6 ms·

If the issue wasn't fundamentally about putting a thumb on one side of the scale or the other, this would be a relatively easy to solve problem. Make it part o

If the issue wasn't fundamentally about putting a thumb on one side of the scale or the other, this would be a relatively easy to solve problem. Make it part of the FEC charter to issue voting ID at no cost, tracking people down like the census does. Fund them appropriately, of course. And make sure that there is adequate opportunity to vote in person (multiple days, lots of locations, etc). In theory, this should make both sides happy.

taurath 5y ago
One side doesn’t want a larger number of voters voting, at least historically.
- coconut08 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - taurath 5y ago
    I had meant to say in recent history :) there’s been plenty of changes over the decades of who’s motivated to suppress voting.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    The side that's currently rushing through legislation to roll out new ID requirements and reduce poll accessibility.
    - coconut08 5y ago
      the group that is doing it today is actually the opposite group of who was doing it in the past. as it turns out it isn't a single side that tries to restrict the voting of people they disagree with. everyone given the opportunity will do this. and in case this isn't obvious. it's always bad no matter who is doing it. i just think its ridiculously stupid to suggest that only 1 group would do it and the other wouldn't given the opportunity.
      - davidw 5y ago
        Different names, same crowd. My state, Oregon, has made it incredibly easy and secure to vote, and we do elect people from both parties.
        munk-a 5y ago
        My former state (I emigrated) of Vermont has a Republican governor. Folks can label him as a RINO or Vermont Republican - but he's conservative in a manner that aligns with a lot of Vermont sensibilities.
        paulmd 5y ago
        Vermont is a really interesting state that crosses the "normal" lines in a lot of ways. AFAIK democrats there are, generally, pretty pro-gun for example (bernie aside). And generally the republicans there seem to have generally avoided going off the deep end like the rest of the country. Probably comes with being one of the most rural states in the country, but also with major population centers nearby. Would love to move there someday tbh.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        Vermont is interesting because it has the absence of the authoritarian left that traditionally dominates politics in urban areas (Vermont's few urban areas aren't very urban) and the absence of the christian right and "not quite christian right but similarly conservative on all social issues" right like you find in a lot of the rest of the country. Basically the factions of both parties that care strongly about putting everyone else under their thumb when it comes to the social issues are under-represented in Vermont.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        Ideologies in political parties have shifted enough that calling modern-day republicans and democrats the same as 40s republicans and democrats feels fraudulent. Whether someone was in the wrong yesterday is less important than correcting the folks in the wrong today and doesn't excuse their current behavior in any manner. If things shift the other way and democrats start suppressing the vote I'll be just as outraged at them - regardless of whether "my guy is winning" or not.
- sanedigital 5y ago
  Is that the same side that largely opposed the Civil Rights Act? Historically speaking, of course.
- listless 5y ago
  We now require proof of vaccination to eat in a restaurant, but requiring an ID to vote is unreasonable and can only be because you want to stop people from voting. Which may be true (anything is possible), but the sheer irony here is almost too much.
  - taurath 5y ago
    Nobody would be opposed if IDs were universally easy to get - in fact among Democrats 70% want an ID law.
  - TylerE 5y ago
    24th amendment...
  - piperswe 5y ago
    Vaccines are free and we do everything we can to make them easy to get, whereas getting ID that's acceptable for voting has many hurdles that can be insurmountable for many people. Born in another state and lost birth certificate in a move? Well, time to take a trip to your birth county and get a certified copy of your birth certificate. Work 9-5 Monday-Friday? Better hope you have a vacation day you can use to go down to the DPS/DMV/RMV/etc.
    - HideousKojima 5y ago
      >Vaccines are free I think you mean paid for by taxes and/or insurance, not quite the same as free
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        Free for the recipient. A free ID card would also be paid by taxes. That isn't a bad thing.
- snomad 5y ago
