3 ms·

> It sounds like their Election Commission takes their job very seriously. A key part of India's system is the Elector's Photo Identity Card (EPIC), required t

by topspin 9mo ago

> It sounds like their Election Commission takes their job very seriously. A key part of India's system is the Elector's Photo Identity Card (EPIC), required to cast ballots. Similar obligations are present wherever election integrity is taken seriously.

PaulDavisThe1st 9mo ago
> Similar obligations are present wherever election integrity is taken seriously. Asserted without evidence, and apparently quite likely to be an attempt to cast aspersions on "election integrity" in the USA and elsewhere.
slg 9mo ago
>Similar obligations are present wherever election integrity is taken seriously. The flip side is even more true. If someone is claiming they care about election integrity and isn't willing to pair that with funding of an equivalent ID system that is both free and easy for voters to acquire, they don't actually care about election integrity.
- mullingitover 9mo ago
  This needs to be said loudly from the rooftops. If your voter ID system isn’t 100% free and absolutely effortless for voters to obtain, it’s a badly disguised vote suppression scheme. It’s pretty much always a vote suppression scheme.
  - xp84 9mo ago
    I’d like to respectfully challenge you on this. There is no chance anyone can ever create an effortless-to-get ID. Even if it was like the census where they sent someone to your house repeatedly to try to find you, take your picture and print an ID on the spot, it wouldn’t be effortless because you might not know where your passport or birth certificate are. Some people probably are so badly organized and/or ignorant that they can’t manage making and keeping one single DMV appointment even once every 15 years so that they could get an ID (I think we can all agree that an “expired” ID would do fine, as long as the picture isn’t so out of date it can’t be verified). Anyway, it’s only those people who would be “disenfranchised” under a voter ID system and I’m not convinced our government would benefit from incorporating the opinions of someone so unserious. It’s ok that some things in life are reserved for people that have invested a tiny amount of effort once in their lives. There’s also not a free and effortless way to feed or bathe yourself. By the way, a state ID costs $15 in Mississippi and $9 for “eligible people” in California.
    - mullingitover 9mo ago
      > By the way, a state ID costs $15 in Mississippi and $9 for “eligible people” in California. If it costs a penny and is a requirement to vote, it is an unconstitutional poll tax.
      - greenie_beans 9mo ago
        for real. read one single american history book and you'll realize this is bad
    - slg 9mo ago
      >Anyway, it’s only those people who would be “disenfranchised” under a voter ID system and I’m not convinced our government would benefit from incorporating the opinions of someone so unserious I hate calling something a slippery slope, but I don't know how else to describe an argument that is fundamentally "Sure, it will disenfranchise people, but who cares about those people anyway?" Once you accept that people's rights can be taken away simply because protecting those rights is an inconvenience, then none of us actually have any protected rights.
      - mullingitover 9mo ago
        Exactly, a freedom you have to pay to access isn't a freedom. "If people can't get it together to pay a modest $9 fee for the 'don't get imprisoned forever' tax, who cares if they get throw into the forced labor camps?" Beyond this point: voting isn't just a freedom, it's a duty in a civilized democracy. We don't enforce it like Australia does, but anyone who not only doesn't care if it's performed, but is sanguine about it, isn't fully on board with government by the people.
        xp84 9mo ago
        Voting itself takes effort (even to vote stupidly, where you just vote a straight ticket blindly and pick all the judges and ballot props at random). Voting in a way that's good for society (meaning you read about the candidates and ballot props and actually think through their true implications) takes WAY more effort. Why is it so important that we enable people who can't be arsed to make more than a trivial effort at all to vote? There are already a bunch of arbitrary de facto restrictions: - If you can't read, you won't be able to use your ballot. - If you don't have transportation or any time off to vote, you can't vote in person. (Also the main objection given to requirements to get an ID card). - If you don't know where you'll be living consistently, mail-in voting is problematic. We accept that there will be people whose lives are so chaotic and messed up that voting probably won't be easy for them. So why is the requirement of identity proof, which is not more difficult to overcome than the above existing barriers, such a trigger to some? > anyone who not only doesn't care if it's performed, but is sanguine about it... My response is, anyone who cares so little about casting a vote that they wouldn't set aside time once in a decade to get an ID for the purpose of voting isn't fully on board with participating in government by the people -- and I'm totally fine with that. I also don't see the point in the Australian idea, especially since paying $20-50 is trivial for anyone who's not homeless, and uncollectible (moot point) if you are actually destitute. You're still getting basically the same set of people in the voting booth anyway -- only the ones who give a shit about voting.
creata 9mo ago
Australia, as far as I know, doesn't require voters to show identity documents, and they seem to take election integrity very seriously.
- KiwiJohnno 9mo ago
  We do not. Elections here are run very smoothly, with no questions whatsoever about their integrity.
  - ggm 9mo ago
    No un-answered serious questions. Serious questions are asked, regularly, as well as un-serious ones by cookers. But, the serious questions, the audit, the sense "did we do ok" is continuously asked. We have an independent electoral commission. I'm not saying its incapable of being reproachable, nothing is "beyond reproach" but I have yet to hear a serious, non-cooker accusation any political party has tried to stuff the electoral commission. What we don't have, (and I think should have) is capped party donations. I'm tired of the money aspect of who gets the most billboards. We also have silly bad behaviour emerging: People doing their billboards in the same style and colours as the electoral commission. Often in foreign language support roles, using words like (not a quote) YOU MUST VOTE FOR PARTY A LIKE THIS which I think is really trolling the voter badly.
    - degamad 9mo ago
      > but I have yet to hear a serious, non-cooker accusation any political party has tried to stuff the electoral commission. We do get occasional issues with individuals trying stuff, but the AEC is very good at calling it out or prosecuting it. It's strong enough that the parties don't try anything risky.

