3 ms·
Even then, there was a 0.1% reduction in voter turnout, but the reduction was primarily among white voters. Although this isn’t the negative outcome that myself
by elil17 5y ago
Even then, there was a 0.1% reduction in voter turnout, but the reduction was primarily among white voters. Although this isn’t the negative outcome that myself and other opponents of voter ID laws were worried about, any policy that reduces voter engagement is bad - even if it doesn’t lead to racial inequality.
- nverno 5y agoI agree, but there needs to be some compromise between integrity and ease. As programmers, we all know how easily systems can be compromised. Having effectively zero barrier to getting proper ID seems like a simple, inexpensive solution, especially given you already need ID for so many other essentials
- grayhatter 5y agoAs a programmer, you should know to not touch things that aren't broken. There's no evidence of meaningful abuse, why are you making everything more complicated with ratelimits? Speaking as someone who actually supports state identification requirements for voting.
- gruez 5y ago"we haven't been hacked before, why switched to hashed passwords?"
- bastawhiz 5y agoThat's not a good comparison. Hashed passwords protect secrets from being exposed when a system is abused, they don't protect the system from abuse.
- nverno 5y agoI didn't claim there was, but at the same time I'm convinced there easily could be [1] if people play down security and don't take any precautions. Election fraud isn't uncommon around the world, and there is plenty of incentive. [[I do think Americans in general have been pretty good so far, but I'm no expert, and I'm not sure anyone could convince me 100% there is no fraud ever here]] More importantly, I think it is necessary for everyone to /feel/ satisfied that the elections are fair to maintain faith in the system. Requiring IDs seems like an easy nod to that effect [1] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-electio...
- dragonwriter 5y ago> More importantly, I think it is necessary for everyone to /feel/ satisfied that the elections are fair. Requiring IDs seems like an easy nod to that effect Its obviously not, because lots of people think that it it is unfair in and of itself, and this feeling is buttressed by the fact that politicians pushing for specific versions of it keep getting caught admitting that their motives are more about stopping people that don't vote their way from voting than election security in the usual sense when they think they have a friendly audience.
- nverno 5y agoWhat do they think is unfair? The ID requirement? I get that, but the point was, let's make that not unfair. There isn't anything unfair about making elections more secure in itself. Both security and fairness are valid issues. If a politician is against either of these, it's a bad sign.
- mijowi 5y ago.1% sounds statistically insignificant to me
- KennyBlanken 5y ago.1% of the US population is 300,000+ people. That's not "insignificant" by any stretch and could easily sway an election given many of them come down to a handful of votes.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoThose people are distributed across the nation. If they were all in Columbus or Detroit you'd have an argument but in reality they're probably distributed roughly the same way the general population is. There are ~150k voting precincts in the US. 300k people across the nation is probably on the order of a dozen at the most effected precincts. Opening half an hour earlier and closing half an hour later would have a larger effect on ensuring people get to vote.
- elil17 5y agoThere’s this funny little thing called sample size…