  The democratic party famously screwed over VP Wallace in a highly rigged convention (so power leaders could get relative neophyte Truman in) Rumors are the mob delivered the election for Kennedy; even those historians who argue otherwise essentially characterize it as the democratic party stealing the election "An order from the mob to work for Kennedy only insured a total Chicago effort of the kind that historically had been known to work miracles in the early-morning hours of vote counting" Lyndon Johnson famously stole his 1948 senate election Democrats were plenty happy to use vote harvesting to take Orange County, Ca while arguing against it in Georgia (2018). [ed] And a new one just hitting news today, https://www.phillymag.com/news/2021/10/13/marie-beren-voter-fraud-mark-squilla/ https://www.phillymag.com/news/2021/10/13/marie-beren-voter-... I would respectfully disagree with your assertion this is a one party issue
  - taurath 5y ago
    Correct, I had meant to say in recent history (the 90s- now) rather than 70 years ago.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Make it part of the FEC charter Adding things to the FEC responsibility is not a solution, because the FEC is by structural design nonfunctional in normal conditions, and has sometimes been (e.g., most of 2020) completely nonfunctional due to lack of a quorum.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
Make it so that government ID is federalized and free, with things like state drivers licenses endorsements on top of your provided ID. I don't even see a compelling reason for state-specific driver licensing. Make driver qualification federal like in every other country in the world. Things become a whole lot simpler when stuff can just get tacked on to your ID, and appropriate institutions can check the status of such endorsements in a central database. > In theory, this should make both sides happy. One side will never be happy, because their entire strategy (according to leaked internal documents) is voter suppression. A reminder: there is very, very little voter fraud in the US. Most of cases of fraud that have been discovered turned out to be members of that side that is so very concerned with voter fraud.
- pirate787 5y ago
  Federalism-- the distribution of power to the states, and closer to the people -- is the compelling reason for state-specific drivers licensing.
  - mjevans 5y ago
    We have a _national_ freeway system in the US, states get money from the government for the interstate freeway projects. I am all for a national ID (please, PLEASE end using Social Security for this), and migrating to a national standard for driving that generalizes most of the 'how to drive' and 'how signs must look'; ideally also some minimum of how roads should be designed (less enforced, more of a guide).
    - XorNot 5y ago
      > end using Social Security for this This is really key here. Practice shows 2 things: (1) a national ID is needed to operate the United States and (2) in lieu of a proper system, a much worse system is being used with ongoing catastrophic impacts to people's lives from fraud and identity theft as well as the commensurate cost to the state at every level.
    - em-bee 5y ago
noahtallen 5y ago
I’m not convinced it has to be that complicated. (However, I’m still a fan of nationalized ID in general.) For example, Oregon has had mail voting since 1981 with bipartisan trust in the system. I’m not aware of any cases of voter fraud worse than any other voting systems we have. Why does it get bipartisan support in Oregon, a state known for intense partisan demonstrations and showdowns? Because it’s so much easier that you’ll never want to do it another way. Mail-in voting has a lot of benefits: - It’s automatic. You’ll get a ballot every election at your home, so you don’t need to remember about elections. - You get a pamphlet with statements from each candidate and supporting organizations. This helps you get informed about everyone. - You have time to send it back. This allows you to make a more deliberate choice. - You don’t have to take time off or go anywhere. - You can verify via a web portal that your ballot was received and counted. Is voter ID actually solving any real problems with the system? To my knowledge, fraud is normally sniffed out and prosecuted. I think a well-oiled mail voting system provides so many clear benefits to voters that we should be encouraging it in more places. From what I understand, signature-based validation is secure enough to prevent most fraud problems. At least to the extent that it’s not much different from any other voting system. Again, I support federal ID, but to me that’s separate from voting. Maybe I put my federal ID number on the ballot, and then states can ensure it was only used once.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I'm totally with you, I've lived in Oregon most of my life and I'm quite happy with the vote-by-mail system we have. But looking at the public opinion on the 2020 election, I get the impression that it would be a tough-sell nationwide.
djsbs 5y ago
In mean old Georgia, a photo state ID for voting purposes is free. https://dds.georgia.gov/identification-cards-fees https://dds.georgia.gov/identification-cards-fees
UncleMeat 5y ago
> In theory, this should make both sides happy. You'll find that the right opposes this idea. National IDs spook the "don't tread on me" crowd and cutting DMV availability is a common "money saving" approach taken by the same people demanding additional documentation for voting.

