3 ms·

> In passing (which I should have mentioned earlier) Remember that voter ID laws only tackle one type of potential fraud: I go to the polls and impersonate some

> In passing (which I should have mentioned earlier) Remember that voter ID laws only tackle one type of potential fraud: I go to the polls and impersonate someone else. is incorrect. It can also act as proof that someone who registered without being entitled to vote did in fact vote. That shouldn't be "in passing" - that's the whole thrust of your argument! It's also a bit odd, because once again, voter ID plays a negligible part in it. If I, owenmarshall, was born in Notamericastan and am not a citizen, yet I register and vote in an election, the act of me actually voting is sufficient proof that I, a citizen of Notamericastan, committed voter fraud. How does requiring an ID provide any additional proof that the person voted? The fact that I signed my name and received a ballot is prima facie sufficient to demonstrate that. > But this new evidence suggests that the incidence of illegal voting is several orders of magnitude greater than previously thought. It demonstrates that requiring photo ID to vote is ineffective: "Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted." (from the article we are literally discussing now.) > The previous conventional wisdom was that the known instances of illegal voting were in the mere dozens, which is negligible compared to the hundreds of thousands known to lack ID who might be unjustly disenfranchised by ID requirements. It's also important to note this isn't the case: the conventional wisdom has always been that the known instances of illegal voting which could be reasonably addressed through voter ID requirements were in the mere dozens, negligible compared to the much larger body of legal voters who risk disenfranchisement. -- So conventional wisdom indicates illegal voting of a form that can be addressed by requiring photo ID is incredibly rare. This research indicates that requiring photo IDs is not a sufficient barrier to prevent illegal voters from voting - illegal voters apparently have a photo ID anyway. And the number of voters who risk disenfranchisement from photo ID requirements is still very high. So we agree that photo ID requirements are useless, right? ;-)

anigbrowl 12y ago
That shouldn't be "in passing" - that's the whole thrust of your argument! No it isn't. IT's a completely separate observation. With all due respect, you don't get to decide what my argument is. It's also a bit odd, because once again, voter ID plays a negligible part in it. If I, owenmarshall, was born in Notamericastan and am not a citizen, yet I register and vote in an election, the act of me actually voting is sufficient proof that I, a citizen of Notamericastan, committed voter fraud. No it isn't. If challenged about this, in many states where the registration requirements are quite loose you could reasonably say 'some other person registered to vote using my name,' and it's difficult to prove otherwise. As you can see, registration requirements aren't consisitent from state to state and it's questionable how good of a job states do at verifying the citizenship status of registrants: http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal%20Voter%20Registration_6-25-14_ENG.pdf http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal%20Voter%20Regi... How does requiring an ID provide any additional proof that the person voted? The fact that I signed my name and received a ballot is prima facie sufficient to demonstrate that. Depends on how distinctive your signature is. It's also important to note this isn't the case: the conventional wisdom has always been that the known instances of illegal voting which could be reasonably addressed through voter ID requirements were in the mere dozens, negligible compared to the much larger body of legal voters who risk disenfranchisement. That's not true. You're rewriting the historical argument in order to avoid addressing new information. The conventional wisdom has been that known instances were in the mere dozens. Adding 'which could reasonably be addressed through voter ID requirements' is a misrepresentation of the anti-voter-ID position. So we agree that photo ID requirements are useless, right? ;-) No we don't, and I don't find your rhetorical contortions funny. While I don't think photo ID requirements are a remedy for the problem of illegal voting (for the reasons laid out in the article, with the primary problem being that many illegal voters aren't aware they're breaking the law and may even think they're doing the wright thing, the reason I'm arguing for consideration of voter ID is that it addresses the obviates the argument of people who argue that the electoral process is deliberately corrupted. I'm getting tired explaining this so I'm going to stop now. As I said earlier, Democrats would save themselves an awful lot of political capital if they stopped trying to rationalize the abundant flaws of the electoral registration system and instead focused their efforts on ensuring that disadvantaged citizens who lack valid photo ID were provided with it, which would bring disenfranchised people many significant benefits beyond that of exercising their electoral franchise.

anigbrowl 12y ago

That shouldn't be "in passing" - that's the whole thrust of your argument! No it isn't. IT's a completely separate observation. With all due respect, you don't get to decide what my argument is. It's also a bit odd, because once again, voter ID plays a negligible part in it. If I, owenmarshall, was born in Notamericastan and am not a citizen, yet I register and vote in an election, the act of me actually voting is sufficient proof that I, a citizen of Notamericastan, committed voter fraud. No it isn't. If challenged about this, in many states where the registration requirements are quite loose you could reasonably say 'some other person registered to vote using my name,' and it's difficult to prove otherwise. As you can see, registration requirements aren't consisitent from state to state and it's questionable how good of a job states do at verifying the citizenship status of registrants: http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal%20Voter%20Registration_6-25-14_ENG.pdf http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal%20Voter%20Regi... How does requiring an ID provide any additional proof that the person voted? The fact that I signed my name and received a ballot is prima facie sufficient to demonstrate that. Depends on how distinctive your signature is. It's also important to note this isn't the case: the conventional wisdom has always been that the known instances of illegal voting which could be reasonably addressed through voter ID requirements were in the mere dozens, negligible compared to the much larger body of legal voters who risk disenfranchisement. That's not true. You're rewriting the historical argument in order to avoid addressing new information. The conventional wisdom has been that known instances were in the mere dozens. Adding 'which could reasonably be addressed through voter ID requirements' is a misrepresentation of the anti-voter-ID position. So we agree that photo ID requirements are useless, right? ;-) No we don't, and I don't find your rhetorical contortions funny. While I don't think photo ID requirements are a remedy for the problem of illegal voting (for the reasons laid out in the article, with the primary problem being that many illegal voters aren't aware they're breaking the law and may even think they're doing the wright thing, the reason I'm arguing for consideration of voter ID is that it addresses the obviates the argument of people who argue that the electoral process is deliberately corrupted. I'm getting tired explaining this so I'm going to stop now. As I said earlier, Democrats would save themselves an awful lot of political capital if they stopped trying to rationalize the abundant flaws of the electoral registration system and instead focused their efforts on ensuring that disadvantaged citizens who lack valid photo ID were provided with it, which would bring disenfranchised people many significant benefits beyond that of exercising their electoral franchise.