4 ms·

> Honestly, when I first heard how US handles voting I couldn't believe how open to abuse it is. In a way, I'm surprised that election integrity hasn't been que

> Honestly, when I first heard how US handles voting I couldn't believe how open to abuse it is. In a way, I'm surprised that election integrity hasn't been questioned sooner. I'm surprised why voter ID has become such a partisan issue, specifically how intense the Democratic opposition to it has been. It's a sensible policy and it seems the concerns about "[X] not having ID" should be addressed by solving the problems preventing [X] from getting an ID. I mean it shouldn't be too hard: setup some government agency to help people with the bureaucratic labor around confirming identity and send people akin to census takers around to onboard people into the ID-getting process.

Invictus0 5y ago
It's simple: election margins are super slim right now, and Democrats are concerned that some sliver of their base--people too poor or busy or whatever to get an ID--will be disenfranchised as a result.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > It's simple: election margins are super slim right now, and Democrats are concerned that some sliver of their base--people too poor or busy or whatever to get an ID--will be disenfranchised as a result. Which I tried to directly address in my comment (at least the busy part, and the too poor part can easily be addressed by having the agency I proposed pay the fees for the ID). It's a solvable problem, and solving it seems like it would be clearly in the public interest (for way more reasons than just voting).
  - JAlexoid 5y ago
    All you have to do is shut down a DMV in a poor neighborhood - and viola - you just have indirectly reduced the number of people without photo IDs.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > All you have to do is shut down a DMV in a poor neighborhood - and viola - you just have indirectly reduced the number of people without photo IDs. I was imagining having an agency with people like a census-takers who would come to your home and handle whatever in-person stuff was necessary, which would make DMV locations a non-issue.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
The very same party that is pushing voter ID also generally opposes measures that would ensure that every voter has ID. The goal isn't election integrity, but rather to shift the outcome marginally in one direction, based on the demographics of who does and does not have ID.
depaya 5y ago
You're absolutely right, however it's an issue because the people fighting for requiring ID are not also fighting to get IDs to everyone (or in some cases they actively fighting against that by closing DMV locations in certain areas... and are generally just making it harder). This cannot be a case of Require IDs first, deal with the repercussions later. These steps MUST be taken together or not at all. It also becomes partisan when you look at the IDs that are considered acceptable in some places. - Hunting license: Allowed - College Student ID: Not Allowed Hmm, I wonder if the demographics of those populations might have affected that decision somehow...
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > This cannot be a case of Require IDs first, deal with the repercussions later. These steps MUST be taken together or not at all. And that would make sense. However the impression I get is that Democrats aren't doing that, instead they just oppose voter ID tooth and nail. It would make way more sense for them to support voter ID with the condition that the ID-access issue must be solved. That would even have political benefits for them because it would make it a lot harder for the Republicans to capitalize on the issue.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    Politically you may be right. As a piece of policy, it's a solution in search of a problem. Even in places like the UK (which have ID-free voting) personation is essentially a non-problem. Literally a handful of votes a year. If you want to try to influence election results you don't do it at retail, with a high chance of getting caught and low returns, you do something systematic: the present government's drive to redraw boundaries and discourage the 'wrong kind' of voters, perhaps, which will end up being legal but which is deeply scummy, or the kind of skulduggery seen in Erlam v Rahman[0]. Given that any kind of ID requirement is likely to reduce the number of votes (some proportion will lose or forget their ID even if you literally issue IDs to every single eligible person) the ultimate question is this: how many valid votes are you prepared to lose in order to prevent each invalid one? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_v_Rahman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_v_Rahman
exfascist 5y ago
In reality X (who are actually citizens, part of the issue with statistics is that people have been playing games with the border and 1/10 X are not from here now which actually does disproportionately affect X but no one wants to talk about it since it's not popular (or part of the common PR.)) tends to have an ID and the suggestion that it's difficult for them is a little condescending.
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  It's statistics, government policy and literally the words of people who enacted these laws. UK doesn't require photo ID to vote as well. No mail-in voting has provisions for photo ID, as well.
JAlexoid 5y ago
