quote:So, if I remember correctly, the reason voter ID is a form of vote suppression is because even something as ubiquitous as a Driver License costs money and there are scads of driver license-less poor people who will turn out to vote Democrat but can't without an ID, right?
I'm not sure if you're being tongue-in-cheek here, but the argument actually is 'Driver's Licenses aren't free, and they are time-consuming to get, and a not-inconsiderable number of eligible voters don't have them, therefore it is not permissible to make them a requirement to vote in order to deal with fraud that actually isn't especially problematic.'
The fact that such voters might be more likely to vote Democrat is just tough S for Republicans, really. I mean, we're not supposed to charge people to vote.
quote:Assuming I did not: It's come to my attention that in virtually all states that have voter ID (certainly in WI, according to the WI DMV website) ID cards for the purposes of voting are free. So... I'm confused how the above argument is in any way compelling, or truly indicates an intent to suppress voters.
Perhaps. I can't speak for other unmentioned forms of Voter ID that are free. Driver's Licenses, on the other hand, aren't. And as others have said, for those who don't already have them and can't limit their interaction with the DMV to 'mail me a renewed license every few years', they can be substantially problematic to get. Hell, DMVs nationwide are practically an avatar for government inefficiency and incompetence.
quote:For me, it's not the money; it's the time. There are several counties in Wisconsin without a DMV at all, and many DMVs are only open during standard business hours. By putting up even a weak barrier to entry, it suppresses the likelihood of voting among certain populations.
Basically this. You're being deceived if you believe voter fraud is, y'know, a serious or even moderate problem in this country as a whole or even states as a whole. Instead of looking into whether it's an outrage that people need a state-issued ID to vote (with an early eye towards 'of course not!'), have you considered the question of how bad voter fraud is to merit changing the system we've got?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For no good reason, mind, because no one has ever demonstrated any statistically significant voter fraud.
Which is why, as far as I know, none of the voter ID laws of late have passed any real test of having a nonpartisan aim; they've all been strategically implemented in order to try to influence elections through selective pressures of franchisement.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's come to my attention that in virtually all states that have voter ID (certainly in WI, according to the WI DMV website) ID cards for the purposes of voting are free.
As Tom said, time is money.
I'm from Oklahoma, which in 2010 passed a stricter form of Voter I.D. law. Previously, the state issued a registration card to everyone as soon as they registered to vote, and showing that card was all that was needed for voting. Now, Oklahoma requires one of four types of photo identification: driver's license, passport, military identification, or Oklahoma identification card (also called the 'non-driver i.d.').
Military i.d. is obviously restricted. Driver's licenses are less restrictive, but for someone of voting age still require both a monetary investment (cost of the tests, cost of the driving lessons you'll be required to take) and a temporal investment (time spent going to the DMV, time spent on lessons, time spent practicing driving). Passports are less restrictive, but they still require a monetary investment (cost of photos, cost of the application) and temporal investment (time spent at one of the few passport offices, perhaps time spent waiting while official documents are issued by state agencies).
The non-driver i.d. is the least restrictive, in that it doesn't cost any money. However, it still requires the same background documentation as a passport (official birth cert. issued by state agency; official SS card issued by agency). It also requires waiting at an 'official' DMV that can issue one of these cards, which, as was pointed out, is not always easy. I grew up in Glenpool, OK, which is approximately 14 miles from the nearest DMV. And this is Oklahoma--public transport barely exists within the major metro areas, it certainly doesn't exist here. My best bet would be either to ask someone else drive me (taking up their time and gas), to hire a taxi twice (costing money), or to hitch as close as I could (probably about 1.5 miles away) and/or walk (taking lots of my time).
Voter i.d., in Oklahoma at least, is not free. It might not cost money, but it definitely costs something.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Driver Licenses are not ubiquitous. I don't have one. Nor do I have a state ID. Haven't had either for decades. I never had a driver's license. (Not all that uncommon in a city.*) I could get a state ID, but I would have to take a day off work - and, at least here, it isn't free.
Taking a day off work is, for me, possible without losing a day's pay. For many people it isn't and a day's pay is a big deal.
*Another breeding place for Democrats.
ETA: An IL state ID costs $20. Driver's Licenses are $30.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me think. State controls where DMV license and non-drivers license ID offices are placed. One party controls the state. Where do you think the DMV offices will go?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me the real question is not whether or not requiring an ID to vote is restrictive, it's whether or not its needed.
Requiring voters to show a legal ID is an added restriction on voting. It is more restrictive than many other alternatives. Its not a serious restriction for most people. A legal ID is needed so commonly in our society that almost everyone will have some sort of ID. I get asked for an ID frequently when I use a credit card or right a check. You have to have a legal ID to board an airplane. I've been asked for an ID when I've started a new job, picked up tickets I reserved on the phone or internet, picked up a package at the airport and dozens of other routine things.
But that same list of why most everyone has some sort of legal ID, also reveals the inherent bias in the voter ID laws. Everything for which I need an ID is something I'd be much less likely to do if I were poor or disabled. If you are poor you are far less likely to have a checking account or credit card, get registered mail, order things on the phone or internet, fly, or even hold an above board job. The people who will be affected by this restriction will be overwhelming poor, inner city residents.
If there were a compelling reason to require an ID to vote, I'd think it wasn't an overly burdensome restriction. If there were evidence of a widespread problem with people voting under a false name, then this would be a different discussion. There is no evidence that this is a significant problem. There are at least a dozen documented problems affecting the integrity of our elections that out rank this one such as security of electronic voting machines, unjust removal of names from voting rolls, misleading or confusing ballots, mis-information, spoiled or unreadable ballots, voter intimidation, poll access, and gerrymandering. In my opinion, the number one thing that threatens the integrity of our elections (at every level), is low voter turnout. Low voter turn means that a small but active minority can dominate the political process. With all these real problems in American elections, why have republicans decided to focus on voter ID laws? Why do republicans think this is a serious problem they need to address?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
So the reason I am at the "absolute extreme end" of this debate is really simple.
