3 ms·

The ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The match will inherent

The ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The match will inherently enumerate voters. Your outside assumptions that a) id requirements disenfranchise voters and b) official collusion is the “only way” are structurally and by evidence unfounded. In your argument they provide only hand-wavy service for an otherwise unsupported conclusion.

lmm 2y ago
> The ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. How does checking an ID ensure eligibility better than what's already done? And similarly for ballot casting - how would IDs make a better uniqueness/registration check than what we have? > a) id requirements disenfranchise voters and b) official collusion is the “only way” are structurally and by evidence unfounded It's well documented that many legitimate voters do not have IDs. And it's widely accepted that large-scale in-person voter fraud is not happening and there's no real plausible way for it to happen; if you want to claim that it is or it can, the onus is on you. > In your argument they provide only hand-wavy service for an otherwise unsupported conclusion. Please grow up. The over-the-top rhetoric doesn't make you more convincing, quite the opposite.
- the_optimist 2y ago
  There is little-to-zero validation or uniqueness check currently, and there are near-zero verifiable data points. We can count envelopes/ballots and eyeball signatures, and there is batch-level attachment between the two. Everything else is “trust me bro”-level security, relying on the assumption of a non-existent high-security environment. Papers referring to voter ID disenfranchisement rest almost entirely on address-field-correctness deficiency (people move), which is a minimal problem other fields requiring human resolution. To nurture your aside: People who achieve things identify the factual and structural nature of problems. Articulation is a scale factor. Good luck!
  - lmm 2y ago
    > There is little-to-zero validation or uniqueness check currently, and there are near-zero verifiable data points. We can count envelopes/ballots and eyeball signatures, and there is batch-level attachment between the two. Everything else is “trust me bro”-level security, relying on the assumption of a non-existent high-security environment. OK, and what is it that ID checking would change about this? > Papers referring to voter ID disenfranchisement rest almost entirely on address-field-correctness deficiency (people move) And? Supposing that's so, what difference does it make?
    - the_optimist 2y ago
      A) repeating: ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The inverse is true without ID: no insuring eligibility and no ensuring either registration or uniqueness. Because of these deficiencies, it is impossible to identify even the most basic forms of fraud. B) It’s administrative and readily-solved.
      - lmm 2y ago
        > ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The inverse is true without ID: no insuring eligibility and no ensuring either registration or uniqueness. So what is the concrete difference an ID check makes to the process, and what concrete attack does it prevent? You already get your name checked and crossed off the list, in a world with an ID check you would... get your name checked and crossed off the list? > It’s administrative and readily-solved. Then why hasn't it been?

lmm 2y ago

> The ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. How does checking an ID ensure eligibility better than what's already done? And similarly for ballot casting - how would IDs make a better uniqueness/registration check than what we have? > a) id requirements disenfranchise voters and b) official collusion is the “only way” are structurally and by evidence unfounded It's well documented that many legitimate voters do not have IDs. And it's widely accepted that large-scale in-person voter fraud is not happening and there's no real plausible way for it to happen; if you want to claim that it is or it can, the onus is on you. > In your argument they provide only hand-wavy service for an otherwise unsupported conclusion. Please grow up. The over-the-top rhetoric doesn't make you more convincing, quite the opposite.

the_optimist 2y ago
There is little-to-zero validation or uniqueness check currently, and there are near-zero verifiable data points. We can count envelopes/ballots and eyeball signatures, and there is batch-level attachment between the two. Everything else is “trust me bro”-level security, relying on the assumption of a non-existent high-security environment. Papers referring to voter ID disenfranchisement rest almost entirely on address-field-correctness deficiency (people move), which is a minimal problem other fields requiring human resolution. To nurture your aside: People who achieve things identify the factual and structural nature of problems. Articulation is a scale factor. Good luck!
- lmm 2y ago
  > There is little-to-zero validation or uniqueness check currently, and there are near-zero verifiable data points. We can count envelopes/ballots and eyeball signatures, and there is batch-level attachment between the two. Everything else is “trust me bro”-level security, relying on the assumption of a non-existent high-security environment. OK, and what is it that ID checking would change about this? > Papers referring to voter ID disenfranchisement rest almost entirely on address-field-correctness deficiency (people move) And? Supposing that's so, what difference does it make?
  - the_optimist 2y ago
    A) repeating: ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The inverse is true without ID: no insuring eligibility and no ensuring either registration or uniqueness. Because of these deficiencies, it is impossible to identify even the most basic forms of fraud. B) It’s administrative and readily-solved.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The inverse is true without ID: no insuring eligibility and no ensuring either registration or uniqueness. So what is the concrete difference an ID check makes to the process, and what concrete attack does it prevent? You already get your name checked and crossed off the list, in a world with an ID check you would... get your name checked and crossed off the list? > It’s administrative and readily-solved. Then why hasn't it been?