Voter Photo ID -- Is It Really Terrible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catgrrl

Oh, I wish. Going to the Department of Motor Vehicles is like a punishment. I swear, they must have the crankiest, meanest people working there. I'm sure their employment application asks, "Are you able to be in a bad mood 24/7, and talk to people like they are horrible children?" It seems it's always an hour wait or more for the littlest thing. I've taken to using their internet services when I can.

In my state you renew a license every 5 years; you're allowed to renew it once over the net (or at least it was last time I renewed). It also used to be $12 but I'm unsure if they've upped the price now that the license designs changed recently.

EDIT: It's $4 a year now; that's a weird way of putting it. ID cards are $10 but the website doesn't say how long they are good for?

---

I actually spoke about photo IDs not driver licences. I don't have to renew my driver license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

I actually spoke about photo IDs not driver licences. I don't have to renew my driver license.

---

How long is yours good for? Mine was originally meant to be good until 2055 (!), but they're changing the law to get old people off the streets.

My licence is good until I'm 70 (so '52), but the photocard has to be renewed every decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Because I don't need a photo ID, nothing is stopping me from going back and voting in those states again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Saying this is about voter fraud is a complete strawman.

---

Nice to see you call yourself out on your own shortcomings :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Going back to the original post, I find it curious how requiring voter ID is portrayed as a conspiracy to get left-wingers to vote less. The kinds of editorial in the OP tend to go on to make vague claims about how hard it can be to get photo ID.

The irony is any enhanced difficulties/costs getting photo ID are enhanced by left-wing votes which keep state unions in power, which in turn inhibit the efficient delivery of government services. This is why Americans joke about their driver ID/licensing organizations so much (known here as the DMV). They are widely perceived as exemplars of inefficient government. In many states, re-structuring DMVs has taken years, partially because of collective bargaining agreements that make structural reforms difficult for any government agency.

---

Your OP article is titled, "The Myth of Voter Fraud". Using fraud as a reason for voter ID is fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Getting gov't issued photo ID can be difficult for the elderly and poor, as you said yourself. The DMV is inefficient, and you can blame unions all you want, but it's not the left-wingers calling for voter photo ID. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I would say that we should be preventing fraud and the biggest part of the problem is that we under the current system can have very little idea just how much fraud is going on. Its so easy to commit fraud, so difficult to detect, that we simply won't know how much is happening. Given what extremes some people will go to and how passionately partisan many are, I think having a system wide open to abuse is frankly insane.

---

Is the system wide open to abuse? Information tracking may be poor but proxies for information do exist, and they universally suggest that the incidence of fraud is pretty low. Now that's not proof and even worse it's an aggregate claim addressing all kinds of fraud *like box-stuffing, pre-marking ballots, etc* but it boggles the mind to think that all other types of fraud are pretty rare and this one type is actually comparatively widespread and undetected. Since it is not actually difficult to detect. All it takes to detect it is for the fraudster and the genuine voter both try and cast a vote. Given that this is a very inefficient way to try and change the outcome of an election, since it is both time and manpower intensive, and the fact that manpower-based voter fraud is itself almost impossible to hide and almost guarantees some conspiracy-organizers are going to go to jail, I would actually expect that this is a comparatively rare type of voter fraud, engaged in as a crime of opportunity, and incredibly unlikely to have a significant effect. Which rather suggests to me that this is NOT the "biggest part of the problem," whatever you think that problem is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

How long is yours good for? Mine was originally meant to be good until 2055 (!), but they're changing the law to get old people off the streets.

---

There are discussions how to get the old people from the streets, but currently you can only use your drivers license if you get caught driving wrong.

Why on earth would you want to get old people off the streets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Why on earth would you want to get old people off the streets?

---

I think what he meant was "They want to get old people to stop driving their cars as their driving skills usually fade rapidly after a certain age."

Which is just mean, old people are generally safer drivers than young people, until they become significantly hampered by eg. stroke, dementia, blindness etc. But that's not a question of age, that's a question of health, which can be assessed.

No, they're actually not generally better drivers than young people. That's the point.