I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
Your conclusion simply does not logically follow. Extremism is not the inevitable result of finding one thing slightly preferable and being optimistic.
What you've said is comparable to saying "I like dessert a bit more than other foods, so naturally in my ideal world there will be nothing to eat but dessert."
The reason we have a political spectrum is not because some people prefer oppression while others like freedom. Nearly everyone agrees on what things are good and what things are bad. Nearly everyone would prefer freedom to oppression, wealth to poverty, fun to drudgery, friends to enemies, health to sickness, cleanliness to filth, pleasure to pain, and safety to danger. But only the very naive believe we can have it all. Compromises must be made. Sometimes having freedom means accepting danger, and obtaining wealth means making enemies. Sometimes good health means enduring some pain and cleaning up the filth is a drudgerous task. Those trade-offs get even more complicated in a community where one persons liberty (or wealth or pleasure) can come at the expense of others, so we must not only prioritize "what" we value but also "who" we value.
Our political differences arise not because because we differ in what we think is good and bad, but because we differ in how we prioritize good things. Our political differences arise because we disagree about who matters most. Our political differences arise because even when we agree about the desired end, we can disagree about how to achieve those ends. Our political differences exist because some people have put a lot more effort and reason into figuring out when the "obvious" path is wrong. Our political differences exist because the system is so complex that no one truly understands it. Even experts can have legitimate disagreements about the result of any given course of action.
Given that, there are only a few valid explanations for why any one falls at the extremes of the political spectrum. Either their priorities and values are at the extreme end of the social spectrum, their expertise and insight are extremely unusual, or they are extremely naive.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: We can use provincial health cards to vote since they usually have photos.
Do a trade, get universal healthcare in exchange for voter ID laws
Can you get a universal provincial health card if you aren't a citizen?
One of the drivers for the voter ID acts is that some republicans are really worried that illegal immigrants might be voting in our elections.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
You can get a provincial health card without being a citizen, but you have to be at least a landed immigrant or a permanent resident (i.e. going through the legal immigration channels). So no illegal immigrants anyway.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ETA: An IL state ID costs $20. Driver's Licenses are $30.
Right, because IL doesn't require voter ID. When they require voter ID, they add a box to the State ID form that says "this is for voter ID" and then the state ID is free.
If you don't check the box, you still have to pay for it. At least that's how it works in every voter-id-required state I've looked up so far.
Tom and Time-is-money folks: That makes sense! Time is valuable, after all. If I had to choose between a day's pay and getting a Voter ID card, I probably wouldn't vote! Especially after the news I just got about my car.
On the other hand, Tom, do most poor city folk work 9-5, Monday-through-Friday jobs? The vast majority of low-skilled entry level jobs (retail, food service, etc.) these days have much greater variance in their hours than that. So I wonder how realistic that problem is.
Even so, I think your objection has legs. I'll have to noodle that for a little while longer.
Fortunately, I'm not particularly married to the voter ID idea in the first place. Actually, it's kinda crazy how this issue gets so partisan!
I especially love that Republicans say "Voter fraud is so a problem and your studies are meaningless because if we could see how bad it was we could probably catch them and stop it!" So the absence of evidence is evidence!
While Democrats say "Voter ID laws are just an attempt to disenfranchise poor Democrat voters, and although we have no way of knowing how many voters are actually discouraged we know it's a lot!" So, again, that absence of evidence...
Now, one thing that sticks in my craw here, and keeps me sympathetic to the Republicans (surprise surprise!) is that for them to be right, there'd just have to be at least a handful of people mailing in lots of fraudulent absentee ballots or somesuch thing (though I have no idea how voter ID laws interplay with absentee ballots offhand).
Whereas, as is often the case, for the Democrats to be right (not that voter ID is unneeded! Just the other stuff you guys keep saying.) I'd need to accept that everyone advancing Voter ID legislation is an evil conspirator who knows voter fraud is irrelevant but wants to disenfranchise poor people.
I don't buy that. And guys, it really doesn't make you seem more grounded and sensible when you push that idea. You can (and many of you do!) present a very coherent argument against voter fraud without accusing your opposition of being nefarious. I promise.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whereas, as is often the case, for the Democrats to be right (not that voter ID is unneeded! Just the other stuff you guys keep saying.) I'd need to accept that everyone advancing Voter ID legislation is an evil conspirator who knows voter fraud is irrelevant but wants to disenfranchise poor people.
I don't think that part is true at all. If people don't know that voter fraud is not an issue, it is pretty easy to scare them into thinking it is. Just look at the tizzy over ACORN. (Who cares if Micky Mouse filled in a registration form, he isn't going to be voting.)
The real worry about vote fraud should be how easily and untracabley hackable the voting machines are. As those are mostly in the hands of staunchly Republican Diebold, (or their offshoots) only the Democrats are sufficiently worried about that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, there is a two step process in this and other "conspiracies" out there.
Step one, a group of nefarious individuals promote a fear.
Step two, those motivated by that fear, but with real belief in what they are doing, become the force to make the nefarious plot happen.
Some politicians who only want to gain a couple percentage points in the voting, and who do see the welfare system as an assault on their voting rights--the buying of votes with tax money--develop the fear that voter fraud is undermining our democracy.
Good people listen to that fear and believe it. The act based on it and do what they believe is the good and right thing.
The same happens with Gay Marriage. It becomes an attack on marriage, but how damage is done to marriage is never explained. Good people who want to defend marriage and its sanctity do what they know is the right and good thing.
