8 ms·

Gavin Newsom Bans California from Requiring ID to Vote

19 points by mgh2 2y ago

TacticalCoder 2y ago
This gives an idea to the extent to which they plan to cheat.
- slater 2y ago
  OK but what about the Democrats?
- mgh2 2y ago
  Not sure why this is downvoted unless evidence is presented for an otherwise plausible intent. Ex: a party buying millions of votes from the undocumented
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > party buying millions of votes from the undocumented Voter rolls are public. Undocumented voters being added to the rolls is trivially detectable. Hell, a separate-the-dumb-from-their-money non-profit idea may be in raising money to repeatedly do this. Because voter fraud conspiracies are like string theory: it can’t be falsified.
    - mgh2 2y ago
      But who is going to correct or challenge the results after the fact?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > who is going to correct or challenge the results after the fact? The campaigns, usually. More recently, rando non-profits that milk the conspiratorially minded to run bogus audits.
        mgh2 2y ago
        Introducing provable distrust in the system is probably the beginning on the collapse of US democracy
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > provable distrust in the system is probably the beginning on the collapse of US democracy We had no photo ID when the U.S. was founded. This is a problem of mental health, education and educational mistrust (partly legitimate, a result of our elites mismanaging the economy). Voter ID won’t fix the problem.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
proc0 2y ago
There were a couple times when I forgot to register after moving to different county, like in SF one time, and I was given a provisional ballot, no questions asked. I showed ID for them to check if I had registered, but I guess now that is not required, so literally anyone can walk in and vote with provisional ballots. I'm willing to bet that if this move did not favor Democrats, like for example if millions of Taiwanese people migrated to CA, and they happen to be more conservative leaning, that this kind of law would have never passed. Voting may be a right, but securing elections is arguably more important, because without secure elections your vote does not matter! CA is looking more and more like China, in that there is a one party rule, and you cannot speak against it.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > literally anyone can walk in and vote with provisional ballots You don't think the state can figure out if you exist? Just making up a name won't get your vote counted. And if you vote twice, that is also easily detected. Or if you vote in someone else's name. It's popular to claim how easy election fraud is, but the checks and balances aren't nearly that easy to overcome. Maybe what we need is better education about how the voting system actually functions.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Or if you vote in someone else's name To be fair, this isn’t difficult. Voter rolls are public. We usually think of likely voters, but it’s also possible to identify likely non-voters. But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - edanm 2y ago
      > But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID. Buying a fake ID is orders of magnitude more difficult than looking up a name and using it when voting, isn't it? And it's only a scant risk-reward balance if voting individually. If something organized and can send 10k-20k votes, that can tip plenty of elections IIRC.
486sx33 2y ago
Seriously? Only citizens can vote Being a citizen is very important, yet we make it illegal to verify that? What’s the big deal? You need ID to get a darn library card or to drive a car, get a loan, buy a home … but not to vote? Has the world gone completely crazy ?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What’s the big deal? One, it’s an identity politic issue. Two, these laws don’t prevent voter fraud. And three, we know they suppress turnout among certain populations—plenty of people have expired driver’s licenses and IDs. Collecting the paperwork and paying the fees can be prohibitive. Our Constitution guarantees the vote to every adult citizen, not just those who are organised or can pay the fee. > You need ID to get a darn library card or to drive a car, get a loan, buy a home … but not to vote? I never had to show ID to buy my home or get my mortgage.
  - willcipriano 2y ago
    > Constitution guarantees the vote to every adult citizen, not just those who are organised or can pay the fee. > we know they suppress turnout among certain populations The constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms, wouldn't requiring ID in that case also suppress certain populations exercise of that right?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms, wouldn't requiring ID in that case also suppress certain populations exercise of that right? One, the meaning of that phrase is much more ambiguous than the right to vote. Two, you can buy a gun without ID at a gun show.
      - sickofparadox 2y ago
        "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is as unambiguous as "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwaway657656 2y ago
"I don't have an ID because I have no job, no bank account, no need to drive or fly anywhere. I am not a parent or guardian, I don't pay taxes, I have no attachments to society... I am basically the most irresponsible person I know, but when it comes to elections, I'm a patriotic citizen and I VOTE!". Am I straw-manning with this made-up quote ? Who exactly is this law trying to protect. The liberal knee-jerk response regarding election security is "when has that ever happened before?". Do they seriously not know security doesn't work that way. Enough already! Hand conservatives an olive-branch and unite on election security. Or be complicit in making Jan 6th the new normal.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Who exactly is this law trying to protect We have evidence voter ID laws suppress minority turnout [1]. Plenty of people are disorganised or poor enough that they don’t consistently have unexpired ID. There are arguments for voter ID laws. But dismissing the evidence against them isn’t honest. > making Jan 6th the new normal Agree that we need stronger stomachs when prosecuting and punishing treason—our Constitution is unambiguous about its consequences. (As is history about the normalisation of violence as a political tool. Ironically, it never ends well for anyone except the rich and powerful.) [1] http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/voter-identification-laws-and-suppression-minority-votes http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/voter-identification-laws-and-...
- Timon3 2y ago
  > Hand conservatives an olive-branch and unite on election security. Or be complicit in making Jan 6th the new normal. Why don't conservatives try it the other way around? They could alleviate the concerns of the other side by first making sure everyone gets access to free, fast and easy ID. Once everyone has one, voter ID laws can be introduced. But it's the same story as with the ACA repeal and other initiatives - the first step must always be the one that coincidentally aligns with their goals, while any further steps must happen only after the first step was taken (and it just so happens they can completely block anything else due to legislative gridlock). Repeal first, bring a replacement later. Voter ID now, broad equal access to ID later.
edanm 2y ago
This is one of those things that just seems super-weird from an "outsider-to-the-US" point of view. I understand why this has become a partisan issue, and I understand that by now, any move anyone makes on this point has actual political ramifications. Add ID requirements, you are in practice depressing turnout, etc. Still, requiring IDs to vote just seems to make prima facie sense. Of course you want to (visibly) make sure that people are voting legally! That's a pretty important part of democracy. I understand that in practice, few cases of voter fraud are detected, and that in practice there are all sorts of mechanisms in place to make sure people aren't taking advantage. This just seems like something that both parties should be able to join together on and fix in a way that makes everyone happy, something that requires a technical solution. Not more handwaving at the problem and partisan bickering.
- moonka 2y ago
  >Still, requiring IDs to vote just seems to make prima facie sense. Of course you want to (visibly) make sure that people are voting legally! That's a pretty important part of democracy. I understand that in practice, few cases of voter fraud are detected, and that in practice there are all sorts of mechanisms in place to make sure people aren't taking advantage. In a vacuum absolutely. But in this country we have a rich history of voter suppression. And requiring IDs is a way to do that in practice (as you mention). So it becomes a matter of balancing what would be the ideal (everyone has an id easily, and we can thus require it for voting) to the reality (requiring it will lead to a magnitude more people wrongly disenfranchised than fraud prevented).
  - edanm 2y ago
    Yeah. That's why a technical solution makes sense - like a ten year plan to get everyone a valid id that they will be able to use in the future, or something like that.
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    Yep. And before ID requirements, it was the poll taxes. Like robbing a bank, the penalties for fraudulently voting are so extreme (52 USC 20511) that no sane person should dare to entertain it. As such, it's simpler and encourages exercising of voting rights to lower bureaucratic barriers now to figure out paperwork and credentials later.