We sometimes have newspaper articles about the crazy accidents some older people cause - just recently there was an old lady doing a test drive with a car from a car shop. She got confused, turned around and plowed through the car shop at high speeds, causing over 50,000€ in damage.

And, yes, the laws which are proposed from time to time don't call for a general ban but rather a mandatory assessment on a yearly basis to see whether you are still fit to drive. There are also programs which allow you to trade your driver's license for a reduced-price ticket for public transport.

Except that they are. They drive much more cautiously, they're not particularly likely to drink and drive, they are, tbh, not as likely to drive in the first place. Society and old people would benefit from retaining the independence that driving affords old people.

Yes, they drive much more cautiously. That's another problem right there - when they drive too slow they become a problem. We call them "sunday drivers" over here and they're generally much cursed upon due to the long queues of cars behind them.

Yes but that's a problem with the impatient Germans. As we've established in this thread, speed is an extremely important aspect of safety and, as we've also established, safety necessarily comes first. Other aspects of cautious driving that elderly people excel in are things like not being as eager to drive when you're tired.

Look, there are reasons why it may be more difficult for an old person to drive, but restricting their driving should be based on an individual assessment just like you do when someone wants to get a driver's license. If it turns out that your old person is having some difficulties with driving because his vision is deteriorating, maybe you can correct it. If it's because his hearing is impaired, maybe you can fix that. If it's because he's developed dementia or had a stroke and fails tests designed to examine capacity for driving, well then you have every reason and every right to restrict his driving. It shouldn't be done based on chronological age, it should be done based on capacity.

Don't gear up for an angry rant now, old people are lovely and we both know we want them to have good lives :heart:

Also, according to German research, driving like old people is better for the environment :)

Back on topic:

It looks to me as if voter suppression is a far greater problem in the US than voter fraud. What say the Americans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression

MAGIC!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Yes but that's a problem with the impatient Germans. As we've established in this thread, speed is an extremely important aspect of safety and, as we've also established, safety necessarily comes first. Other aspects of cautious driving that elderly people excel in are things like not being as eager to drive when you're tired.

---

"Impatient"? If 100Km/h are allowed and you're only driving 70 or 60, that has nothing to do with "impatient". You're a road block.

Florida highways have a maximum and minimum speed. One I use the most is 65/40.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

MAGIC!

---

I think you mean magnets.

@Aimless:

You Wikifisted something with a very clear anti-Republican slant.

Both parties have been accused of shenanigans at the local level. And even local parties get in on the craziness. I remember the Republicans trying something similar in 2004 with college students by claiming, by telling college students they couldn't be registered in both their home states and their university locations.

I don't think these are actually big, widespread problems. But one thing that makes it easier is when voter identification at the polls is so weak. And everyone knows it's weak, which makes it easy for local political operatives to have a field day challenging voter rolls.

Once again, pointing out the ease in which one can commit voter fraud doesn't mean I think it's a major scourge impacting elections at a grand scale. It means that it's easy to commit voter fraud, which is a problem. Fixing it shouldn't be controversial, and neither should be making it easy for people to get the photo ID that they need to do so many other things anyway.

Plus, an example of this happening at the national level in India. I actually don't support this in the US, but an example of a country trying to change a bad/nonexistent ID system: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...fa_fact_parker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

"Impatient"? If 100Km/h are allowed and you're only driving 70 or 60, that has nothing to do with "impatient". You're a road block.

---

But 100Km/h shouldn't be allowed and, moreover, how you react to people driving at 70 Km/h isn't mandated by law, it's entirely up to you. Patience isn't regulated by any laws that I know of. Kinda like how you're legally allowed to get shitfaced every day even though it wouldn't be very prudent :)



Out of curiosity, is it illegal to drive at 70 on a road where the speed limit is 100?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Out of curiosity, is it illegal to drive at 70 on a road where the speed limit is 100?

---

I honestly don't know about the legal situation, but my driving instructor said that plus minus ten of the speed limit usually meant being pulled over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

You Wikifisted something with a very clear anti-Republican slant.

