11 ms·

Why are people honestly against ID requirements for voting? Pretty much every democracy in the world has this. Europeans need to show ID to vote.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Because there is no mandated form of ID in the USA (and it was fought against for decades by conservatives claiming it represented unwarranted overreach by the state). As a result, actually obtaining some form of ID that might be acceptable (the forms vary mostly depending on the political party that writes the rules) can present a significant challenge to some voters, and for some of us, that is an anathema (the right to vote being sacred, certainly compared with the right to drive for example). Introduced a national ID that the government is OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE for every person, and many of the arguments against it would go away. Currently, no state in the US, nor the federal government, has such a form of ID.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Voting is a state concern. It doesn't matter that there is no Federal standard. Every state that has Voter ID will have some form of acceptable ID card that you can get, even if you don't drive.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I said "government" and mentioned both state and federal. The point is that there is no ID required in any state. Voter ID cards are not the obligation of the government to provide - voters much take the steps to procure them. The right to vote precedes and predates such a requirement - if the state wants to impose it, that's fine but it should come with the obligation upon the state government to provide the ID, not a requirement to procure it.
  - acdha 5y ago
    And getting that will cost money, often requires traveling non-trivial distances (note the demographics of the areas where state offices are opened or closed, and viability of public transit), and requires proof of residency / identity which can be hard for some people to satisfy (there are plenty of people who’ve hit issues about things like maiden names, being able to prove continuous proof of residence when they e.g. weren’t on a lease or other legal document, etc.). I still think ID is good but it really needs to be paired with a robust improvement in making the system of getting ID work better. If we’re requiring it, the government should be required to provide it for free and meet a legal standard of proof for denial.
- ars 5y ago
  Elections are local not national, so why would you need a national ID? You can use a State ID for a local election, and each election can have their own requirements about it, matching whatever the local ID in use there is.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    There is no mandated form of ID in any state. How can you require people to have something to vote that is not required for any other purpose, at least if the government is not required to provide it?
    - simplestats 5y ago
      Isn't that effectively the same argument though? In practice states provide ID's to everyone who can prove residency. Forcing states to grant ID's to everyone who asks for it is the same as forcing them to allow anyone to vote without ID's, just with an extra step.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        You don't "force states to grant IDs to everyone who asks for it". You force states to issue IDs to all legal voters. States do not "provide IDs" to anyone - you are required to fill out paperwork, potentially travel and more. In nations that do in fact have a national ID, everyone gets one, with little or no effort (certainly no need to travel), and if you wanted to mark the card "non-voting" that wouldn't be a big step. Your right to vote is established by the US Constitution. A state can't burden that right. If a state wants to add an ID requirement, that's fine, but getting the ID must present no burden to any voter. In reality, the conundrum here is entirely of conservatives' own making. On the one hand, they (non-exclusively) are adamantly against automatically issued national or even state IDs. On the other, they want to require ID for voting (ascribe whatever reason to this you want). You can't fulfill both these desires without violating the constitutional right to vote.
        5y ago
johncessna 5y ago
> Why are people honestly against ID requirements for voting? I think a better question is why folks are against ID requirements but are for vaccine passports and photo ids to buy cigarettes, booze, get into rated R movies, drive, or fly.
- distrill 5y ago
  really? you can't imagine how buying booze is any different from voting?
  - abakker 5y ago
    I can't tell if you are suggesting that the standards for alcohol be higher than for voting or not? Because currently they are.
    - distrill 5y ago
      they're not higher. the federal government doesn't even care how old you are, let alone where you live or whether you are who you say you are. those standards are all locally mandated and locally enforced.
      - schumpeter 5y ago
        Sort of... The federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act[1], showing they did care. Although they don't directly enforce drinking age mins, the carrot and the stick approach was used. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...
        distrill 5y ago
        i'm aware of this and you're talking past the point i made. federal restrictions are stricter on voting than they are on alcohol.
distrill 5y ago
