4 ms·

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 un

by 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.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> seems like something that both parties should be able to join together on and fix in a way that makes everyone happy The groups that want voter ID laws also tend to oppose national IDs or free ID renewal.
- edanm 2y ago
  It seems to me that both groups are arguing for what is better for them, i.e. in a partisan way. Instead of any group trying to decide "what should actually be done" and trying to make that happen. Since the topic of discussion is pretty important and fundamental, that just seems nuts to me. (Though I'm not an expert on the current system or any proposal for fixing it. I'm mostly working off the rhetoric I tend to hear.)
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > seems to me that both groups are arguing for what is better for them Yup. Which will make how these groups’ positions change amid the racial depolarisation of American partisan politics [1] super interesting. [1] https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-128-paths-to-the-white-house https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-128-paths-to-the-white-hous...

by edanm 2y ago

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.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> seems like something that both parties should be able to join together on and fix in a way that makes everyone happy The groups that want voter ID laws also tend to oppose national IDs or free ID renewal.

edanm 2y ago
It seems to me that both groups are arguing for what is better for them, i.e. in a partisan way. Instead of any group trying to decide "what should actually be done" and trying to make that happen. Since the topic of discussion is pretty important and fundamental, that just seems nuts to me. (Though I'm not an expert on the current system or any proposal for fixing it. I'm mostly working off the rhetoric I tend to hear.)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > seems to me that both groups are arguing for what is better for them Yup. Which will make how these groups’ positions change amid the racial depolarisation of American partisan politics [1] super interesting. [1] https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-128-paths-to-the-white-house https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-128-paths-to-the-white-hous...