I don't believe that there's a problem with requiring a photo ID per se(other than paranoid people, who don't want government IDs at all). The primary issue is that the photo IDs are not easily accessible(time and money) in US. So Voter ID laws, without provisions to make them more accessible, are suppressive towards people who don't have resources to spare on the IDs.
- pif 5y ago
  > other than paranoid people, who don't want government IDs at all If you don't trust elected officials a priori, you have no place in a voting booth.
  - JAlexoid 5y ago
    Those paranoid people don't really vote. So it doesn't matter.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    I take issue with you saying who does and doesn't belong in a voting booth, but maybe that's just phrasing on your part. You're not supposed to trust officials. That's why there are cameras and observers. Of course, mail voting implies a lot more trust, which is why some don't want it.
- xdennis 5y ago
  > The primary issue is that the photo IDs are not easily accessible(time and money) in US. Isn't that pretty much a myth? The vast majority of people have a photo ID and many states which require one also give one for free. The only onerous impediment is that you have to go get one.
gmac 5y ago
It's not automatically a sensible policy. You have to decide how much you care about some people who have the right to vote not getting to vote, vs some people managing to vote illegitimately. Which side you come down on will probably depend a lot on how many people you think will be in each group. The Conservative government is proposing to bring in voter ID in the UK [1]. But there's no evidence at all that voter fraud is a problem here. So this policy effectively disenfranchises millions of people for zero benefit. But, of course, more Conservative voters have the required forms of ID (passport, driving licence). It will therefore help swing elections the government's way. It is absolutely corrupt. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/04/millions-in-uk-face-disenfranchisement-under-voter-id-plans https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/04/millions-in...
cm2187 5y ago
I think any action by one party has become a polarising issue for the other party, there hardly seems to be any exception on either side. The reason I think the dems “some people have no ID” argument is disingenuous is that it is democratic states that made ID checks mandatory as part of vaccine mandates to access all sort of facilities. No concern about racial or social discrimination then.
tzs 5y ago
> I'm surprised why voter ID has become such a partisan issue, specifically how intense the Democratic opposition to it has been. It's a sensible policy and it seems the concerns about "[X] not having ID" should be addressed by solving the problems preventing [X] from getting an ID It's a partisan issue for three reasons. 1. The party that is enacting these voter ID laws in almost all cases is at the same time enacting changes to make it harder for those who do not already have a suitable ID to get one. If these laws also did as you suggest and addressed the problem of getting ID there would be much less objection. Typical methods include reducing the number of places you can go to get IDs (with most of the reductions coming in areas that typically vote for the other party), reducing the number of days and the number of hours on those days that those places issue IDs so that to get an ID you have to come in on a work day during work hours, accepting many forms of ID carefully that happens to include things people who vote for them are more likely to have (i.e., state issued hunting licenses) and excluding ID that people who vote for the other party are more likely to have (i.e., state issue college ID). I forgot which state it was, but in one if you took the list something like a dozen acceptable IDs and sorted it descending by the probability that a black person in that state already had that ID, all the acceptable ones were in the top of the list. The legislative committee that made the acceptable ID was known to have had that data when they made that list, which makes it rather hard to believe that it was not a coincidence that the ones black people were more likely to have did not make the cut. 2. These are almost always accompanied by non-ID voting changes that also make it harder to vote even if you have the correct ID, and these changes almost always massively disproportionately affect people who tend to vote for the other party. E.g., restricting voting hours, in particular getting rid of early voting on the weekend before election day. Decreasing the number of places to vote or the number of places you can drop off ballots. 3. This is not addressing an actual problem. Every attempt to show that there is any non-trivial amount of incorrect voting has failed to find any. #3 in itself is not bad. Just because it is not a problem now doesn't mean it can't become a problem in the future so getting ahead and getting it in place now could be sensible, but when combined with #1 and #2 it is clear that ID is being enacted not to increase election security but as a form of voter suppression.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  I understand all that. My question is more: why don't the Democrats parry the attack it to their advantage? Instead they seem to have chosen to just get smashed in the face, over and over on this. It just makes them look hapless and dumb.