taurath 5y ago

One side doesn’t want a larger number of voters voting, at least historically.

coconut08 5y ago
[flagged]
- taurath 5y ago
  I had meant to say in recent history :) there’s been plenty of changes over the decades of who’s motivated to suppress voting.
- munk-a 5y ago
  The side that's currently rushing through legislation to roll out new ID requirements and reduce poll accessibility.
  - coconut08 5y ago
    the group that is doing it today is actually the opposite group of who was doing it in the past. as it turns out it isn't a single side that tries to restrict the voting of people they disagree with. everyone given the opportunity will do this. and in case this isn't obvious. it's always bad no matter who is doing it. i just think its ridiculously stupid to suggest that only 1 group would do it and the other wouldn't given the opportunity.
    - davidw 5y ago
      Different names, same crowd. My state, Oregon, has made it incredibly easy and secure to vote, and we do elect people from both parties.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        My former state (I emigrated) of Vermont has a Republican governor. Folks can label him as a RINO or Vermont Republican - but he's conservative in a manner that aligns with a lot of Vermont sensibilities.
        paulmd 5y ago
        Vermont is a really interesting state that crosses the "normal" lines in a lot of ways. AFAIK democrats there are, generally, pretty pro-gun for example (bernie aside). And generally the republicans there seem to have generally avoided going off the deep end like the rest of the country. Probably comes with being one of the most rural states in the country, but also with major population centers nearby. Would love to move there someday tbh.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        Vermont is interesting because it has the absence of the authoritarian left that traditionally dominates politics in urban areas (Vermont's few urban areas aren't very urban) and the absence of the christian right and "not quite christian right but similarly conservative on all social issues" right like you find in a lot of the rest of the country. Basically the factions of both parties that care strongly about putting everyone else under their thumb when it comes to the social issues are under-represented in Vermont.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Ideologies in political parties have shifted enough that calling modern-day republicans and democrats the same as 40s republicans and democrats feels fraudulent. Whether someone was in the wrong yesterday is less important than correcting the folks in the wrong today and doesn't excuse their current behavior in any manner. If things shift the other way and democrats start suppressing the vote I'll be just as outraged at them - regardless of whether "my guy is winning" or not.
sanedigital 5y ago
Is that the same side that largely opposed the Civil Rights Act? Historically speaking, of course.
listless 5y ago
We now require proof of vaccination to eat in a restaurant, but requiring an ID to vote is unreasonable and can only be because you want to stop people from voting. Which may be true (anything is possible), but the sheer irony here is almost too much.
- taurath 5y ago
  Nobody would be opposed if IDs were universally easy to get - in fact among Democrats 70% want an ID law.
- TylerE 5y ago
  24th amendment...
- piperswe 5y ago
  Vaccines are free and we do everything we can to make them easy to get, whereas getting ID that's acceptable for voting has many hurdles that can be insurmountable for many people. Born in another state and lost birth certificate in a move? Well, time to take a trip to your birth county and get a certified copy of your birth certificate. Work 9-5 Monday-Friday? Better hope you have a vacation day you can use to go down to the DPS/DMV/RMV/etc.
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    >Vaccines are free I think you mean paid for by taxes and/or insurance, not quite the same as free
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      Free for the recipient. A free ID card would also be paid by taxes. That isn't a bad thing.
snomad 5y ago
The democratic party famously screwed over VP Wallace in a highly rigged convention (so power leaders could get relative neophyte Truman in) Rumors are the mob delivered the election for Kennedy; even those historians who argue otherwise essentially characterize it as the democratic party stealing the election "An order from the mob to work for Kennedy only insured a total Chicago effort of the kind that historically had been known to work miracles in the early-morning hours of vote counting" Lyndon Johnson famously stole his 1948 senate election Democrats were plenty happy to use vote harvesting to take Orange County, Ca while arguing against it in Georgia (2018). [ed] And a new one just hitting news today, https://www.phillymag.com/news/2021/10/13/marie-beren-voter-fraud-mark-squilla/ https://www.phillymag.com/news/2021/10/13/marie-beren-voter-... I would respectfully disagree with your assertion this is a one party issue
- taurath 5y ago
  Correct, I had meant to say in recent history (the 90s- now) rather than 70 years ago.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Make it part of the FEC charter Adding things to the FEC responsibility is not a solution, because the FEC is by structural design nonfunctional in normal conditions, and has sometimes been (e.g., most of 2020) completely nonfunctional due to lack of a quorum.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