Literally everything is a partisan issue including the voting ID. The general argument against it is that proposed valid IDs are not free to obtain, and this would equate to a voting tax which is forbidden in the constitution.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Definitely a partisan issue, but if we look through the fog - why not find the root cause of this argument and make IDs free? It can be done by the states. We can send COVID tests to every American. I am sure issueing IDs (in control of States) would be possible. This way, you can strike down the arguments about the entire Democracy hinging on fake voting and "lost the election" BS. Give Republicans what they want. I don't see any issue with it. Also Democrats need to calm down and realize that it is not that unreasonable to ask people for IDs to avoid duplicate voting. It is not anti-democratic and definitely not doing anything helpful by calling people that want IDs fascists. Election integrity should be so good that it shouldn't have gaping holes like not having a fricking ID.
  - Aloha 5y ago
    Rational arguments get lost in the partisan noise. For what its worth, the federal government could make passports (or passport cards) free for every citizen, which would solve the ID requirement. It's something that can be done by presidential fiat even, no laws required, that doesnt solve the issue that the underlying document needed to get any ID cost money, but its a start.
    - Karunamon 5y ago
      They are either completely or almost completely free to get in states already. The usual argument then swaps to how much of a pain in the ass it is to source ID documents and show up in person at the DMV or similar.
      - Aloha 5y ago
        http://sharedprosperityphila.org/documents/Revised-ID-Waiver-Appendices-5.15.15.pdf http://sharedprosperityphila.org/documents/Revised-ID-Waiver... While this is from 2015, this does not appear to be true. Those who do have a free ID, require a time consuming waiver process. Free needs to mean free, "not fill out this stack of paperwork and we'll send it off to the state capitol and see if it'll get approved" Means testing is expensive and time consuming.
Aloha 5y ago
Because we make getting an ID cost money, and make it difficult for poor people. If you live in a rural place, or are poor, getting an ID is hard, it costs money to get the underlying proof of identity, then costs time (which is money) to get the ID itself, because you often must travel vast distances to the office that issues photo ID's. If we solved the issuance problem, so everyone could get a free copy birth certificate and made passports free (which can be obtained via an appointment at most post offices), then this problem would be easily solved, and my objections to voter ID would pretty much instantly fall away. That said, as a former polling place worker, the amount of voter fraud is.. vastly overstated, its a basically non-existent problem, and is mostly an issue of people making good faith mistakes. However, if it makes folks feel better, its a societal good to get everyone some form of free and easy photo ID, so for me its a two birds with one stone policy, I'll give on this issue, to get the other one solved. The issue is conservatives seem hell bent on passing voter ID laws without doing enough (or sometimes anything) to solve the (ID) supply side of the equation.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Make IDs free. These are all weasle arguments for not attempting to improve and gives ammunition to Republicans to question election integrity (even though it didn't stand up in the courts).
  - Aloha 5y ago
    I'm 100% with you man, I think its a net social good to give everyone a free ID, while I think voter ID not needed as a policy, once everyone has an ID it causes little if any harm. I'm generally opposed to anything that smacks of 'papers please', thats my personal root of opposition, but its very weak, and if someone promised a policy that gave everyone a free passport but mandated voter ID requirements, I would gladly show up and vote for them.
  - malnourish 5y ago
    Make IDs free _and_ do not tie them to an address. The address requirement needlessly disenfranchises some 500k people from a litany of opportunities.
vmception 5y ago
This reminds me of how my stances on almost anything are circumstantial to the government they apply to. I remember when Mitt Romney got blasted for being against Federal involvement in healthcare while having signed state level legislation for the same thing when he was Governor of Massachusetts. I saw that it was seen as controversial politician hypocrisy but I noticed that it matches my ability to compartmentalize topics. (note: I don't have an opinion on the actual issue of that event and don't care, only noticed I could just as easily look at the circumstances for one jurisdiction and like an outcome, while being against the same outcome in another jurisdiction) That ability was tested when one time I was stopped by border police on a train into Germany or Austria. They just did a check scan of my passport. Some residents on the train thought it was embarrassing for their country that it could be "so unwelcoming" to foreigners, but myself and some other foreigners from different places were pretty enamored. This doesn't translate to my stance on US checks based on appearance, or ID requirements in the US or political affiliation or anything. Only reason I write it is because I wonder if there are other people like me, because I can't tell.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  There are a great many things that I’m in favor of local or state governments having the power/standing to do and opposed to the federal government having the same power/involvement. It’s the entire reason for the Tenth Amendment, which for my taste should be interpreted much more strictly rather than treating it with the same level of function as your appendix.
Volundr 5y ago