Opponents can not attack those good people as bad. They are not bad. They are just fighting the wrong fight.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd need to accept that everyone advancing Voter ID legislation is an evil conspirator who knows voter fraud is irrelevant but wants to disenfranchise poor people.
Why would you need to accept that? Wouldn't it be sufficient for there to be a very tiny number of evil masterminds who are lying intentionally and a much larger number of naive people who believe the lies?
I think there is in fact a deliberate effort by some republicans to discourage certain demographics (poor, young, racial minorities etc) from voting. Voter ID laws are part of a bigger picture and a long history of trying to limit voting rights to the elite.
Despite that, I don't think disenfranchising poor voters is the conscious aim of most of the people who are supporting voter ID laws. If you read the stuff written by proponents of this laws, there is an awful lot of talk preventing immigrants from voting. I think the main driver behind the movement is xenophobia. Its driven by an irrational fear that "foreigners" are conspiring to take over the country. I also think that the movement is driven by selection bias. People tend to surround themselves with people who agree with them so when their side looses the election, its hard for them to believe the election was fair. They don't know any one who would have voted for the winner so there must have been some sort of fraud. Those sentiments make it pretty easy for politicians to get their supporters to agree to anything they say will make elections "fairer".
Conservatives are all too ready to believe that they lost because immigrants and criminals were voting illegally. Liberals are all too ready to believe they lost because powerful corporations have rigged the voting machines or were working to take liberals of the voting rolls.
Some of that probably happens but it's really easy for the loosing side to believe the problem is lots bigger than it really is.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whereas, as is often the case, for the Democrats to be right (not that voter ID is unneeded! Just the other stuff you guys keep saying.) I'd need to accept that everyone advancing Voter ID legislation is an evil conspirator who knows voter fraud is irrelevant but wants to disenfranchise poor people.
Who on earth here has said or suggested that?
And no, for Republicans to be right it would need more than a handful of fraud voters in a country of hundreds of millions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, Tom, do most poor city folk work 9-5, Monday-through-Friday jobs? The vast majority of low-skilled entry level jobs (retail, food service, etc.) these days have much greater variance in their hours than that. So I wonder how realistic that problem is.
An awful lot of poor inner city people work multiple jobs. Many of the poor people I've known work incredibly long hours and they tend to have more family responsibilities outside working hours than middle class workers. Poor people typically have to move a lot more often so they are less likely to have their vital papers nicely filed away. And time is not the only issue, there are real costs involved. Bus fare and the fees to get a copy of your birth certificate are pretty small potatoes to the middle class but can big a huge amount of money for someone who doesn't know if they're going to have enough money to by food this week.
It's also worth noting that most middle class professionals have the flexibility to take off for a few hours once in a while and make them up another day so they don't loose any pay or vacation time. Hourly labors don't have that option.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The time and money issue is real, but I think that all presupposes that the person in question would even know what's required. Until this all came up, I didn't know what was required to vote in Wisconsin, and I still don't know how to get a voting-ID. I could find out easily of course, but it's irrational to assume that because I can anyone can. Particularly the type of person that doesn't already have an ID of some kind. I have the time to research it, and money to get it if I were to need too, but I also have an idea of how the government works (enough to know how to try to figure out what to do any way), and Internet connection and so forth. If you're the working poor, or just the poor, do you have these things? Do you know who to ask, or where to go? Maybe, but the informational barrier is as big in my mind as a finicial or temporal one.
quote:Now, one thing that sticks in my craw here, and keeps me sympathetic to the Republicans (surprise surprise!) is that for them to be right, there'd just have to be at least a handful of people mailing in lots of fraudulent absentee ballots or somesuch thing (though I have no idea how voter ID laws interplay with absentee ballots offhand).
Not to pile on with what others have said about the necessity of proof for the other half of this equation, but I think you'd need more than a 'few' instances of voter fraud in order to constitute a 'problem,' or more specifically, a problem we should do something about.
In my mind, I distinguish between small, irritating problems--those things I kind of want to fix to make the system more perfect but that are not causing lasting harm--and problems that require an immediate solution in order to avoid some lasting harm. To me, voting fraud is one of the former, specifically because no study that I've ever seen has shown that modern voting fraud (by voters, rather than by commissioners) has ever amounted to more than a fraction of a percent of the total votes cast. I'm talking 10 votes out of 100,000. Theoretically, that could swing a race, but it is extraordinarily unlikely in all but the smallest races.
Under that rubric of what would actually constitute a 'problem,' I don't think Republicans can actually show there's a voting fraud 'problem' that could be solved by voter i.d.'s. There's a small, irritating problem in that some people are voting multiple times, but in order to tip even a modest race (e.g. a state senate race) there would have to be a fairly enormous conspiracy--on the level of tens to hundreds of people--working together to commit voter fraud in a single race that could potentially be changed by their voter fraud. Personally, I find that possibility so extraordinarily unlikely that I wouldn't even consider preventing it a plausible positive effect of the voter i.d. laws. If the 'problem' that Republicans claim to be solving has zero positive effect (because it is so unlikely as to be negligible) but has a measurable (though small) negative effect, why in the world should it stand?
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: While Democrats say "Voter ID laws are just an attempt to disenfranchise poor Democrat voters, and although we have no way of knowing how many voters are actually discouraged we know it's a lot!" So, again, that absence of evidence...
Uh wow, you never researched the issue at all have you?
IP: Logged |
posted
I believe there's quiet pressure from the (upper-middle-class and wealthy) elderly to keep Tuesday as the main voting day, and to have only 1 voting day. This lets the elderly, specifically the at-least-fairly-well-off elderly, outvote those who still have to work for a living.
Think about it, why on Earth is Tuesday the day to vote? And why aren't there multiple days to vote on? At least give us 1 more day.
posted
Voter suppression is a proud American (and other countries) tradition, there were times where just trying to vote was a risk to life and limb as people attempted to prevent you from voting.
