3 ms·

drive by opinions aren't really helpful, we're talking about the technical voting machines, not election policy

by ezfe 1y ago

whimsicalism 1y ago
I think it is obviously on topic for this article specifically highlighting this problem and doubt I'm being downvoted due to some neutral criterion separating 'machine' from 'policy'. > See, the SAVE Act got a lot of attention in the media because it will take away eligible Americans’ ability to vote because it requires in-person registration with specific documentary proof of citizenship (like a passport or State ID + birth certificate) that millions of citizens lack. State ID alone is not enough. 47 states don’t print “U.S. citizen” anywhere on them.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  No, it’s a rabbit hole argument that appeals to people who are ignorant of the reality of identity or are fine with disenfranchising people. Given the context that the federal government is currently rounding up US persons and detaining or exiling them without due process, it’s a doubly asinine argument.
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    this is much more “argument by free association” than anything i said. i simply said we should have a national ID. the current per-state system is a mess and laughable from the rest of the world
    - Spooky23 1y ago
      The system is such that there are 6,000 jurisdictions issuing ~20,000 types of birth certificates in the United States. It's a bonkers system, and relying on these breadcrumbs for a fundamental right is awful. For 80% of people, national ID is a no brainer. The other 20% are the issue, and it's a problem that won't be solved in this framework of government in the US.
      - whimsicalism 1y ago
        seems like we should hire 1k software engineers and assign 20 birth certificate types to schema standardize and ingest to each
        Spooky23 1y ago
        We pretty much have those already. The long-term issue is that it's seen as a "states rights" issue and both the more extreme left and right wing political players are against ID for different reasons. With specific relevance to voting, what happens to the exceptions? 1% of the US population is 3.5M people. Birth certificate provenance and lack of procedure at birth is only one source of exception. Other examples: - elderly people who lose access to records - children whose parents fail to secure documents. - non-custodial parents who refuse to provide documents to their children - women whose names change from marriage/divorce - native americans whose tribal papers - minors who cannot get required identity documents because their social security card is lost and onerous to replace. (requires in-person appearance and takes 9-24 months) Voting is a fundamental right. You can establish with high certainty the identity of a individual using easy to obtain proofs. The number of non-citizens voting illegally is a tiny number. This whole controversy is about suppressing the votes of the poor and infirm, as denying their rights has a clear ROI to one of the political parties.

drive by opinions aren't really helpful, we're talking about the technical voting machines, not election policy

by ezfe 1y ago

drive by opinions aren't really helpful, we're talking about the technical voting machines, not election policy

I think it is obviously on topic for this article specifically highlighting this problem and doubt I'm being downvoted due to some neutral criterion separating 'machine' from 'policy'. > See, the SAVE Act got a lot of attention in the media because it will take away eligible Americans’ ability to vote because it requires in-person registration with specific documentary proof of citizenship (like a passport or State ID + birth certificate) that millions of citizens lack. State ID alone is not enough. 47 states don’t print “U.S. citizen” anywhere on them.

Spooky23 1y ago
No, it’s a rabbit hole argument that appeals to people who are ignorant of the reality of identity or are fine with disenfranchising people. Given the context that the federal government is currently rounding up US persons and detaining or exiling them without due process, it’s a doubly asinine argument.
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  this is much more “argument by free association” than anything i said. i simply said we should have a national ID. the current per-state system is a mess and laughable from the rest of the world
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    The system is such that there are 6,000 jurisdictions issuing ~20,000 types of birth certificates in the United States. It's a bonkers system, and relying on these breadcrumbs for a fundamental right is awful. For 80% of people, national ID is a no brainer. The other 20% are the issue, and it's a problem that won't be solved in this framework of government in the US.
    - whimsicalism 1y ago
      seems like we should hire 1k software engineers and assign 20 birth certificate types to schema standardize and ingest to each
      - Spooky23 1y ago
        We pretty much have those already. The long-term issue is that it's seen as a "states rights" issue and both the more extreme left and right wing political players are against ID for different reasons. With specific relevance to voting, what happens to the exceptions? 1% of the US population is 3.5M people. Birth certificate provenance and lack of procedure at birth is only one source of exception. Other examples: - elderly people who lose access to records - children whose parents fail to secure documents. - non-custodial parents who refuse to provide documents to their children - women whose names change from marriage/divorce - native americans whose tribal papers - minors who cannot get required identity documents because their social security card is lost and onerous to replace. (requires in-person appearance and takes 9-24 months) Voting is a fundamental right. You can establish with high certainty the identity of a individual using easy to obtain proofs. The number of non-citizens voting illegally is a tiny number. This whole controversy is about suppressing the votes of the poor and infirm, as denying their rights has a clear ROI to one of the political parties.