In my case, because the USA does not have a national ID, and this disenfranchises anyone who is unwilling to pay to get said state ID, or does not have the means to get to an office. I have yet to meet anyone advocating for ID to vote who actually wants to address these by both making said ID free for all Americans and paying for the programs necessary to ensure that every American has easy access to get one. This means everything from busing programs to opening new offices in areas that don't have one to putting people on the street to collect the necessary forms and make sure the homeless get them. Then also making sure you find a way to ensure that the disabled, elderly, or just people who can't kill two hours standing in line have an easy way to vote. Most instead seem to treat that disenfranchisement as acceptable even desired. Truly address the issue of not everyone having an ID and universal access to easy voting (I'm not aware of any lawmakers proposing Voter ID laws attempting to do so) and my objections go away. Then you'll only have to deal with the folks who are against requiring everyone have ID because they worry about turning us into a "Papers Please" kind of society.
- anticensor 5y ago
  > In my case, because the USA does not have a national ID, Solution: Make the USA passport card free and compulsory.
  - mike_d 5y ago
    You can make it free, but you can't make it compulsory. While the constitution allows for a national ID scheme in the sense of making a card and issuing it, actually using it for anything would be near impossible. https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&context=expresso https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&con...
    - anticensor 5y ago
      There is the Bank ID formula to work around that, at least for the nation state checks: "The Identity Card belongs to the Union, and each Citizen of the Union is obligated to use it as specified in this section of the Code, as enforced by the President of the Union."
malnourish 5y ago
There are many people who do not have a stable address, something which is needed to apply for and receive an ID. Why should those citizens be deprived their right to vote?
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  An address determines which district you are eligible to vote in. The citizen still has a right to vote but where is a legitimate question because it determines which ballot they receive.
  - malnourish 5y ago
    Address verification is orthogonal to identity verification.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      But both are needed to cast a vote, no?
mbg721 5y ago
No one wants illiterate voters either, but literacy tests are unlawful for historical reasons. It's a metagame about voter eligibility and fraud.
- erehweb 5y ago
  Illiterate people deserve the right to vote too.
nsxwolf 5y ago
I always figure the parties hire consultants that tell them how changes to election laws will affect turnout. If it works in their favor, they'll push for it. You're not going to support something that hurts your side, even if the change may be a good idea in and of itself.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  It’s a little disingenuous to paint this as “both parties are only motivated by what would help them get more votes” if one of those parties advocates policies to increase voter participation and the other advocates policies to decrease it.
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    Why would anyone try to increase voter participation in general unless they knew it would increase the votes for their side?
    - WesternWind 5y ago
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      The hope would be that there is a strong institutional desire for peaceful transitions of power after open elections, and institutional opposition to anyone advocating otherwise. Historically some governments have had such institutions to various extents. It’s kinda the same answer to the question “why wouldn’t each side use unrestrained organized violence to attempt to hold and increase their power?”
  - max49 5y ago
    >one of those parties advocates policies to increase voter participation The argument could be made that they are also intentionally making it easier to cheat during the election. These complex issues are never black and white.
erehweb 5y ago
In the U.S. context, Black people were deliberately deprived of the right to vote for most of the country's history via seemingly-neutral requirements that were designed to stop their participation. Voter ID as proposed is an attempt to re-introduce one of these requirements.
- 0xcde4c3db 5y ago
  > seemingly-neutral requirements that were designed to stop their participation This is notably the origin of the term "grandfather clause", although its current meaning is subtly different from the original sense. The 15th Amendment made it illegal for states to deny the right to vote directly on the basis of race, so instead they imposed new poll taxes and "literacy tests" (which were not designed as true tests, but rather as instruments to allow poll workers to arbitrarily "pass" and "fail" would-be voters), while exempting those whose grandfathers were eligible to vote before a specific date.
WesternWind 5y ago
pessimizer 5y ago