Voter ID laws count because there are millions of Americans without voter ID and no infrastructure in place to insure their universal proliferation in a way convenient to all citizens.
And before this you had Jim Crow that attempted to tie voting to literacy and other measures that disproportionally affect Blacks.
IP: Logged |
posted
Dude. Jim Crow laws don't belong in the same discussion as this sort of debate among serious-minded people, Blayne. It's over-the-top absurd.
But if the young white male from Canada would like to tell us more about the legacy of African Americans, I'm sure we're all ears. Being so far removed from the matter undoubtedly makes you more objective.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I do not believe it to be over the top or absurd, modern voter suppression has significant roots in Jim Crow, the voting rights act pretty much took the right of the southern states to police themselves in this matter because of how badly they couldn't be trusted.
It is a very direct and analogous comparison, I am not saying they are equal in practical severity but to consider the comparison hyperbolic and not worth study is being blind to a systemic effort, in a majority of cases by republicans to suppress the vote from minorities and the lower classes.
IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, goodness, where to start. First where you assume what you need to prove: that this is, in fact, 'voter suppression' in intent and execution. I actually agree, for the record, that it's unnecessary, an overreaction, and in some cases fueled by people who really would just like to stick it to Democratic turnout.
And then there's the fact that Jim Crow refers to a whole suite of discriminatory policies, not just limited to voting. Also that Jim Crow voting policies were put in place specifically, openly to deal with a minority group voting too much. It wasn't really a secret-it was generally considered desireable of itself. Then it needs to be considered that there was an open double-standard in place-with literacy, for example, sometimes illiterate whites were grandfathered in.
The list goes on. It went much further too, of course, those same voting policies effectively killed black participation in civic life. Couldn't run, couldn't vote, wouldn't be on a jury, etc. So no, it's not a direct comparison and it's not analogous. Jim Crow is practically the avatar of discrimination and racism in government applied to most aspects of society. Placing a pain-in-the ass (sometimes serious) in the way of voters just don't compare. It's not even in the same ballpark. I might as well say that throwing away a burger wrapper on the ground is directly analagous to dumping a barrels of radioactive toxic waste straight into the lake where a village gets its water.
Now, look, I know it'll probably be a cold day in hell where you'd grant all of that even the slightest traction, coming from me. I'm one of those people who just hates you, and thus can be dismissed whenever it's something you don't want to hear. So ask someone else on this board, whose political opinions you respect, if they think a comparison to Jim Crow laws here is very relevant, if at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: In my mind, I distinguish between small, irritating problems--those things I kind of want to fix to make the system more perfect but that are not causing lasting harm--and problems that require an immediate solution in order to avoid some lasting harm. To me, voting fraud is one of the former,
Yeah that seems plausible. I have no particular reason to believe that voter fraud is really egregiously prevalent.
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: I'm talking 10 votes out of 100,000. Theoretically, that could swing a race, but it is extraordinarily unlikely in all but the smallest races.
Well, lots of county and city elections do swing on small margins, but overall, yeah, the problem probably isn't big.
A problem being small doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth solving, any more than our inability to solve all related problems does (for example: fraud in vote machines).
But, it does mean that if there really are significant problems with the proposed solution, it's not worth implementing!
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Under that rubric of what would actually constitute a 'problem,' I don't think Republicans can actually show there's a voting fraud 'problem' that could be solved by voter i.d.'s. There's a small, irritating problem in that some people are voting multiple times, but in order to tip even a modest race (e.g. a state senate race)
Your definition of a modest race is odd, to me. I'd call a modest race, like, mayor, or some city council position or something.
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: there would have to be a fairly enormous conspiracy--on the level of tens to hundreds of people--working together to commit voter fraud in a single race that could potentially be changed by their voter fraud. Personally, I find that possibility so extraordinarily unlikely that I wouldn't even consider preventing it a plausible positive effect of the voter i.d. laws.
Yep, I agree that possibility is unlikely!
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: If the 'problem' that Republicans claim to be solving has zero positive effect (because it is so unlikely as to be negligible) but has a measurable (though small) negative effect, why in the world should it stand?
I disagree that the only possible way it could have a potential positive effect is if your above conspiracy is true. But I agree that your conclusion draws logically from your premises.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Conservatives are all too ready to believe that they lost because immigrants and criminals were voting illegally. Liberals are all too ready to believe they lost because powerful corporations have rigged the voting machines or were working to take liberals off the voting rolls.
Some of that probably happens but it's really easy for the loosing side to believe the problem is lots bigger than it really is.
Yeah, I think this was well said.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, lots of county and city elections do swing on small margins, but overall, yeah, the problem probably isn't big.
My thought was that a small election--you bring up a city mayor race, for example--would be even less susceptible to voter fraud that could be stopped by an i.d. law. To my understanding (and I could absolutely be wrong here), voter i.d. fraud is intended to stop the same person from voting in multiple districts under different names. A small race will, by necessity, have only a few districts at which someone could vote fraudulently. As such, while the number of fraudulent votes needed to swing an election might be smaller in a small race, the number of people needed to vote fraudulently wouldn't because there would be proportionally fewer districts they could vote fraudulently in. Moreover, the smaller the district, the more likely that someone could spot someone who 'doesn't belong' (e.g. because they recognize the listed address as someone else's house).
Let me give an example. As I said, I'm from Glenpool, a suburb of Tulsa, one of the major metropolitan areas of Oklahoma. It has a population of roughly 10,000, divided into four voting districts. (Wards 705-708 on this map) The last mayoral election I remember was decided by about 40 votes, so it was fairly close. If we assume that a single voter could vote in all four districts (once legitimately, thrice fraudulently) but not more than once in a district (not unlikely, since the volunteers would likely recognize a repeat voter), then swinging the vote of that election would have required at least 11 people. If the same person could vote twice in each district (e.g. if there was a volunteer shift change), then swinging the race in my small suburb would still require at least 6 people.