Both parties have been accused of shenanigans at the local level. And even local parties get in on the craziness. I remember the Republicans trying something similar in 2004 with college students by claiming, by telling college students they couldn't be registered in both their home states and their university locations.

I don't think these are actually big, widespread problems.

---

Wow Dread, talk about a kneejerk reaction. It's a problem even if the article has an anti-Republican bias and in reality both sides do it.

You'll note that the biased article--that surely ignores instances of Democratic voter suppression (except the thing about Kerry's employees slashing tires)--manages to make a more convincing case for the problem of voter suppression than this thread makes for the problem of voter fraud in the US.

Quote:

---

But one thing that makes it easier is when voter identification at the polls is so weak. And everyone knows it's weak, which makes it easy for local political operatives to have a field day challenging voter rolls.

Once again, pointing out the ease in which one can commit voter fraud doesn't mean I think it's a major scourge impacting elections at a grand scale. It means that it's easy to commit voter fraud, which is a problem. Fixing it shouldn't be controversial, and neither should be making it easy for people to get the photo ID that they need to do so many other things anyway.

---

If you can ensure that every single eligible voter gets a free photo ID then sure, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I live in Sweden, I clearly don't have a problem with the government knowing where everyone lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I honestly don't know about the legal situation, but my driving instructor said that plus minus ten of the speed limit usually meant being pulled over.

---

But can you be ticketed if eg. there's no minimum speed sign and you're driving in the appropriate lane? Anyone?

I would have to disagree. "Voter suppression" efforts are comparatively easy to track. Our voting processes at the state level can be so rinky-dink that it's comparatively harder to track voter fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I would have to disagree. "Voter suppression" efforts are comparatively easy to track. Our voting processes at the state level can be so rinky-dink that it's comparatively harder to track voter fraud.

---

Are you suggesting that the magnitude of voter fraud in the US is similar to that of voter suppression? That's all I was wondering in my first post about voter suppression. The available evidence seems to suggest that voter suppression is a bigger obstacle to democracy in the US than voter fraud. Sure, absence of evidence isn't proof of absence, but we have to act on the basis of knowledge rather than on the basis of mind-ghosts, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Why on earth would you want to get old people off the streets?

---

The idea is to have health tests after you reach a certain age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

But can you be ticketed if eg. there's no minimum speed sign and you're driving in the appropriate lane? Anyone?

---

You can fail the UK driving test for driving significantly below the speed limit if it is safe to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I would have to disagree. "Voter suppression" efforts are comparatively easy to track. Our voting processes at the state level can be so rinky-dink that it's comparatively harder to track voter fraud.

---

You say photo ID isn't "voter suppression", even when aiminx linked studies showing it was. Somewhere around 25% of minorities, poor, and elderly don't have driver's licenses or gov't-issued photo ID. So, if it's not to prevent voter fraud, and you don't think it's a form of voter suppression, your only reason for a new ID program is to fix the rinky-dink state processes. Each state decides their own requirements. In Texas, state university students would not be able to use their school photo ID, but a non-photo gun permit is acceptable. :rolleyes:

They certainly exist ...

http://www.ventilationnews.com/wp-co...peed-limit.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

But can you be ticketed if eg. there's no minimum speed sign and you're driving in the appropriate lane? Anyone?

---

Yes, if driving too slow makes the other persons overtake you, thus endangering others. Say, how often did you drive in Germany or generally high-traffic streets? If you only drive in Sweden then I can understand your position, but know this: Not every country has such a low concentration of cars.

Our driving schools tell us to "go with the flow". Which means that you should adapt your velocity to that of the others (inside the speed limits, of course). And if you're driving much too slow without discernible reason, you will get pulled over and you will be ticketed. Because you're forcing the others to needlessly overtake you, thus endangering them.

What I absolutely hate are those cars limited to 35 Km/h (some kind of special driver's license thing. Good thing they are so rare) because you don't expect a car to go that slow which usually means a hard brake if you encounter such a road block.

edit: It's actually a law. §3 of our StVO (traffic law): "You are not allowed to hinder the traffic flow by driving slowly without a valid reason." Which also means that farm tractors (usually not faster than 30) are required to let other cars pass them in regular intervals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Why on earth would you want to get old people off the streets?