> Why are people honestly against ID requirements for voting? It's mostly a fake issue to cast the administration as pro-democracy and the opposition as anti-democracy. There's no doubt that poor people sometimes find it very tough to obtain ID, and that voter ID laws benefit Republicans by a few percentage points, but Republican positions on voter ID are less to get those points than to paint themselves as the guardians of democracy against an imaginary secret cabal who are secretly manipulating elections with armies of minorities and illegal immigrants. They're both playing the same game to different voter bases. If Democrats seriously cared, they could simply create facilities with the stroke of a pen that would reach out to every voter and help them to obtain ID. Instead they're loudly pushing bills they don't have the votes to pass as a campaign tactic. It's astounding that under the same administration that is fighting for the right to vote without ID, facial recognition is going to be required to file your taxes. Taxes you only have to file because of Intuit lobbyists. What else would you expect from a government that ran on being covid rationalists but has taken a year to figure out that they should be sending people masks and tests if they want people to be wearing masks and taking tests?
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  > There's no doubt that poor people sometimes find it very tough to obtain ID Perhaps this is the case, and perhaps not, but I'd like to examine this premise closer. Has anybody provided even a single example of a US Citizen who was trying to figure out how to obtain some ID and couldn't figure out the process?
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    > Has anybody provided even a single example of a US Citizen who was trying to figure out how to obtain some ID and couldn't figure out the process? Not an US citizen, but a Texas resident. It's not only that the process is painfully complex. For instance, homeless people who don't legally own a gun or can drive a car, are effectively excluded. Same goes for students whose bills are still attached to their families, would have a hard time proving their residence status. If one can go pass this step, providing proof of identity is equally complicated [1]. It's amusing that some of the accepted documents are even harder and way more expensive to obtain, like a passport. Not having a social security number makes the whole process almost impossible to complete. Point is, this shouldn't be this complicated and time consuming. Someone with low income and working two or more jobs, would have a hard time going through the process. [1] https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/identification-requirements https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/identificat...
zzzeek 5y ago
because the IDs themselves are only issued by states and are intentionally withheld from demographic groups that the states would like to prevent from voting in large numbers.
daveoc64 5y ago
The UK government has proposed making photo ID mandatory for voting (currently it's only needed in Northern Ireland), and it's been controversial for similar reasons to the USA. The legislation is currently progressing through parliament. The Government's research shows that 2% of the UK population doesn't have any form of photo ID, and up to 9% of the population don't have a valid photo ID (i.e. one that would be recognised for voting purposes and has not expired). [0] The idea that 9% of the population would need to go through additional processes and costs to retain the right to vote is concerning to many. There's no ID card scheme in the UK, so people typically rely on a driving licence or passport in day to day life. These both have requirements people may not be able to meet (e.g. health conditions may prohibit a driving licence being obtained), and can be expensive. Fortunately, the UK government has announced plans for a free voter ID card to be made available to anyone without another form of ID. It then comes down to a cost/risk analysis. The UK government estimates it could cost something like £18 million per year to implement the photo ID requirement. If the types of fraud that would be prevented by asking for ID are miniscule (33 allegations of voter impersonation were made in 2019 out of 50 million votes cast) and so many people don't have ID - is it worth that cost? [0] - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984918/Photographic_ID_research-_headline_findings_report.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
cavisne 5y ago
No one really is, it has majority support from both sides of politics. Because it would be a change in the system it's used as a wedge by politicians. Additionally they know that it's harder to get out of the vote among left leaning voters, so any extra requirement would be risky in swing states. Democrat strongholds (ie Delaware) already have voter ID.
logicalmonster 5y ago
> Why are people honestly against ID requirements for voting? Whether this idea is accurate or not is up for the reader to judge, but there's a perception in America that one of the major parties (not naming names) needs to have as many mechanisms in place to be able to cheat as possible in order to win elections. Personally, all I'd like to know at this time is if there's any legal citizens out there who who cannot find out how to procure identification.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Because there is no mandated form of ID in the USA (and it was fought against for decades by conservatives claiming it represented unwarranted overreach by the state). As a result, actually obtaining some form of ID that might be acceptable (the forms vary mostly depending on the political party that writes the rules) can present a significant challenge to some voters, and for some of us, that is an anathema (the right to vote being sacred, certainly compared with the right to drive for example). Introduced a national ID that the government is OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE for every person, and many of the arguments against it would go away. Currently, no state in the US, nor the federal government, has such a form of ID.

