8 ms·

> The same applies in the UK, which has piloted systems requiring voter ID VoterID makes perfect sense and is used in some parts of the UK already for 20 years

> The same applies in the UK, which has piloted systems requiring voter ID VoterID makes perfect sense and is used in some parts of the UK already for 20 years. How anyone can possibly object to it, especially given how many and varied options are acceptable, astounds me.

matthewmacleod 6y ago
It makes no sense, because it solves no problems and serves only to disenfranchise people. I can see no argument in support of it whatsoever.
- easytiger 6y ago
  So it should be removed from Northern Ireland? France should stop doing it? Italy should just forget about it? Canada should pick a new system? Perhaps the Dutch have it all wrong too. Such unsupported conspiratorial vagueness about disenfranchisement, equally tired and transparent a duplicity, seeks only to assert I believe an underlying hope/fear that there is some systemic problem that might be unwound. For it makes no sense to shore up a system once designed in a world were communities knew each other better to remove any question of doubt from that component of the process. Are the people of Northern Ireland disenfranchised at the polls? France too? I think not
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    This unsupported argument that it had no problems is nonsense. You want to introduce a system that disenfranchises people? Then explain why it’s needed. That’s on you. And yes, voters in areas with ID laws are disenfranchised. Voter ID laws can routinely be observed to disproportionately affect people who are otherwise legitimately able to vote. You may, in some clear and well-scoped circumstances, be able to make an argument in support of them when they solve some problem. NI might even be an example of that. Since electoral fraud does not appear to be a problem in the rest of the UK, it does not seem possible to avoid a net negative impact.
    - easytiger 6y ago
      > Since electoral fraud does not appear to be a problem in the rest of the UK Without VoterID it's literally impossible to know it's scope > introduce a system that disenfranchises people? It doesn't. Do you even know how the process works?
lukev 6y ago
The problem with Voter ID isn't the ID itself, per se. It's a problem when coupled with very active, intentional voter suppression from those who control what forms of ID are acceptable, and how easy it is to obtain them, which is known to vary across demographics. None of this is controversial: I live in North Carolina and the courts have repeatedly struck down Voter ID implementations from the (supermajority Republican) state legislature because the implementations "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision."
AlotOfReading 6y ago
How many of those options work without an address? Moreover, many states do signature verification, which beyond being complete garbage as far as verification goes, has huge false negative rates. I once spent half an hour arguing with the bureaucrat that that the signature she had just seen me make was actually mine.
- easytiger 6y ago
  > states It's a discussion regarding the UK.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

It makes no sense, because it solves no problems and serves only to disenfranchise people. I can see no argument in support of it whatsoever.

easytiger 6y ago
So it should be removed from Northern Ireland? France should stop doing it? Italy should just forget about it? Canada should pick a new system? Perhaps the Dutch have it all wrong too. Such unsupported conspiratorial vagueness about disenfranchisement, equally tired and transparent a duplicity, seeks only to assert I believe an underlying hope/fear that there is some systemic problem that might be unwound. For it makes no sense to shore up a system once designed in a world were communities knew each other better to remove any question of doubt from that component of the process. Are the people of Northern Ireland disenfranchised at the polls? France too? I think not
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  This unsupported argument that it had no problems is nonsense. You want to introduce a system that disenfranchises people? Then explain why it’s needed. That’s on you. And yes, voters in areas with ID laws are disenfranchised. Voter ID laws can routinely be observed to disproportionately affect people who are otherwise legitimately able to vote. You may, in some clear and well-scoped circumstances, be able to make an argument in support of them when they solve some problem. NI might even be an example of that. Since electoral fraud does not appear to be a problem in the rest of the UK, it does not seem possible to avoid a net negative impact.
  - easytiger 6y ago
    > Since electoral fraud does not appear to be a problem in the rest of the UK Without VoterID it's literally impossible to know it's scope > introduce a system that disenfranchises people? It doesn't. Do you even know how the process works?

lukev 6y ago

The problem with Voter ID isn't the ID itself, per se. It's a problem when coupled with very active, intentional voter suppression from those who control what forms of ID are acceptable, and how easy it is to obtain them, which is known to vary across demographics. None of this is controversial: I live in North Carolina and the courts have repeatedly struck down Voter ID implementations from the (supermajority Republican) state legislature because the implementations "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision."

AlotOfReading 6y ago

How many of those options work without an address? Moreover, many states do signature verification, which beyond being complete garbage as far as verification goes, has huge false negative rates. I once spent half an hour arguing with the bureaucrat that that the signature she had just seen me make was actually mine.

easytiger 6y ago
> states It's a discussion regarding the UK.