Make it so that government ID is federalized and free, with things like state drivers licenses endorsements on top of your provided ID. I don't even see a compelling reason for state-specific driver licensing. Make driver qualification federal like in every other country in the world. Things become a whole lot simpler when stuff can just get tacked on to your ID, and appropriate institutions can check the status of such endorsements in a central database. > In theory, this should make both sides happy. One side will never be happy, because their entire strategy (according to leaked internal documents) is voter suppression. A reminder: there is very, very little voter fraud in the US. Most of cases of fraud that have been discovered turned out to be members of that side that is so very concerned with voter fraud.

pirate787 5y ago
Federalism-- the distribution of power to the states, and closer to the people -- is the compelling reason for state-specific drivers licensing.
- mjevans 5y ago
  We have a _national_ freeway system in the US, states get money from the government for the interstate freeway projects. I am all for a national ID (please, PLEASE end using Social Security for this), and migrating to a national standard for driving that generalizes most of the 'how to drive' and 'how signs must look'; ideally also some minimum of how roads should be designed (less enforced, more of a guide).
  - XorNot 5y ago
    > end using Social Security for this This is really key here. Practice shows 2 things: (1) a national ID is needed to operate the United States and (2) in lieu of a proper system, a much worse system is being used with ongoing catastrophic impacts to people's lives from fraud and identity theft as well as the commensurate cost to the state at every level.
  - em-bee 5y ago

noahtallen 5y ago

I’m not convinced it has to be that complicated. (However, I’m still a fan of nationalized ID in general.) For example, Oregon has had mail voting since 1981 with bipartisan trust in the system. I’m not aware of any cases of voter fraud worse than any other voting systems we have. Why does it get bipartisan support in Oregon, a state known for intense partisan demonstrations and showdowns? Because it’s so much easier that you’ll never want to do it another way. Mail-in voting has a lot of benefits: - It’s automatic. You’ll get a ballot every election at your home, so you don’t need to remember about elections. - You get a pamphlet with statements from each candidate and supporting organizations. This helps you get informed about everyone. - You have time to send it back. This allows you to make a more deliberate choice. - You don’t have to take time off or go anywhere. - You can verify via a web portal that your ballot was received and counted. Is voter ID actually solving any real problems with the system? To my knowledge, fraud is normally sniffed out and prosecuted. I think a well-oiled mail voting system provides so many clear benefits to voters that we should be encouraging it in more places. From what I understand, signature-based validation is secure enough to prevent most fraud problems. At least to the extent that it’s not much different from any other voting system. Again, I support federal ID, but to me that’s separate from voting. Maybe I put my federal ID number on the ballot, and then states can ensure it was only used once.

rootusrootus 5y ago
I'm totally with you, I've lived in Oregon most of my life and I'm quite happy with the vote-by-mail system we have. But looking at the public opinion on the 2020 election, I get the impression that it would be a tough-sell nationwide.

djsbs 5y ago

In mean old Georgia, a photo state ID for voting purposes is free. https://dds.georgia.gov/identification-cards-fees https://dds.georgia.gov/identification-cards-fees

UncleMeat 5y ago

> In theory, this should make both sides happy. You'll find that the right opposes this idea. National IDs spook the "don't tread on me" crowd and cutting DMV availability is a common "money saving" approach taken by the same people demanding additional documentation for voting.