If a group that large really wants to swing a race, they're more likely to use a method that is both easier to pull off and less likely to get them caught and convicted of multiple felonies.
quote:I disagree that the only possible way it could have a potential positive effect is if your above conspiracy is true.
What are you seeing as a positive effect of the voter i.d. laws? (I'm really asking--I don't mean that as a trap question)
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:To my understanding (and I could absolutely be wrong here), voter i.d. fraud is intended to stop the same person from voting in multiple districts under different names.
I think a bigger concern among the current crop of Republicans is that illegal aliens might be registering to vote.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because generally, illegal aliens prefer nothing better than going to a government office and registering their names and addresses for the public and government to have on hand, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To my understanding (and I could absolutely be wrong here), voter i.d. fraud is intended to stop the same person from voting in multiple districts under different names.
I think a bigger concern among the current crop of Republicans is that illegal aliens might be registering to vote.
I agree. If you look at the debates and discussions, illegal immigration is the underlying subtext. Some republicans are concerned that people who aren't American citizens (legal and illegal aliens) are (or will be) trying to swing our elections by voting illegally. It's motivated by the same xenophobia that underpins the whole anti-immigration movement and its being pushed by the same group of who are promoting stricter immigration laws.
Those people see immigrants as "invaders" who are trying to take over our communities. If you think immigrants are "invaders" who want to take over, then its not much of a leap to suspect that they are conspiring to swing our elections in their favor. If you are afraid that invaders are likely use a weakness in our voting laws to take over the country, then it natural that you would think fixing that weakness should be high priority, even if there is no evidence that its happening yet.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree. If you look at the debates and discussions, illegal immigration is the underlying subtext. Some republicans are concerned that people who aren't American citizens (legal and illegal aliens) are (or will be) trying to swing our elections by voting illegally. It's motivated by the same xenophobia that underpins the whole anti-immigration movement and its being pushed by the same group of who are promoting stricter immigration laws.
It's an interesting piece of self-sabotage. Latin-Americans/Hispanics (actually, I don't think the two are interchangeable and I'm not sure if Hispanic is accurate) are the fastest growing minority in the country, and as much as Republicans shouldn't like 'show your papers' sorts of laws, for some strange reason those groups tend to sit up and take notice. And so in the (purported) effort to protect elections from immigrant fraud and tighten our immigration policy, they will actually drive up legal voter turnout leading quite likely to less harsh laws on election controls re: immigrants, and a looser immigration policy.
All of which is an easy prediction, but damn if they ain't still doin' it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Now, look, I know it'll probably be a cold day in hell where you'd grant all of that even the slightest traction, coming from me. I'm one of those people who just hates you, and thus can be dismissed whenever it's something you don't want to hear. So ask someone else on this board, whose political opinions you respect, if they think a comparison to Jim Crow laws here is very relevant, if at all.
Please, cease this crap, it is the second possibly third time you acted in an unprovoked passive-aggressive fashion and keep bringing crap like this up.
IP: Logged |
quote:I think a bigger concern among the current crop of Republicans is that illegal aliens might be registering to vote.
While that's almost certainly true, as both you and Rabbit point out, I was trying to imagine a situation in which voter i.d. laws would or wouldn't work as applied. Stopping illegal aliens from voting would be a reason to pass a law requiring i.d. at registration, not at the voting booth. The former would stop an illegal entrant into the system, while the latter stops illegal use of the system. Since these laws are aimed at stopping fraud at the voting booth, I'm assuming that they're intended to stop the latter.
Because otherwise, I just have to assume that the people making these laws aren't, you know, being very honest. /snark To me, it comes down to the idea of "One citizen, one vote." Right now, voter i.d. laws are written to stop one citizen from having many votes. The type of voter i.d. law you're talking about should be written to stop a non-citizen from having one vote.
Now that I think about it, I wonder if there wouldn't be a better claim to applying a voter i.d. requirement at the registration process, because there are legitimate limitations on who can vote (e.g. age, prior felony convictions, residence, etc.). At that point, it would be appropriate to require someone to identify themselves legally to a state examiner, because the state would have a right to ensure that each person who is registered to vote is legally allowed to do so. Since the registration process is done once per state, it would also be less of a burden (not no burden, just less of a burden) on those who don't normally carry a photo i.d.; they'll still have to go to the DMV once to get a non-driver i.d., but they won't have to go again after that i.d. expires because they'll already be registered. The state could then use the registration cards as the voting booth identification, since they would only be issued after a person's identity was validated. Such a law would prevent an illegal voter by never allowing them to register in the first place while placing the least burden possible on the legal voter who would have difficulty regularly presenting an expirable photo i.d.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're quite right. Such an objective observer would doubtless have responded in a serious, reasonable way, not at all dismissing everything with vague unfinished constructions about how it's all the same because of course it's all the same.
Wait a second...this isn't yesterday. Whoops! You already did that. But even if you hadn't, I don't know why I would think you would cede not an inch of ground, regardless of topic, in a political discussion. Guess I've been drinking or something.
(But hey, just for fun, are you going to respond to the issues I raised or-to quote you, Blayne-continue to be a terrible poster? And now, get angry at having your own words handed back to you, please.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Again, you are still acting fairly passive aggressive. Secondly I am downtown for classes and my keyboard is finnicky.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not. But if he makes a completely absurd comparison, insists it be taken seriously for poor reasons whose rebuttals he doesn't (or hasn't yet, to be fair) replicas to...yeah. He's a grown-up, I'm going to point it out like I would most other adults.