throwawayboise 5y ago
Voting is a state concern. It doesn't matter that there is no Federal standard. Every state that has Voter ID will have some form of acceptable ID card that you can get, even if you don't drive.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I said "government" and mentioned both state and federal. The point is that there is no ID required in any state. Voter ID cards are not the obligation of the government to provide - voters much take the steps to procure them. The right to vote precedes and predates such a requirement - if the state wants to impose it, that's fine but it should come with the obligation upon the state government to provide the ID, not a requirement to procure it.
- acdha 5y ago
  And getting that will cost money, often requires traveling non-trivial distances (note the demographics of the areas where state offices are opened or closed, and viability of public transit), and requires proof of residency / identity which can be hard for some people to satisfy (there are plenty of people who’ve hit issues about things like maiden names, being able to prove continuous proof of residence when they e.g. weren’t on a lease or other legal document, etc.). I still think ID is good but it really needs to be paired with a robust improvement in making the system of getting ID work better. If we’re requiring it, the government should be required to provide it for free and meet a legal standard of proof for denial.
ars 5y ago
Elections are local not national, so why would you need a national ID? You can use a State ID for a local election, and each election can have their own requirements about it, matching whatever the local ID in use there is.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  There is no mandated form of ID in any state. How can you require people to have something to vote that is not required for any other purpose, at least if the government is not required to provide it?
  - simplestats 5y ago
    Isn't that effectively the same argument though? In practice states provide ID's to everyone who can prove residency. Forcing states to grant ID's to everyone who asks for it is the same as forcing them to allow anyone to vote without ID's, just with an extra step.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      You don't "force states to grant IDs to everyone who asks for it". You force states to issue IDs to all legal voters. States do not "provide IDs" to anyone - you are required to fill out paperwork, potentially travel and more. In nations that do in fact have a national ID, everyone gets one, with little or no effort (certainly no need to travel), and if you wanted to mark the card "non-voting" that wouldn't be a big step. Your right to vote is established by the US Constitution. A state can't burden that right. If a state wants to add an ID requirement, that's fine, but getting the ID must present no burden to any voter. In reality, the conundrum here is entirely of conservatives' own making. On the one hand, they (non-exclusively) are adamantly against automatically issued national or even state IDs. On the other, they want to require ID for voting (ascribe whatever reason to this you want). You can't fulfill both these desires without violating the constitutional right to vote.
      - 5y ago

