4 ms·

Lots of the solutions involve something like a national citizen ID program (for an efficient implementation). Done right it fixes tons and tons of problems that

Lots of the solutions involve something like a national citizen ID program (for an efficient implementation). Done right it fixes tons and tons of problems that cost normal people piles of time and money every year, plus whatever the costs are to businesses and government. But a few political factions—mostly on the right, if you go looking for them, like religious folks who see such IDs as end-times related (yes, seriously), some stripes of libertarian, and the very much real group of people who don't want government to work well—are very against solutions of that sort.

briandear 6y ago
Mostly on the right? Just the simple act of requiring someone to show an ID to vote causes apoplectic fits from the left.
- madhadron 6y ago
  If you paired it with "everyone gets an ID, no fee, no patchwork" I think you would find that goes away.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  Usually not if coupled with a mandate that the government provide everyone such an ID at no cost (yes, yes, "nothing's free", but everyone knows what that means). The breakdown is that one side wants to require ID to vote, and the other side is OK with that if there's a program such that every citizen is issued ID for basically no effort, cost, or hassle, and is registered for voting and residency with similar ease (so there must not be renewal crap, problems sorting out issues at the polling place if there's a discrepency, that kind of thing—cannot make voting harder, and if done right should make it easier)—but that's a non-starter because of the things already mentioned (plus some others reasons, but stating the public and explicit, not inferred, positions of certain political factions in my first post apparently rubbed some people the wrong way, so I'll refrain from mentioning those). If 100% of citizens for-sure had an ID there wouldn't be disagreement on the issue. Using such an ID and whatever residency registration program was associated with it would save money and hassle over maintaining voting rolls, overzealous purging of which is another thing the left doesn't like, would allow automatic voter registration, and so on. This would broaden franchise, in practice.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    What's the point of government mandated ID if no-one is financially profiting from it though. /s
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    I agree, and I'm even fairly liberal. Showing proof of who you are, to be allowed to vote in the most fundamental process in a democracy is not a dumb idea. Why would you not want the most rudimentary election security? The only reason that it's a ridiculous situation here is that (and you can debate whether widespread or not, or believed or not) some people use it as a means to make voting difficult for others. And we tolerate / compromise on the situation because we have no good (or widely believed) stats to document the frequency of the risks. And with your point above, why don't we simply make getting an ID easier for everyone and this will no longer be an issue. Take one year to have roaming DMV offices, voter ID, licensing stations, and take care of this stupid problem once and for all. No more arguments or patches to look the other way. And I will say also, it's a fucking sad situation when the people you want to be voting can't get it together in their lives to get an ID renewed once every 5 years. You don't even have to go in person in most cases. If that's the issue, I don't think you would've gotten their vote even if they had ID.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      > Why would you not want the most rudimentary election security? Why would I want a solution with negative trade offs for a problem I'm not convinced exists? Even if I believed it was a problem, I wouldn't just accept a solution that was "rudimentary" without considering the trade offs and alternative solutions.
      - supernova87a 6y ago
        Why do you put locks on your car or your house? I bet you've never been broken into. There's not a high chance of it either. Why do you want your email encrypted? No one's sniffing around your personal life, so why do you want a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Remarkable how people distort their principles when it gets in the way of a political symbol.

briandear 6y ago

Mostly on the right? Just the simple act of requiring someone to show an ID to vote causes apoplectic fits from the left.

madhadron 6y ago
If you paired it with "everyone gets an ID, no fee, no patchwork" I think you would find that goes away.
karatestomp 6y ago
Usually not if coupled with a mandate that the government provide everyone such an ID at no cost (yes, yes, "nothing's free", but everyone knows what that means). The breakdown is that one side wants to require ID to vote, and the other side is OK with that if there's a program such that every citizen is issued ID for basically no effort, cost, or hassle, and is registered for voting and residency with similar ease (so there must not be renewal crap, problems sorting out issues at the polling place if there's a discrepency, that kind of thing—cannot make voting harder, and if done right should make it easier)—but that's a non-starter because of the things already mentioned (plus some others reasons, but stating the public and explicit, not inferred, positions of certain political factions in my first post apparently rubbed some people the wrong way, so I'll refrain from mentioning those). If 100% of citizens for-sure had an ID there wouldn't be disagreement on the issue. Using such an ID and whatever residency registration program was associated with it would save money and hassle over maintaining voting rolls, overzealous purging of which is another thing the left doesn't like, would allow automatic voter registration, and so on. This would broaden franchise, in practice.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  What's the point of government mandated ID if no-one is financially profiting from it though. /s
- supernova87a 6y ago
  I agree, and I'm even fairly liberal. Showing proof of who you are, to be allowed to vote in the most fundamental process in a democracy is not a dumb idea. Why would you not want the most rudimentary election security? The only reason that it's a ridiculous situation here is that (and you can debate whether widespread or not, or believed or not) some people use it as a means to make voting difficult for others. And we tolerate / compromise on the situation because we have no good (or widely believed) stats to document the frequency of the risks. And with your point above, why don't we simply make getting an ID easier for everyone and this will no longer be an issue. Take one year to have roaming DMV offices, voter ID, licensing stations, and take care of this stupid problem once and for all. No more arguments or patches to look the other way. And I will say also, it's a fucking sad situation when the people you want to be voting can't get it together in their lives to get an ID renewed once every 5 years. You don't even have to go in person in most cases. If that's the issue, I don't think you would've gotten their vote even if they had ID.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    > Why would you not want the most rudimentary election security? Why would I want a solution with negative trade offs for a problem I'm not convinced exists? Even if I believed it was a problem, I wouldn't just accept a solution that was "rudimentary" without considering the trade offs and alternative solutions.
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      Why do you put locks on your car or your house? I bet you've never been broken into. There's not a high chance of it either. Why do you want your email encrypted? No one's sniffing around your personal life, so why do you want a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Remarkable how people distort their principles when it gets in the way of a political symbol.