Invictus0 5y ago

It's simple: election margins are super slim right now, and Democrats are concerned that some sliver of their base--people too poor or busy or whatever to get an ID--will be disenfranchised as a result.

tablespoon 5y ago
> It's simple: election margins are super slim right now, and Democrats are concerned that some sliver of their base--people too poor or busy or whatever to get an ID--will be disenfranchised as a result. Which I tried to directly address in my comment (at least the busy part, and the too poor part can easily be addressed by having the agency I proposed pay the fees for the ID). It's a solvable problem, and solving it seems like it would be clearly in the public interest (for way more reasons than just voting).
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  All you have to do is shut down a DMV in a poor neighborhood - and viola - you just have indirectly reduced the number of people without photo IDs.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > All you have to do is shut down a DMV in a poor neighborhood - and viola - you just have indirectly reduced the number of people without photo IDs. I was imagining having an agency with people like a census-takers who would come to your home and handle whatever in-person stuff was necessary, which would make DMV locations a non-issue.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

The very same party that is pushing voter ID also generally opposes measures that would ensure that every voter has ID. The goal isn't election integrity, but rather to shift the outcome marginally in one direction, based on the demographics of who does and does not have ID.

depaya 5y ago

You're absolutely right, however it's an issue because the people fighting for requiring ID are not also fighting to get IDs to everyone (or in some cases they actively fighting against that by closing DMV locations in certain areas... and are generally just making it harder). This cannot be a case of Require IDs first, deal with the repercussions later. These steps MUST be taken together or not at all. It also becomes partisan when you look at the IDs that are considered acceptable in some places. - Hunting license: Allowed - College Student ID: Not Allowed Hmm, I wonder if the demographics of those populations might have affected that decision somehow...

tablespoon 5y ago
> This cannot be a case of Require IDs first, deal with the repercussions later. These steps MUST be taken together or not at all. And that would make sense. However the impression I get is that Democrats aren't doing that, instead they just oppose voter ID tooth and nail. It would make way more sense for them to support voter ID with the condition that the ID-access issue must be solved. That would even have political benefits for them because it would make it a lot harder for the Republicans to capitalize on the issue.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  Politically you may be right. As a piece of policy, it's a solution in search of a problem. Even in places like the UK (which have ID-free voting) personation is essentially a non-problem. Literally a handful of votes a year. If you want to try to influence election results you don't do it at retail, with a high chance of getting caught and low returns, you do something systematic: the present government's drive to redraw boundaries and discourage the 'wrong kind' of voters, perhaps, which will end up being legal but which is deeply scummy, or the kind of skulduggery seen in Erlam v Rahman[0]. Given that any kind of ID requirement is likely to reduce the number of votes (some proportion will lose or forget their ID even if you literally issue IDs to every single eligible person) the ultimate question is this: how many valid votes are you prepared to lose in order to prevent each invalid one? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_v_Rahman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_v_Rahman

exfascist 5y ago

In reality X (who are actually citizens, part of the issue with statistics is that people have been playing games with the border and 1/10 X are not from here now which actually does disproportionately affect X but no one wants to talk about it since it's not popular (or part of the common PR.)) tends to have an ID and the suggestion that it's difficult for them is a little condescending.

JAlexoid 5y ago
It's statistics, government policy and literally the words of people who enacted these laws. UK doesn't require photo ID to vote as well. No mail-in voting has provisions for photo ID, as well.