I suppose I could go to the other end of the spectrum, and ignore it when he says something silly, because he's Blayne. As utterly frustrating as I find his posts many times, I don't think that's more respectful-and I do think that's what happens, many times.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a bigger concern among the current crop of Republicans is that illegal aliens might be registering to vote.
While that's almost certainly true, as both you and Rabbit point out, I was trying to imagine a situation in which voter i.d. laws would or wouldn't work as applied. Stopping illegal aliens from voting would be a reason to pass a law requiring i.d. at registration, not at the voting booth. The former would stop an illegal entrant into the system, while the latter stops illegal use of the system. Since these laws are aimed at stopping fraud at the voting booth, I'm assuming that they're intended to stop the latter.
Voter ID would still successfully stop illegal entrants in addition to illegal use. If you are an illegal alien with no documentation and register fraudulently, you would still be stymied by a voter ID restriction.
In fact, you've probably just hit upon why voter ID is the more popular approach. It effectively stymies both approaches, whereas IDs for registration would not stop one class of offenders.
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Because otherwise, I just have to assume that the people making these laws aren't, you know, being very honest. /snark To me, it comes down to the idea of "One citizen, one vote." Right now, voter i.d. laws are written to stop one citizen from having many votes. The type of voter i.d. law you're talking about should be written to stop a non-citizen from having one vote.
Any fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legitimate vote, so stopping non-citizens from voting would still contribute to the goal of "one citizen one (meaningful) vote"
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Now that I think about it, I wonder if there wouldn't be a better claim to applying a voter i.d. requirement at the registration process, because there are legitimate limitations on who can vote (e.g. age, prior felony convictions, residence, etc.). At that point, it would be appropriate to require someone to identify themselves legally to a state examiner, because the state would have a right to ensure that each person who is registered to vote is legally allowed to do so. Since the registration process is done once per state, it would also be less of a burden (not no burden, just less of a burden) on those who don't normally carry a photo i.d.; they'll still have to go to the DMV once to get a non-driver i.d., but they won't have to go again after that i.d. expires because they'll already be registered. The state could then use the registration cards as the voting booth identification, since they would only be issued after a person's identity was validated. Such a law would prevent an illegal voter by never allowing them to register in the first place while placing the least burden possible on the legal voter who would have difficulty regularly presenting an expirable photo i.d.
I actually agree that if voter fraud is worth fighting this is probably a logical step, since it could also help to prevent absentee abuse (which could potentially be much easier for, say, a dedicated individual, who picked up dozens of registration forms and mailed them all in as absentee voters). And I don't see how voter ID at the booth helps with the absentee angle.
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx:
quote:I disagree that the only possible way it could have a potential positive effect is if your above conspiracy is true.
What are you seeing as a positive effect of the voter i.d. laws? (I'm really asking--I don't mean that as a trap question)
Sorry, I thought it was implicit. Any discouragement of potential fraud is a potential positive effect. That's not really in dispute, I hope. It's just a matter of whether or not the steps proposed to discourage that fraud do more harm than good.
To illustrate via extreme example, requiring people to undergo a comprehensive medical exam to ensure they really are who their ID says and are not simply impersonating them via extensive plastic surgery could reduce potential fraud. But the potential for that type of fraud is miniscule, and the burden of discouraging it is enormous, so it would be a despicable law.
I'm inclined to think that voter ID laws are probably too invasive for too little benefit, but I don't really know, hence the discussion. And I'm really, really unconvinced that they are an evil conspiracy to suppress unknowable (but super high!) numbers of poor voters.
PS: Don't worry about disclaiming your questions to me. Even if your question is a rhetorical "trap," I won't be especially afraid of walking into it. Either it will fail, because it will rely on gimmick instead of good argument, or it will succeed, because it was persuasive, so either way I don't particularly mind.
posted
Rivka & Kate: I see where you guys are coming from. On the other hand, can't we just as easily ignore Rakeesh & Blayne's sidebar conversation as we could ignore Blayne's comments that drew Rakeesh's attention?
I guess his responding to Blayne might create a bit more to wade through before you find a post on the topic you care about, so that could be annoying.
But isn't that true of any multi-topic big thread like this? I'm sure some folks who care about Wisconsin's political state in general are skimming past all the stuff about voter ID, too. The same way some people skim past all posts by certain people. It all just sort of comes with the territory.
I guess I'm saying I'm just not sure it's really disrespectful to other posters for Rakeesh to engage Blayne. It's meta conversation, which is a little distracting, but Hatrack in general doesn't usually seem to mind meta-conversation. And it's certainly happened a lot, so you could call it boring... hmmm, so maybe it's disrespectful to other posters to post boring things? That actually makes a little bit of sense to me.
On the other hand, we don't have to read what they're saying to each other. So I'm back to not really feeling that I have a good reason to mind their conversation.
I'm rambling now because I'm not 100% sure what I think about this issue, so I'll stop now.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Voter ID would still successfully stop illegal entrants in addition to illegal use. If you are an illegal alien with no documentation and register fraudulently, you would still be stymied by a voter ID restriction.
In fact, you've probably just hit upon why voter ID is the more popular approach. It effectively stymies both approaches, whereas IDs for registration would not stop one class of offenders
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the voter i.d. for registration would also prevent illegal aliens from voting, it would simply do it earlier in the process. After all, if they can't demonstrate their qualifications, then they can't register, and if they can't register, they can't vote.