by topspin 9mo ago

PaulDavisThe1st 9mo ago

> Similar obligations are present wherever election integrity is taken seriously. Asserted without evidence, and apparently quite likely to be an attempt to cast aspersions on "election integrity" in the USA and elsewhere.

slg 9mo ago

>Similar obligations are present wherever election integrity is taken seriously. The flip side is even more true. If someone is claiming they care about election integrity and isn't willing to pair that with funding of an equivalent ID system that is both free and easy for voters to acquire, they don't actually care about election integrity.

mullingitover 9mo ago
This needs to be said loudly from the rooftops. If your voter ID system isn’t 100% free and absolutely effortless for voters to obtain, it’s a badly disguised vote suppression scheme. It’s pretty much always a vote suppression scheme.
- xp84 9mo ago
  I’d like to respectfully challenge you on this. There is no chance anyone can ever create an effortless-to-get ID. Even if it was like the census where they sent someone to your house repeatedly to try to find you, take your picture and print an ID on the spot, it wouldn’t be effortless because you might not know where your passport or birth certificate are. Some people probably are so badly organized and/or ignorant that they can’t manage making and keeping one single DMV appointment even once every 15 years so that they could get an ID (I think we can all agree that an “expired” ID would do fine, as long as the picture isn’t so out of date it can’t be verified). Anyway, it’s only those people who would be “disenfranchised” under a voter ID system and I’m not convinced our government would benefit from incorporating the opinions of someone so unserious. It’s ok that some things in life are reserved for people that have invested a tiny amount of effort once in their lives. There’s also not a free and effortless way to feed or bathe yourself. By the way, a state ID costs $15 in Mississippi and $9 for “eligible people” in California.
  - mullingitover 9mo ago
    > By the way, a state ID costs $15 in Mississippi and $9 for “eligible people” in California. If it costs a penny and is a requirement to vote, it is an unconstitutional poll tax.
    - greenie_beans 9mo ago
      for real. read one single american history book and you'll realize this is bad
  - slg 9mo ago
    >Anyway, it’s only those people who would be “disenfranchised” under a voter ID system and I’m not convinced our government would benefit from incorporating the opinions of someone so unserious I hate calling something a slippery slope, but I don't know how else to describe an argument that is fundamentally "Sure, it will disenfranchise people, but who cares about those people anyway?" Once you accept that people's rights can be taken away simply because protecting those rights is an inconvenience, then none of us actually have any protected rights.
    - mullingitover 9mo ago
      Exactly, a freedom you have to pay to access isn't a freedom. "If people can't get it together to pay a modest $9 fee for the 'don't get imprisoned forever' tax, who cares if they get throw into the forced labor camps?" Beyond this point: voting isn't just a freedom, it's a duty in a civilized democracy. We don't enforce it like Australia does, but anyone who not only doesn't care if it's performed, but is sanguine about it, isn't fully on board with government by the people.
      - xp84 9mo ago
        Voting itself takes effort (even to vote stupidly, where you just vote a straight ticket blindly and pick all the judges and ballot props at random). Voting in a way that's good for society (meaning you read about the candidates and ballot props and actually think through their true implications) takes WAY more effort. Why is it so important that we enable people who can't be arsed to make more than a trivial effort at all to vote? There are already a bunch of arbitrary de facto restrictions: - If you can't read, you won't be able to use your ballot. - If you don't have transportation or any time off to vote, you can't vote in person. (Also the main objection given to requirements to get an ID card). - If you don't know where you'll be living consistently, mail-in voting is problematic. We accept that there will be people whose lives are so chaotic and messed up that voting probably won't be easy for them. So why is the requirement of identity proof, which is not more difficult to overcome than the above existing barriers, such a trigger to some? > anyone who not only doesn't care if it's performed, but is sanguine about it... My response is, anyone who cares so little about casting a vote that they wouldn't set aside time once in a decade to get an ID for the purpose of voting isn't fully on board with participating in government by the people -- and I'm totally fine with that. I also don't see the point in the Australian idea, especially since paying $20-50 is trivial for anyone who's not homeless, and uncollectible (moot point) if you are actually destitute. You're still getting basically the same set of people in the voting booth anyway -- only the ones who give a shit about voting.

creata 9mo ago

Australia, as far as I know, doesn't require voters to show identity documents, and they seem to take election integrity very seriously.

KiwiJohnno 9mo ago
We do not. Elections here are run very smoothly, with no questions whatsoever about their integrity.
- ggm 9mo ago
  No un-answered serious questions. Serious questions are asked, regularly, as well as un-serious ones by cookers. But, the serious questions, the audit, the sense "did we do ok" is continuously asked. We have an independent electoral commission. I'm not saying its incapable of being reproachable, nothing is "beyond reproach" but I have yet to hear a serious, non-cooker accusation any political party has tried to stuff the electoral commission. What we don't have, (and I think should have) is capped party donations. I'm tired of the money aspect of who gets the most billboards. We also have silly bad behaviour emerging: People doing their billboards in the same style and colours as the electoral commission. Often in foreign language support roles, using words like (not a quote) YOU MUST VOTE FOR PARTY A LIKE THIS which I think is really trolling the voter badly.
  - degamad 9mo ago
    > but I have yet to hear a serious, non-cooker accusation any political party has tried to stuff the electoral commission. We do get occasional issues with individuals trying stuff, but the AEC is very good at calling it out or prosecuting it. It's strong enough that the parties don't try anything risky.