JAlexoid 5y ago

I don't believe that there's a problem with requiring a photo ID per se(other than paranoid people, who don't want government IDs at all). The primary issue is that the photo IDs are not easily accessible(time and money) in US. So Voter ID laws, without provisions to make them more accessible, are suppressive towards people who don't have resources to spare on the IDs.

pif 5y ago
> other than paranoid people, who don't want government IDs at all If you don't trust elected officials a priori, you have no place in a voting booth.
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  Those paranoid people don't really vote. So it doesn't matter.
- xdennis 5y ago
  I take issue with you saying who does and doesn't belong in a voting booth, but maybe that's just phrasing on your part. You're not supposed to trust officials. That's why there are cameras and observers. Of course, mail voting implies a lot more trust, which is why some don't want it.
xdennis 5y ago
> The primary issue is that the photo IDs are not easily accessible(time and money) in US. Isn't that pretty much a myth? The vast majority of people have a photo ID and many states which require one also give one for free. The only onerous impediment is that you have to go get one.

gmac 5y ago

It's not automatically a sensible policy. You have to decide how much you care about some people who have the right to vote not getting to vote, vs some people managing to vote illegitimately. Which side you come down on will probably depend a lot on how many people you think will be in each group. The Conservative government is proposing to bring in voter ID in the UK [1]. But there's no evidence at all that voter fraud is a problem here. So this policy effectively disenfranchises millions of people for zero benefit. But, of course, more Conservative voters have the required forms of ID (passport, driving licence). It will therefore help swing elections the government's way. It is absolutely corrupt. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/04/millions-in-uk-face-disenfranchisement-under-voter-id-plans https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/04/millions-in...

cm2187 5y ago

I think any action by one party has become a polarising issue for the other party, there hardly seems to be any exception on either side. The reason I think the dems “some people have no ID” argument is disingenuous is that it is democratic states that made ID checks mandatory as part of vaccine mandates to access all sort of facilities. No concern about racial or social discrimination then.

tzs 5y ago

> I'm surprised why voter ID has become such a partisan issue, specifically how intense the Democratic opposition to it has been. It's a sensible policy and it seems the concerns about "[X] not having ID" should be addressed by solving the problems preventing [X] from getting an ID It's a partisan issue for three reasons. 1. The party that is enacting these voter ID laws in almost all cases is at the same time enacting changes to make it harder for those who do not already have a suitable ID to get one. If these laws also did as you suggest and addressed the problem of getting ID there would be much less objection. Typical methods include reducing the number of places you can go to get IDs (with most of the reductions coming in areas that typically vote for the other party), reducing the number of days and the number of hours on those days that those places issue IDs so that to get an ID you have to come in on a work day during work hours, accepting many forms of ID carefully that happens to include things people who vote for them are more likely to have (i.e., state issued hunting licenses) and excluding ID that people who vote for the other party are more likely to have (i.e., state issue college ID). I forgot which state it was, but in one if you took the list something like a dozen acceptable IDs and sorted it descending by the probability that a black person in that state already had that ID, all the acceptable ones were in the top of the list. The legislative committee that made the acceptable ID was known to have had that data when they made that list, which makes it rather hard to believe that it was not a coincidence that the ones black people were more likely to have did not make the cut. 2. These are almost always accompanied by non-ID voting changes that also make it harder to vote even if you have the correct ID, and these changes almost always massively disproportionately affect people who tend to vote for the other party. E.g., restricting voting hours, in particular getting rid of early voting on the weekend before election day. Decreasing the number of places to vote or the number of places you can drop off ballots. 3. This is not addressing an actual problem. Every attempt to show that there is any non-trivial amount of incorrect voting has failed to find any. #3 in itself is not bad. Just because it is not a problem now doesn't mean it can't become a problem in the future so getting ahead and getting it in place now could be sensible, but when combined with #1 and #2 it is clear that ID is being enacted not to increase election security but as a form of voter suppression.

tablespoon 5y ago
I understand all that. My question is more: why don't the Democrats parry the attack it to their advantage? Instead they seem to have chosen to just get smashed in the face, over and over on this. It just makes them look hapless and dumb.