---

You're kidding right? They make the road a high-stakes obstacle course composed of walkers. You're telling me that Swedes just let them litter the roadway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Back on topic:

It looks to me as if voter suppression is a far greater problem in the US than voter fraud. What say the Americans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression

---

Voter suppression as an equivalent manipulation mechanic to fraud is probably not a significantly bigger problem than fraud. If one is attempting to open the concept of suppression up to include anything that might induce someone not to vote as the writer(s) of the wiki article have then yeah it's a bigger problem but it's not really anything at that point, it's too broad. The fact that people would have to re-register when they change addresses is voter-suppression. Having elections run by the states is voter suppression. Having registration at ALL is voter suppression. So is the Constitutional limit of voting to citizens now that I think about it. I recall that you speculated once back at Atari about how everything with a potential stake in a decision really ought to have a say, meaning pretty much everything in the world when it comes to US foreign-policy making organs like the Presidency, in our current global power dynamics. Let's try and keep the discussion to attempts to manipulate the outcome in elections if possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Are you suggesting that the magnitude of voter fraud in the US is similar to that of voter suppression? That's all I was wondering in my first post about voter suppression. The available evidence seems to suggest that voter suppression is a bigger obstacle to democracy in the US than voter fraud. Sure, absence of evidence isn't proof of absence, but we have to act on the basis of knowledge rather than on the basis of mind-ghosts, right?

---

Fuzzy raises a good point. But I also think that the magnitude of fraud is much more difficult to measure than suppression (at least using your definition of suppression).

The reason is, at least here, our state-level voting apparatus is highly clunky. Efforts to reform it with basic modern ID technology would help, as well as help people have solid ID for other purposes. Calling this common-sense goal racism and voter suppression is extraordinarily counter productive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You say photo ID isn't "voter suppression", even when aiminx linked studies showing it was. Somewhere around 25% of minorities, poor, and elderly don't have driver's licenses or gov't-issued photo ID. So, if it's not to prevent voter fraud, and you don't think it's a form of voter suppression, your only reason for a new ID program is to fix the rinky-dink state processes. Each state decides their own requirements. In Texas, state university students would not be able to use their school photo ID, but a non-photo gun permit is acceptable. :rolleyes:

---

And I think the integrity of elections becomes questionable when the government relies on third parties (like universities, utilities, etc) to conduct ID checks. The idea that I can show my electrical bill as proof of residence to vote is ludicrous considering how easy it is to register for electricity with a fake SSN.

I was mostly thinking of this sort of thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_s..._United_States

Yes, I think that's what we all were reading. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Yes, I think that's what we all were reading. :confused:

---

Sorry, didn't realise you'd posted after Fuzzy. I wasn't sure Fuzzy was looking at those specific examples because his post seemed to focus on the problem of having an overly broad definition of "voter suppression".

More links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us.../09voting.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS...ion/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_...lity_in_the_US

Btw, would these initiatives be cost-effective solutions for preventing problems with elections?

How much would it cost the states?

How much would it cost voters?

http://www.tnca.org/2011/08/10/free-...s-hard-to-get/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

And I think the integrity of elections becomes questionable when the government relies on third parties (like universities, utilities, etc) to conduct ID checks. The idea that I can show my electrical bill as proof of residence to vote is ludicrous considering how easy it is to register for electricity with a fake SSN.

---

Showing a utility bill is one part of voter registration to confirm residency, not "to vote". There's no reason a state university can't be relied upon to give valid photo ID to its students. Even a photo driver's license could have been issued in another state. Voter registration would still require proof of residency, ie a current utility bill or copy of a lease. It wouldn't matter if a SSN is fake, what would matter is if the address or name on the bill or lease is fake.

To me it seems the problem of a non-comprehensive register of citizens/residents is actually a root cause of low participation in US elections. People are lazy, and any extra step they need to make to vote makes them less likely to actually go out and vote. It's amusing to see that the attempts to fix this problem, that could potentially reduce the number of non-voters, now is been presented as a way to suppress voting :)