Requiring i.d. at either point, registration or voting booth, would have the (intended) effect of stopping illegal aliens from voting and preventing voting fraud. The only difference will be in what the negative effects of each law would be. Requiring an i.d. at any point makes it harder for some people to vote legitimately. The idea lurking behind the registration idea is that requiring an i.d. once, at registration, is less bad than requiring an i.d. every time someone wants to vote. Thus my point about why requiring i.d. would be better done with registration--it has the same positive effect (which, to be clear, I still feel is extremely doubtful) but has less of a negative effect.
quote:Any fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legitimate vote, so stopping non-citizens from voting would still contribute to the goal of "one citizen one (meaningful) vote"
I disagree, at least about the word 'disenfranchise.' Disenfranchisement is a word I associate strongly with a person's vote not being counted at all, usually because they were not allowed to vote in the first place. Non-citizens, felons, and minors are all disenfranchised. I am not disenfranchised, even if the person after me is voting fraudulently, because my vote is still counted. My voice is still heard.
Now, my vote may be offset by the fraudulent vote, such that both could be taken away without affecting the final result of the election, but that's true of lots of votes. In fact, all of the votes for the losing candidate are offset in just that way, by votes for the winning candidate. However, that doesn't make those votes disappear or disenfranchise those voters.
Voter i.d. laws are incredibly likely (to a near certainty) to disenfranchise someone this fall. Either that voter won't be able to get their i.d. in time, or that voter simply won't know about the requirement until they show up at the polls.
quote:I'm inclined to think that voter ID laws are probably too invasive for too little benefit, but I don't really know, hence the discussion. And I'm really, really unconvinced that they are an evil conspiracy to suppress unknowable (but super high!) numbers of poor voters.
I don't think they're some kind of evil conspiracy, but they're not puppy dogs and rainbows either. To me, they're a fear-reaction. Sometimes, reacting to fear is good--the fight-or-flight response is hardwired into us because it can keep us alive. But it is a terrible reason to pass a law.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Voter ID would still successfully stop illegal entrants in addition to illegal use. If you are an illegal alien with no documentation and register fraudulently, you would still be stymied by a voter ID restriction.
In fact, you've probably just hit upon why voter ID is the more popular approach. It effectively stymies both approaches, whereas IDs for registration would not stop one class of offenders
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the voter i.d. for registration would also prevent illegal aliens from voting, it would simply do it earlier in the process. After all, if they can't demonstrate their qualifications, then they can't register, and if they can't register, they can't vote.
You were clear. I must not have been.
You said: "The former [at registration] would stop an illegal entrant into the system, while the latter [at the booth] stops illegal use of the system. Since these laws are aimed at stopping fraud at the voting booth, I'm assuming that they're intended to stop the latter."
I was indicating that, actually, requiring ID at the booth would effectively stop both illegal use as well as illegal entrance, unlike requiring the ID at registration. Hence, I suggested, why at-the-booth voter ID is a more popular concept than at-registration voter ID (though I have seen conservatives who wanted that).
Putting aside whether this is a worthwhile goal, does what I said make more sense now?
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx:
quote:Any fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legitimate vote, so stopping non-citizens from voting would still contribute to the goal of "one citizen one (meaningful) vote"
I disagree, at least about the word 'disenfranchise.' Disenfranchisement is a word I associate strongly with a person's vote not being counted at all, usually because they were not allowed to vote in the first place. Non-citizens, felons, and minors are all disenfranchised. I am not disenfranchised, even if the person after me is voting fraudulently, because my vote is still counted. My voice is still heard.
Now, my vote may be offset by the fraudulent vote, such that both could be taken away without affecting the final result of the election, but that's true of lots of votes. In fact, all of the votes for the losing candidate are offset in just that way, by votes for the winning candidate. However, that doesn't make those votes disappear or disenfranchise those voters.
Perhaps disenfranchise was the wrong word, but I think there is a very essential and fundamental difference between the canceling out effect of the minority voters v the majority and that of legitimate votes being canceled by fraudulent votes.
Do you disagree?
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Voter i.d. laws are incredibly likely (to a near certainty) to disenfranchise someone this fall. Either that voter won't be able to get their i.d. in time, or that voter simply won't know about the requirement until they show up at the polls.
Why are you so confident of this fact, precisely? Do you just take it as a given that any implementation of voter ID is guaranteed to disenfranchise people?
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx:
quote:I'm inclined to think that voter ID laws are probably too invasive for too little benefit, but I don't really know, hence the discussion. And I'm really, really unconvinced that they are an evil conspiracy to suppress unknowable (but super high!) numbers of poor voters.
I don't think they're some kind of evil conspiracy, but they're not puppy dogs and rainbows either. To me, they're a fear-reaction. Sometimes, reacting to fear is good--the fight-or-flight response is hardwired into us because it can keep us alive. But it is a terrible reason to pass a law.
I'm not sure it's entirely a fear reaction. If it is a problem, even a small problem, it's worth solving. Although I'll concede that some of the most vocal voter ID supporters may be operating in part on fear.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, if I remember correctly, the reason voter ID is a form of vote suppression is because even something as ubiquitous as a Driver License costs money and there are scads of driver license-less poor people who will turn out to vote Democrat but can't without an ID, right?
I'm not sure if you're being tongue-in-cheek here, but the argument actually is 'Driver's Licenses aren't free, and they are time-consuming to get, and a not-inconsiderable number of eligible voters don't have them, therefore it is not permissible to make them a requirement to vote in order to deal with fraud that actually isn't especially problematic.'
The fact that such voters might be more likely to vote Democrat is just tough S for Republicans, really. I mean, we're not supposed to charge people to vote.
Rakeesh, if you've been following the conversation, I just wanted to check in: You now know that this actually isn't the argument at all, right? Except insofar as some people opposed to voter ID are really vocally ignorant and wrong on the issue.
Tom and Sphinx and others have offered lots of interesting and persuasive arguments against voter ID. But this stuff you said above is blatantly false. Voter ID laws don't require Driver Licenses, they require State (DMV) issued ID cards, and every state that has Voter ID laws explicitly has an allowance on their state ID card request form wherein if you indicate the card is for Voter ID you get the card for free.