19 points by mgh2 2y ago

TacticalCoder 2y ago

This gives an idea to the extent to which they plan to cheat.

slater 2y ago
OK but what about the Democrats?
mgh2 2y ago
Not sure why this is downvoted unless evidence is presented for an otherwise plausible intent. Ex: a party buying millions of votes from the undocumented
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > party buying millions of votes from the undocumented Voter rolls are public. Undocumented voters being added to the rolls is trivially detectable. Hell, a separate-the-dumb-from-their-money non-profit idea may be in raising money to repeatedly do this. Because voter fraud conspiracies are like string theory: it can’t be falsified.
  - mgh2 2y ago
    But who is going to correct or challenge the results after the fact?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > who is going to correct or challenge the results after the fact? The campaigns, usually. More recently, rando non-profits that milk the conspiratorially minded to run bogus audits.
      - mgh2 2y ago
        Introducing provable distrust in the system is probably the beginning on the collapse of US democracy
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > provable distrust in the system is probably the beginning on the collapse of US democracy We had no photo ID when the U.S. was founded. This is a problem of mental health, education and educational mistrust (partly legitimate, a result of our elites mismanaging the economy). Voter ID won’t fix the problem.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

proc0 2y ago

There were a couple times when I forgot to register after moving to different county, like in SF one time, and I was given a provisional ballot, no questions asked. I showed ID for them to check if I had registered, but I guess now that is not required, so literally anyone can walk in and vote with provisional ballots. I'm willing to bet that if this move did not favor Democrats, like for example if millions of Taiwanese people migrated to CA, and they happen to be more conservative leaning, that this kind of law would have never passed. Voting may be a right, but securing elections is arguably more important, because without secure elections your vote does not matter! CA is looking more and more like China, in that there is a one party rule, and you cannot speak against it.

rootusrootus 2y ago
> literally anyone can walk in and vote with provisional ballots You don't think the state can figure out if you exist? Just making up a name won't get your vote counted. And if you vote twice, that is also easily detected. Or if you vote in someone else's name. It's popular to claim how easy election fraud is, but the checks and balances aren't nearly that easy to overcome. Maybe what we need is better education about how the voting system actually functions.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Or if you vote in someone else's name To be fair, this isn’t difficult. Voter rolls are public. We usually think of likely voters, but it’s also possible to identify likely non-voters. But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - edanm 2y ago
    > But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID. Buying a fake ID is orders of magnitude more difficult than looking up a name and using it when voting, isn't it? And it's only a scant risk-reward balance if voting individually. If something organized and can send 10k-20k votes, that can tip plenty of elections IIRC.

