5 ms·

So, it's worth pointing out that it may not _just_ be about whether or not it's economical to get everyone in a room and giving them photo IDs. You mention it's

by hawkice 12y ago

So, it's worth pointing out that it may not _just_ be about whether or not it's economical to get everyone in a room and giving them photo IDs. You mention it's been politicized -- that's probably a large source of argument, as Red Team has to battle Blue Team and Blue Team has to battle Red Team. But I think there _is_ a principle at work here, even if it's far removed from the actual discussion. > Democrats argue that people who are poor, elderly, or disenfranchised are the least likely to have ID, which is true enough - for someone who doesn't have current ID renewing it can be a major inconvenience. But if they spent half the effort they put into complaining about voter ID requirements into actually assisting people to get ID, then the problem would go away. So, in the US we've historically had MAJOR issues with using voting prerequisite laws to disenfranchise people. Personally, I think having illiterate people decide who runs the country doesn't make the system work better -- but a system that uses that criterion to functionally deny people the vote... isn't great. I (personally, and I do NOT speak for all Americans) would not support a literacy test, despite it making object level sense, even if was accompanied by a program to boost literacy rates. This is why > But if they spent half the effort they put into complaining about voter ID requirements into actually assisting people to get ID, then the problem would go away. wouldn't end the discussion, even if it were true (turns out it's hard to actually round up a lot of the working poor, they're busy and in this specific case, the government doesn't know their address because they lack, wait for it, government issued ID).

anigbrowl 12y ago
I know all about the history of voter suppression. What I'm saying is that if Democrats can get people without photo ID registered to vote and get them to the polls, they could also help anyone lacking valid photo ID to get it (although this would be a bit more effort and require a long-term commitment rather than a short-term one that revolved around the electoral calendar). GOTV activists might be in a better position to assist people lacking valid ID than the individuals themselves. My basic point is that if the Democrats committed to ensuring that eligible voters had valid identification they would a) be doing many of the disenfranchised people a big favor that would have a positive impact on their lives in other contexts besides voting, and b) depriving the Republican party of an easy slur that they trot out every single electoral cycle, ie that Democrats are the party of electoral corruption. Photo ID requirements are not the most rational solution to the problem of illegal voting, but politics isn't a rational business.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "GOTV activists might be in a better position to assist people lacking valid ID than the individuals themselves." It would be quite a nice consequence of all this if it meant we found people an incentive to help their fellow citizen get their papers in order. It's a bit disheartening we have papers that need to be in order, but I'm not convinced it's meaningfully avoidable. I'm a bit worried that the incentives might wind up weird, though, in some way we're not anticipating.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I honestly don't think it could be worse. The incentives already seem quite weird to me - in Europe we don't typically have paid signature gatherers trying to petition people on the street and register them to vote. I find it very easy to see how people who are here illegally or who are here legally but not entitled to vote might end up being registered to vote by accident - I nearly (and criminally) registered to vote years ago while I was signing some innocuous-seeming petition to save whales or something like that in the middle of the street. At the time I hadn't been in the US very long, maybe a year? It was only because I'm the sort of pedant who reads the fine print on everything, even TV adverts, that I noticed the boilerplate text at the bottom of the form about how I would be breaking the law if registered to vote without being entitled. A lot of people just follow the instructions of the signature-gatherer, and those persons are a) paid by the number of people they sign up and b) not necessarily so well-informed that they realize the significance of the legal problems that illegal registration can cause for the registrant. It's a bit disheartening we have papers that need to be in order Agreed, and I don't think you should have to carry ID if you're not voting/driving/engaged in something which can materially impact others. But in a complex modern economy, government-as-ID-provider is about the nearest thing we have to a neutral honest broker, so I also agree it's unavoidable as a practical issue.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      It always could be worse; I didn't say I was significantly worried, I just think it's something to keep an eye on. Incentives are often surprising. I certainly agree that there are already some pretty screwy ones.

by hawkice 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago

I know all about the history of voter suppression. What I'm saying is that if Democrats can get people without photo ID registered to vote and get them to the polls, they could also help anyone lacking valid photo ID to get it (although this would be a bit more effort and require a long-term commitment rather than a short-term one that revolved around the electoral calendar). GOTV activists might be in a better position to assist people lacking valid ID than the individuals themselves. My basic point is that if the Democrats committed to ensuring that eligible voters had valid identification they would a) be doing many of the disenfranchised people a big favor that would have a positive impact on their lives in other contexts besides voting, and b) depriving the Republican party of an easy slur that they trot out every single electoral cycle, ie that Democrats are the party of electoral corruption. Photo ID requirements are not the most rational solution to the problem of illegal voting, but politics isn't a rational business.

dllthomas 12y ago
"GOTV activists might be in a better position to assist people lacking valid ID than the individuals themselves." It would be quite a nice consequence of all this if it meant we found people an incentive to help their fellow citizen get their papers in order. It's a bit disheartening we have papers that need to be in order, but I'm not convinced it's meaningfully avoidable. I'm a bit worried that the incentives might wind up weird, though, in some way we're not anticipating.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I honestly don't think it could be worse. The incentives already seem quite weird to me - in Europe we don't typically have paid signature gatherers trying to petition people on the street and register them to vote. I find it very easy to see how people who are here illegally or who are here legally but not entitled to vote might end up being registered to vote by accident - I nearly (and criminally) registered to vote years ago while I was signing some innocuous-seeming petition to save whales or something like that in the middle of the street. At the time I hadn't been in the US very long, maybe a year? It was only because I'm the sort of pedant who reads the fine print on everything, even TV adverts, that I noticed the boilerplate text at the bottom of the form about how I would be breaking the law if registered to vote without being entitled. A lot of people just follow the instructions of the signature-gatherer, and those persons are a) paid by the number of people they sign up and b) not necessarily so well-informed that they realize the significance of the legal problems that illegal registration can cause for the registrant. It's a bit disheartening we have papers that need to be in order Agreed, and I don't think you should have to carry ID if you're not voting/driving/engaged in something which can materially impact others. But in a complex modern economy, government-as-ID-provider is about the nearest thing we have to a neutral honest broker, so I also agree it's unavoidable as a practical issue.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    It always could be worse; I didn't say I was significantly worried, I just think it's something to keep an eye on. Incentives are often surprising. I certainly agree that there are already some pretty screwy ones.