A lot of people make the mistake you made here (including me!), because in states without voter ID laws all forms of DMV issued ID usually do cost money. And because when the issue is reported in the media journalists don't do their homework and they typically present it the wrong way.
But yeah. It's not actually charging people to vote (except by Tom's definition, which was, as I said, an interesting point). That characterization is just wrong.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was indicating that, actually, requiring ID at the booth would effectively stop both illegal use as well as illegal entrance, unlike requiring the ID at registration. Hence, I suggested, why at-the-booth voter ID is a more popular concept than at-registration voter ID (though I have seen conservatives who wanted that).
Ah, I was misunderstanding.
quote:Perhaps disenfranchise was the wrong word, but I think there is a very essential and fundamental difference between the canceling out effect of the minority voters v the majority and that of legitimate votes being canceled by fraudulent votes.
Do you disagree?
To me, it would depend on something I don't know much about: recount procedures.
I see a fraudulent vote as having one of three possible effects: it either 1) is cast for the winning side and has no effect; or 2) is cast for the losing side but has no effect; or 3) is the tipping vote that breaks a tie and creates a winner. Although we're concerned with all of them because cheating the system is bad, I think we can agree that, if we had to pick one, we'd look to stop #3.
In most jurisdictions I know, in a situation where the margin of victory is extraordinarily small there is a fairly automatic (or, if not automatic, a readily-available) recount of all the votes. My reaction to a fraudulent vote turns on whether or not the fraud would be detected by the recount procedures, which I don't know anything about. If they would be detected, then I'm not much worried about a fraudulent vote. If they can't be detected, which I think is more likely, then I'm definitely worried about fraudulent votes being cast.
However, at that point it becomes a balancing test to me: Will the number of fraudulent votes cast in this election outweigh the number of legitimate votes that would not have happened if the laws needed to stop the fraudulent votes were in place? Because if the law stops 3 fraudulent votes from being cast but disenfranchises 5 citizens, it's had a net negative effect. In that type of situation, I'd rather let the 3 fraudulent votes be cast in order to let the five legitimate votes be cast. For that matter, I'd rather let 5 or 10 fraudulent votes through for every 1 person who retains their vote.
Now, obviously there's a point where the ratio of fraudulent to enfranchised votes is too large, but I think if we've reached that point then other signs would point to problems with the election. I'm specifically remembering the movie Black Sheep, where voter fraud was uncovered because more people had voted in a particular county than actually lived there. I would think if it was that bad, they'd just have another election.
quote:Why are you so confident of this fact, precisely? Do you just take it as a given that any implementation of voter ID is guaranteed to disenfranchise people?
I view it as an exercise in probabilities. Even if a probability is very small, in a large enough set it almost assuredly will happen.
With as many states as there are now requiring i.d.'s before voting, I view it as a near certainty that there will be at least one person who lives in a voter i.d. state, wants to vote for President, doesn't carry a photo i.d. normally, forgets they'll need a photo i.d. to vote, goes to the polls right before they close, and doesn't have enough time to go home and return to the polls with their i.d. before the polls close.
quote:I'm not sure it's entirely a fear reaction. If it is a problem, even a small problem, it's worth solving.
I disagree. As noted above, if solving a problem will have a net negative effect on the system, then the problem should be left alone and accepted as necessary to preventing a larger problem.
Put another way: Changing the type of problem that the system has is not 'solving' the problem.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the proposed solution is worse than the problem, then it's not a solution. To that extent, you're absolutely right.
That doesn't mean the problem has no solution. Simply accepting that a problem is insoluble is a bad attitude.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't aware that the state ID for voting purposes being free (...of financial charge) was universal, no.
It still doesn't change things, in my opinion. Were problems of voting fraud really worthwhile, outside of hysterical (Republican, generally) minds, then this lack of charge would indeed bring things down to a much more even level.
But it's still saying to citizens, "In order to vote, you have to go to this extra trouble." You need a good reason to say that. Especially when so many of the inefficiencies and screwups we've got are because we just aren't very interested in giving the system the resources to keep track of voters and mitigate fraud. So, not false though wrong in one respect.
On a broader note, this is just another example of the striking contrast between 'small government' conservatives, and what they actually want the government to do. Extra, often onerous ID and bureaucracy to vote; legislate consensual adult sexual morality; show papers if you look like you might be an illegal immigrant; teach sex education that doesn't work. I've got to admit, I've kind of reached a mental exhaustion point where I take this stuff seriously without some compelling evidence beyond 'it's obviously a problem'. It used to be around here, I would often stick up for the conservative position, even though I rarely agreed with it, because I felt it was getting a bum rap from its detractors. Been awhile since I felt that way. I suppose that's probably why I'm so exasperated sometimes with your semi-Libertarianism and the way it smacks of (though isn't, exactly) American Republican conservatism. Sorry about that. Just wanted to explain./vent
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Again, since I guess it wasn't clear, I'm not personally trying to advocate for voter ID laws. In general, I think "there ought to be a law" is one of the most insidious and destructive phrases in the American lexicon.
I just think it's interesting how starkly partisan the issue is. It's not an issue I would have thought, given a superficial analysis, would be so partisan (especially not shaking out on the sides that it does!) It's also interesting to me how distorted many of the arguments seem to get, possibly because it's so partisan.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the proposed solution is worse than the problem, then it's not a solution. To that extent, you're absolutely right.
That doesn't mean the problem has no solution. Simply accepting that a problem is insoluble is a bad attitude.
Saying that one particular 'solution' is bad isn't the same thing as saying that a problem isn't solvable. Personally, I think this problem is solvable (using a fingerprint scan compared against a secure registration bank), it's just that solving it is more expensive than practicable.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