486sx33 2y ago

Seriously? Only citizens can vote Being a citizen is very important, yet we make it illegal to verify that? What’s the big deal? You need ID to get a darn library card or to drive a car, get a loan, buy a home … but not to vote? Has the world gone completely crazy ?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> What’s the big deal? One, it’s an identity politic issue. Two, these laws don’t prevent voter fraud. And three, we know they suppress turnout among certain populations—plenty of people have expired driver’s licenses and IDs. Collecting the paperwork and paying the fees can be prohibitive. Our Constitution guarantees the vote to every adult citizen, not just those who are organised or can pay the fee. > You need ID to get a darn library card or to drive a car, get a loan, buy a home … but not to vote? I never had to show ID to buy my home or get my mortgage.
- willcipriano 2y ago
  > Constitution guarantees the vote to every adult citizen, not just those who are organised or can pay the fee. > we know they suppress turnout among certain populations The constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms, wouldn't requiring ID in that case also suppress certain populations exercise of that right?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms, wouldn't requiring ID in that case also suppress certain populations exercise of that right? One, the meaning of that phrase is much more ambiguous than the right to vote. Two, you can buy a gun without ID at a gun show.
    - sickofparadox 2y ago
      "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is as unambiguous as "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

throwaway657656 2y ago

"I don't have an ID because I have no job, no bank account, no need to drive or fly anywhere. I am not a parent or guardian, I don't pay taxes, I have no attachments to society... I am basically the most irresponsible person I know, but when it comes to elections, I'm a patriotic citizen and I VOTE!". Am I straw-manning with this made-up quote ? Who exactly is this law trying to protect. The liberal knee-jerk response regarding election security is "when has that ever happened before?". Do they seriously not know security doesn't work that way. Enough already! Hand conservatives an olive-branch and unite on election security. Or be complicit in making Jan 6th the new normal.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Who exactly is this law trying to protect We have evidence voter ID laws suppress minority turnout [1]. Plenty of people are disorganised or poor enough that they don’t consistently have unexpired ID. There are arguments for voter ID laws. But dismissing the evidence against them isn’t honest. > making Jan 6th the new normal Agree that we need stronger stomachs when prosecuting and punishing treason—our Constitution is unambiguous about its consequences. (As is history about the normalisation of violence as a political tool. Ironically, it never ends well for anyone except the rich and powerful.) [1] http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/voter-identification-laws-and-suppression-minority-votes http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/voter-identification-laws-and-...
Timon3 2y ago
> Hand conservatives an olive-branch and unite on election security. Or be complicit in making Jan 6th the new normal. Why don't conservatives try it the other way around? They could alleviate the concerns of the other side by first making sure everyone gets access to free, fast and easy ID. Once everyone has one, voter ID laws can be introduced. But it's the same story as with the ACA repeal and other initiatives - the first step must always be the one that coincidentally aligns with their goals, while any further steps must happen only after the first step was taken (and it just so happens they can completely block anything else due to legislative gridlock). Repeal first, bring a replacement later. Voter ID now, broad equal access to ID later.

edanm 2y ago

This is one of those things that just seems super-weird from an "outsider-to-the-US" point of view. I understand why this has become a partisan issue, and I understand that by now, any move anyone makes on this point has actual political ramifications. Add ID requirements, you are in practice depressing turnout, etc. Still, requiring IDs to vote just seems to make prima facie sense. Of course you want to (visibly) make sure that people are voting legally! That's a pretty important part of democracy. I understand that in practice, few cases of voter fraud are detected, and that in practice there are all sorts of mechanisms in place to make sure people aren't taking advantage. This just seems like something that both parties should be able to join together on and fix in a way that makes everyone happy, something that requires a technical solution. Not more handwaving at the problem and partisan bickering.

moonka 2y ago
>Still, requiring IDs to vote just seems to make prima facie sense. Of course you want to (visibly) make sure that people are voting legally! That's a pretty important part of democracy. I understand that in practice, few cases of voter fraud are detected, and that in practice there are all sorts of mechanisms in place to make sure people aren't taking advantage. In a vacuum absolutely. But in this country we have a rich history of voter suppression. And requiring IDs is a way to do that in practice (as you mention). So it becomes a matter of balancing what would be the ideal (everyone has an id easily, and we can thus require it for voting) to the reality (requiring it will lead to a magnitude more people wrongly disenfranchised than fraud prevented).
- edanm 2y ago
  Yeah. That's why a technical solution makes sense - like a ten year plan to get everyone a valid id that they will be able to use in the future, or something like that.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  Yep. And before ID requirements, it was the poll taxes. Like robbing a bank, the penalties for fraudulently voting are so extreme (52 USC 20511) that no sane person should dare to entertain it. As such, it's simpler and encourages exercising of voting rights to lower bureaucratic barriers now to figure out paperwork and credentials later.