johncessna 5y ago

> Why are people honestly against ID requirements for voting? I think a better question is why folks are against ID requirements but are for vaccine passports and photo ids to buy cigarettes, booze, get into rated R movies, drive, or fly.

distrill 5y ago
really? you can't imagine how buying booze is any different from voting?
- abakker 5y ago
  I can't tell if you are suggesting that the standards for alcohol be higher than for voting or not? Because currently they are.
  - distrill 5y ago
    they're not higher. the federal government doesn't even care how old you are, let alone where you live or whether you are who you say you are. those standards are all locally mandated and locally enforced.
    - schumpeter 5y ago
      Sort of... The federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act[1], showing they did care. Although they don't directly enforce drinking age mins, the carrot and the stick approach was used. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...
      - distrill 5y ago
        i'm aware of this and you're talking past the point i made. federal restrictions are stricter on voting than they are on alcohol.

distrill 5y ago

Literally everything is a partisan issue including the voting ID. The general argument against it is that proposed valid IDs are not free to obtain, and this would equate to a voting tax which is forbidden in the constitution.

systemvoltage 5y ago
Definitely a partisan issue, but if we look through the fog - why not find the root cause of this argument and make IDs free? It can be done by the states. We can send COVID tests to every American. I am sure issueing IDs (in control of States) would be possible. This way, you can strike down the arguments about the entire Democracy hinging on fake voting and "lost the election" BS. Give Republicans what they want. I don't see any issue with it. Also Democrats need to calm down and realize that it is not that unreasonable to ask people for IDs to avoid duplicate voting. It is not anti-democratic and definitely not doing anything helpful by calling people that want IDs fascists. Election integrity should be so good that it shouldn't have gaping holes like not having a fricking ID.
- Aloha 5y ago
  Rational arguments get lost in the partisan noise. For what its worth, the federal government could make passports (or passport cards) free for every citizen, which would solve the ID requirement. It's something that can be done by presidential fiat even, no laws required, that doesnt solve the issue that the underlying document needed to get any ID cost money, but its a start.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    They are either completely or almost completely free to get in states already. The usual argument then swaps to how much of a pain in the ass it is to source ID documents and show up in person at the DMV or similar.
    - Aloha 5y ago
      http://sharedprosperityphila.org/documents/Revised-ID-Waiver-Appendices-5.15.15.pdf http://sharedprosperityphila.org/documents/Revised-ID-Waiver... While this is from 2015, this does not appear to be true. Those who do have a free ID, require a time consuming waiver process. Free needs to mean free, "not fill out this stack of paperwork and we'll send it off to the state capitol and see if it'll get approved" Means testing is expensive and time consuming.

Aloha 5y ago

Because we make getting an ID cost money, and make it difficult for poor people. If you live in a rural place, or are poor, getting an ID is hard, it costs money to get the underlying proof of identity, then costs time (which is money) to get the ID itself, because you often must travel vast distances to the office that issues photo ID's. If we solved the issuance problem, so everyone could get a free copy birth certificate and made passports free (which can be obtained via an appointment at most post offices), then this problem would be easily solved, and my objections to voter ID would pretty much instantly fall away. That said, as a former polling place worker, the amount of voter fraud is.. vastly overstated, its a basically non-existent problem, and is mostly an issue of people making good faith mistakes. However, if it makes folks feel better, its a societal good to get everyone some form of free and easy photo ID, so for me its a two birds with one stone policy, I'll give on this issue, to get the other one solved. The issue is conservatives seem hell bent on passing voter ID laws without doing enough (or sometimes anything) to solve the (ID) supply side of the equation.

systemvoltage 5y ago
Make IDs free. These are all weasle arguments for not attempting to improve and gives ammunition to Republicans to question election integrity (even though it didn't stand up in the courts).
- Aloha 5y ago
  I'm 100% with you man, I think its a net social good to give everyone a free ID, while I think voter ID not needed as a policy, once everyone has an ID it causes little if any harm. I'm generally opposed to anything that smacks of 'papers please', thats my personal root of opposition, but its very weak, and if someone promised a policy that gave everyone a free passport but mandated voter ID requirements, I would gladly show up and vote for them.
- malnourish 5y ago
  Make IDs free _and_ do not tie them to an address. The address requirement needlessly disenfranchises some 500k people from a litany of opportunities.

vmception 5y ago

This reminds me of how my stances on almost anything are circumstantial to the government they apply to. I remember when Mitt Romney got blasted for being against Federal involvement in healthcare while having signed state level legislation for the same thing when he was Governor of Massachusetts. I saw that it was seen as controversial politician hypocrisy but I noticed that it matches my ability to compartmentalize topics. (note: I don't have an opinion on the actual issue of that event and don't care, only noticed I could just as easily look at the circumstances for one jurisdiction and like an outcome, while being against the same outcome in another jurisdiction) That ability was tested when one time I was stopped by border police on a train into Germany or Austria. They just did a check scan of my passport. Some residents on the train thought it was embarrassing for their country that it could be "so unwelcoming" to foreigners, but myself and some other foreigners from different places were pretty enamored. This doesn't translate to my stance on US checks based on appearance, or ID requirements in the US or political affiliation or anything. Only reason I write it is because I wonder if there are other people like me, because I can't tell.

sokoloff 5y ago
There are a great many things that I’m in favor of local or state governments having the power/standing to do and opposed to the federal government having the same power/involvement. It’s the entire reason for the Tenth Amendment, which for my taste should be interpreted much more strictly rather than treating it with the same level of function as your appendix.

