations are less likely to be part of an Evangelical church. Millennials and Gen Z are the biggest voting bloc at 27% of the population, but only represent 20% of the votes cast [3]. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/in-midterms-white-evangelicals-stood-up-for-their-party.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/in-midterms-white-eva... [2] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18070630/white-evangelicals-turnout-midterms-trump-2020 https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18070630/white-evangelicals-tu... [3] https://medium.com/s/youthnow/ruined-entire-generation-of-young-voters-gen-z-politics-democracy-140d9ead1fa2 https://medium.com/s/youthnow/ruined-entire-generation-of-yo...

ppseafield 7y ago

There has in fact been fuss over driver's licences, specifically as a requirement for voting. Voting is a guaranteed right of the US constitution, but there are some real barriers for some people for getting state issued ID. It's has a monetary cost, it expires, it now requires a birth certificate. If you're poor, older, or happened to have your birth hospital's or county office's records destroyed by a fire (not uncommon at all), you may not be able to get a valid, state-issued ID. For instance, my mother was born to Irish parents with US citizenship through naturalization (granted under a law according citizenship to people who fought for the allies in WWII). When she moved to a new state and needed to renew her driver's license, it took months to get someone to accept her documents and explanation even though she had been a US citizen all her life (but born outside the country). Whatever national ID system would be implemented, it would have to be bulletproof. Otherwise it could incidentally disenfranchise people.

paulddraper 7y ago
> Voting is a guaranteed right of the US constitution, There are some guarantees yes. But it's not universal. For example, voting eligibility is frequently denied on the basis of age and criminal history.
- ppseafield 7y ago
  You're right - I misspoke. Voting eligibility is a subject with a complex history. There are many guarantees laid out in several amendments and acts. I simply meant to point out that something as conceptually simple as "just a national ID system" could have far-reaching effects such as disenfranchisement.

formercoder 7y ago

As do I. It’s crazy to me that we don’t have them.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> But for people who don't, what is the functional difference between a SSN today and a national ID, apart from SSNs being broken for such a purpose? There have actually been requirements enacted prohibiting SSNs from being used for anything other than social security, but they haven't been enforced, and that's the problem with SSNs. The answer isn't to have a national ID, it's to get rid of SSNs, or at least restrict them to social security. You shouldn't need a SSN to open a bank account. The bank should issue you a bank ID (i.e. a debit/credit card) which allows you to get/spend the money you've deposited. You have a credit card number, you have a bank routing number, what do you need a SSN for? Only surveillance, nothing else. If you stop using SSNs for anything other than social security, you can't have Equifax. Databases tracking everything about everybody are not required to exist, do not benefit people, and national ID numbers only exist to enable them.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
What do you need an SSN for? Taxes. (There was a time when bank accounts actually paid enough interest to matter on your taxes...)
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  That should only be required for an interest-bearing account and only if the interest exceeds the reporting threshold. It should at least be possible to have an account without providing the SSN. They could still withhold the interest until you provide the SSN in the uncommon case that both of those are satisfied, but that should be very uncommon indeed because if you have enough money to reach the reporting threshold, you would make more investing it in even low risk securities, so only foolish or extremely conservative people should ever have done that. (And if we want to go into a different policy discussion, you wouldn't need SSNs at all if we would switch to VAT+UBI, because then there is no income tax, the UBI handles making it progressive, and the VAT is handled by the selling business, so there is no need to track anyone's personal dealings whatsoever.)
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago