5 ms·

Of course, and it's also completely unnecessary. We are innocent until proven guilty. If I show up at a polling place (or in this case, requesting or mailing a

Of course, and it's also completely unnecessary. We are innocent until proven guilty. If I show up at a polling place (or in this case, requesting or mailing a voting packet), show them some sort of identity and address, then I should be able to vote. If you're caught committing voter fraud, you should go to jail. It's simple, and has always been effective.

chrisseaton 6y ago
Do you apply the same standard to your bank account? Someone with some sort of identity and address should be able to withdraw your bank account until proven guilty?
- behringer 6y ago
  That is the standard applied at banks...
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    No they also ask for a unique identifier (bank number) and an access code (PIN) and a token (bank card). That's three-auth. Two things you have to know and one thing you have to have. That's pretty good. I think that's what people are suggesting maybe voting should have.
    - behringer 6y ago
      Voting does have something like that...
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        I'm sorry, what you're describing as the authorisation required for voting or for going to the bank doesn't match my experience of reality. Banks do not just require an address and ID card, and voting does not require anything more than an address. Almost all your comments on everything are downvoted so I'm guessing you're a troll and I'm going to ignore you.
        behringer 6y ago
        I'm being downvoted because HN is a bastion of white privilege. The reality is, voter fraud isn't really happening, and voter verification is currently perfectly sufficient, and any bank policies about requiring SSNs or state issued ID is entirely know your customer stuff and nothing to do with validating the account owner.
burfog 6y ago
That makes catching people impossible. We can't even determine the level of fraud, so faith in our voting system is eroded. Even if you believe that there is no fraud, you should be deeply concerned that many other people are losing faith in election integrity. Elections are considered fraudulent until proven otherwise. We certainly could have decently secure elections without ID. Like this: You show up to vote in person, a good photo is taken, and you say who you are. That info is then made public. Political parties and other interested groups can sift through the photos, maybe with an AI, to find any crime. It's almost perfect. The main trouble is that fraud detection happens after the voting, so a person who doesn't fear prison can do as desired.
- behringer 6y ago
  We can and we have determined the level of fraud. Hint: It's nearly 0. The right is simply fear mongering to push their racist agenda.
- jones1618 6y ago
  Everyone is concentrating on the wrong thing. There are two possible kinds of voter fraud (both extremely rare), "retail fraud" (i.e. individual voters) and "wholesale fraud" (i.e. bulk fraud). Voter ID laws mostly "fix" a non-existent problem of individual false votes with the express intent of discouraging votes. The real problem you want to fix is "wholesale fraud" which means securing the whole system from voting machines (which should be open-source and paper-audited) to how votes are tallied. Think about it. If you were going to steal votes would you go to all the trouble to forge or hijack individual votes or would you bribe someone to flip a couple of digits at a county office? Of course, a trustworthy system includes how mail-in votes are tracked and verified but that is a well-understood problem working well for thousands and thousands of absentees, military personnel and whole states full of people who have voted that way regularly for decades.

chrisseaton 6y ago

Do you apply the same standard to your bank account? Someone with some sort of identity and address should be able to withdraw your bank account until proven guilty?

behringer 6y ago
That is the standard applied at banks...
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  No they also ask for a unique identifier (bank number) and an access code (PIN) and a token (bank card). That's three-auth. Two things you have to know and one thing you have to have. That's pretty good. I think that's what people are suggesting maybe voting should have.
  - behringer 6y ago
    Voting does have something like that...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      I'm sorry, what you're describing as the authorisation required for voting or for going to the bank doesn't match my experience of reality. Banks do not just require an address and ID card, and voting does not require anything more than an address. Almost all your comments on everything are downvoted so I'm guessing you're a troll and I'm going to ignore you.
      - behringer 6y ago
        I'm being downvoted because HN is a bastion of white privilege. The reality is, voter fraud isn't really happening, and voter verification is currently perfectly sufficient, and any bank policies about requiring SSNs or state issued ID is entirely know your customer stuff and nothing to do with validating the account owner.

burfog 6y ago

That makes catching people impossible. We can't even determine the level of fraud, so faith in our voting system is eroded. Even if you believe that there is no fraud, you should be deeply concerned that many other people are losing faith in election integrity. Elections are considered fraudulent until proven otherwise. We certainly could have decently secure elections without ID. Like this: You show up to vote in person, a good photo is taken, and you say who you are. That info is then made public. Political parties and other interested groups can sift through the photos, maybe with an AI, to find any crime. It's almost perfect. The main trouble is that fraud detection happens after the voting, so a person who doesn't fear prison can do as desired.

behringer 6y ago
We can and we have determined the level of fraud. Hint: It's nearly 0. The right is simply fear mongering to push their racist agenda.
jones1618 6y ago
Everyone is concentrating on the wrong thing. There are two possible kinds of voter fraud (both extremely rare), "retail fraud" (i.e. individual voters) and "wholesale fraud" (i.e. bulk fraud). Voter ID laws mostly "fix" a non-existent problem of individual false votes with the express intent of discouraging votes. The real problem you want to fix is "wholesale fraud" which means securing the whole system from voting machines (which should be open-source and paper-audited) to how votes are tallied. Think about it. If you were going to steal votes would you go to all the trouble to forge or hijack individual votes or would you bribe someone to flip a couple of digits at a county office? Of course, a trustworthy system includes how mail-in votes are tracked and verified but that is a well-understood problem working well for thousands and thousands of absentees, military personnel and whole states full of people who have voted that way regularly for decades.