Volundr 5y ago

In my case, because the USA does not have a national ID, and this disenfranchises anyone who is unwilling to pay to get said state ID, or does not have the means to get to an office. I have yet to meet anyone advocating for ID to vote who actually wants to address these by both making said ID free for all Americans and paying for the programs necessary to ensure that every American has easy access to get one. This means everything from busing programs to opening new offices in areas that don't have one to putting people on the street to collect the necessary forms and make sure the homeless get them. Then also making sure you find a way to ensure that the disabled, elderly, or just people who can't kill two hours standing in line have an easy way to vote. Most instead seem to treat that disenfranchisement as acceptable even desired. Truly address the issue of not everyone having an ID and universal access to easy voting (I'm not aware of any lawmakers proposing Voter ID laws attempting to do so) and my objections go away. Then you'll only have to deal with the folks who are against requiring everyone have ID because they worry about turning us into a "Papers Please" kind of society.

anticensor 5y ago
> In my case, because the USA does not have a national ID, Solution: Make the USA passport card free and compulsory.
- mike_d 5y ago
  You can make it free, but you can't make it compulsory. While the constitution allows for a national ID scheme in the sense of making a card and issuing it, actually using it for anything would be near impossible. https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&context=expresso https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&con...
  - anticensor 5y ago
    There is the Bank ID formula to work around that, at least for the nation state checks: "The Identity Card belongs to the Union, and each Citizen of the Union is obligated to use it as specified in this section of the Code, as enforced by the President of the Union."

malnourish 5y ago

There are many people who do not have a stable address, something which is needed to apply for and receive an ID. Why should those citizens be deprived their right to vote?

BitwiseFool 5y ago
An address determines which district you are eligible to vote in. The citizen still has a right to vote but where is a legitimate question because it determines which ballot they receive.
- malnourish 5y ago
  Address verification is orthogonal to identity verification.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    But both are needed to cast a vote, no?

mbg721 5y ago

No one wants illiterate voters either, but literacy tests are unlawful for historical reasons. It's a metagame about voter eligibility and fraud.

erehweb 5y ago
Illiterate people deserve the right to vote too.

nsxwolf 5y ago

I always figure the parties hire consultants that tell them how changes to election laws will affect turnout. If it works in their favor, they'll push for it. You're not going to support something that hurts your side, even if the change may be a good idea in and of itself.

tshaddox 5y ago
It’s a little disingenuous to paint this as “both parties are only motivated by what would help them get more votes” if one of those parties advocates policies to increase voter participation and the other advocates policies to decrease it.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  Why would anyone try to increase voter participation in general unless they knew it would increase the votes for their side?
  - WesternWind 5y ago
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    The hope would be that there is a strong institutional desire for peaceful transitions of power after open elections, and institutional opposition to anyone advocating otherwise. Historically some governments have had such institutions to various extents. It’s kinda the same answer to the question “why wouldn’t each side use unrestrained organized violence to attempt to hold and increase their power?”
- max49 5y ago
  >one of those parties advocates policies to increase voter participation The argument could be made that they are also intentionally making it easier to cheat during the election. These complex issues are never black and white.

erehweb 5y ago

In the U.S. context, Black people were deliberately deprived of the right to vote for most of the country's history via seemingly-neutral requirements that were designed to stop their participation. Voter ID as proposed is an attempt to re-introduce one of these requirements.

0xcde4c3db 5y ago
> seemingly-neutral requirements that were designed to stop their participation This is notably the origin of the term "grandfather clause", although its current meaning is subtly different from the original sense. The 15th Amendment made it illegal for states to deny the right to vote directly on the basis of race, so instead they imposed new poll taxes and "literacy tests" (which were not designed as true tests, but rather as instruments to allow poll workers to arbitrarily "pass" and "fail" would-be voters), while exempting those whose grandfathers were eligible to vote before a specific date.

WesternWind 5y ago

pessimizer 5y ago

> Why are people honestly against ID requirements for voting? It's mostly a fake issue to cast the administration as pro-democracy and the opposition as anti-democracy. There's no doubt that poor people sometimes find it very tough to obtain ID, and that voter ID laws benefit Republicans by a few percentage points, but Republican positions on voter ID are less to get those points than to paint themselves as the guardians of democracy against an imaginary secret cabal who are secretly manipulating elections with armies of minorities and illegal immigrants. They're both playing the same game to different voter bases. If Democrats seriously cared, they could simply create facilities with the stroke of a pen that would reach out to every voter and help them to obtain ID. Instead they're loudly pushing bills they don't have the votes to pass as a campaign tactic. It's astounding that under the same administration that is fighting for the right to vote without ID, facial recognition is going to be required to file your taxes. Taxes you only have to file because of Intuit lobbyists. What else would you expect from a government that ran on being covid rationalists but has taken a year to figure out that they should be sending people masks and tests if they want people to be wearing masks and taking tests?

logicalmonster 5y ago
> There's no doubt that poor people sometimes find it very tough to obtain ID Perhaps this is the case, and perhaps not, but I'd like to examine this premise closer. Has anybody provided even a single example of a US Citizen who was trying to figure out how to obtain some ID and couldn't figure out the process?
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  > Has anybody provided even a single example of a US Citizen who was trying to figure out how to obtain some ID and couldn't figure out the process? Not an US citizen, but a Texas resident. It's not only that the process is painfully complex. For instance, homeless people who don't legally own a gun or can drive a car, are effectively excluded. Same goes for students whose bills are still attached to their families, would have a hard time proving their residence status. If one can go pass this step, providing proof of identity is equally complicated [1]. It's amusing that some of the accepted documents are even harder and way more expensive to obtain, like a passport. Not having a social security number makes the whole process almost impossible to complete. Point is, this shouldn't be this complicated and time consuming. Someone with low income and working two or more jobs, would have a hard time going through the process. [1] https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/identification-requirements https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/identificat...

zzzeek 5y ago

because the IDs themselves are only issued by states and are intentionally withheld from demographic groups that the states would like to prevent from voting in large numbers.

daveoc64 5y ago

The UK government has proposed making photo ID mandatory for voting (currently it's only needed in Northern Ireland), and it's been controversial for similar reasons to the USA. The legislation is currently progressing through parliament. The Government's research shows that 2% of the UK population doesn't have any form of photo ID, and up to 9% of the population don't have a valid photo ID (i.e. one that would be recognised for voting purposes and has not expired). [0] The idea that 9% of the population would need to go through additional processes and costs to retain the right to vote is concerning to many. There's no ID card scheme in the UK, so people typically rely on a driving licence or passport in day to day life. These both have requirements people may not be able to meet (e.g. health conditions may prohibit a driving licence being obtained), and can be expensive. Fortunately, the UK government has announced plans for a free voter ID card to be made available to anyone without another form of ID. It then comes down to a cost/risk analysis. The UK government estimates it could cost something like £18 million per year to implement the photo ID requirement. If the types of fraud that would be prevented by asking for ID are miniscule (33 allegations of voter impersonation were made in 2019 out of 50 million votes cast) and so many people don't have ID - is it worth that cost? [0] - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984918/Photographic_ID_research-_headline_findings_report.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

cavisne 5y ago

No one really is, it has majority support from both sides of politics. Because it would be a change in the system it's used as a wedge by politicians. Additionally they know that it's harder to get out of the vote among left leaning voters, so any extra requirement would be risky in swing states. Democrat strongholds (ie Delaware) already have voter ID.

logicalmonster 5y ago

> Why are people honestly against ID requirements for voting? Whether this idea is accurate or not is up for the reader to judge, but there's a perception in America that one of the major parties (not naming names) needs to have as many mechanisms in place to be able to cheat as possible in order to win elections. Personally, all I'd like to know at this time is if there's any legal citizens out there who who cannot find out how to procure identification.