Voter Photo ID -- Is It Really Terrible?

Hang on, they may still have to register and re-register every single time.

[/QUOTE]

The stuff at the bottom is *mostly* legitimate stuff to complain about. One of the interesting differences between vote-suppression and voting fraud is that the former is "soft" manipulation. You effectively target a bunch of people and count the effort a success if it works for a portion of that total. Fraud, OTOH, is much more direct and produces hard numbers. It is, in that respect, a more effective and more efficient means of manipulating the totals. It's also more obviously criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

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 :)

---

My guess is that's partially related to 50 states each having different rules. Plus, some people concerned about federal "intervention" over state control, maybe even privacy using computer networks.

Because one way to fix the whole mess would be to have one lifetime voting number assigned at registration (much like a SSN), entered into a computer data base, issuing a plastic card and UPC type code that's unique for every individual. Once it's been used to vote in an election, it couldn't be used again until the next election, the computer would spit it out.

But all states would have to agree, and connect to a nation-wide voter computer network. DMVs are already connected that way so police can check out-of-state or expired licenses. Maybe that's why the photo ID issued by DMV appeals to some people? Those concerned about privacy wouldn't like such a data base, let alone one administered by the gummint. SSN info has been lost/stolen/hacked, and driver's licenses can be stolen and altered/forged. Voting information should be totally private and unaccessible, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

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/

---

I must raise a bullshit alarm, because if that semi-anonymous description is correct it seems to plainly conflict with Tennessee's guidelines on this, available here: http://www.tn.gov/safety/photoids.shtml

It's pretty straightforward and non-threatening to democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

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.

---

Utility bills can be used to establish residency, which in terms demonstrates your right to vote on the spot without prior registration. At least in many states. Plenty of non-citizens get utility bills with their names and addresses on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

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 :)

---

Mostly agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Utility bills can be used to establish residency, which in terms demonstrates your right to vote on the spot without prior registration. At least in many states. Plenty of non-citizens get utility bills with their names and addresses on them.

---

Again, that's a problem of 50 states with their own rules, instead of having a national and uniform standard. Some states do not have same-day registration, or "on-the-spot" registration. Ergo---it's only a problem in certain states. Any state being rinky dinky can change that on their own.

IMO, instead of taking this from a voter fraud or voter suppression angle, all states would do better to look at this from a simple legal residency angle. Much like the US Census does---you're counted where you live the majority of the year, even if that means you may move in the future (students back home with parents for a summer, or snowbirds down south for a winter season).

I can understand why politicians might want to restrict or "suppress" students-migrants-temp worker-tourist resident from voting in state elections. But they didn't seem to mind when those same people were counted as residents by the Census, and gained state representatives, did they? :donkey:

Indeed, so some states are changing on their own to require photo IDs to prove residence. What isn't constructive is accusing those state legislators of being racist or trying to suppress votes.

It's still a valid argument that requiring photo IDs (from the DMV no less), doesn't prove residency either.


Edit:

Dread, I'm not sure why you can't see how this could/would lead to voter suppression for certain groups like the poor, working poor, or new (legal) immigrants. And how that can/does translate to either racism or discrimination, even if it's unintended.

Compare three groups, all living within 50-100 miles of a state border. (1) university student, (2) commuter worker, (3) migrant farm worker. Where do they vote? How do they know where they vote?

The commuter worker who lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland but works in DC or Virginia probably knows the answer. If they need dual photo IDs they can afford that, too. Not quite the same as the student who came from Utah but lives in Georgetown, but they could probably figure it out, too. Universities have dedicated Help for that kind of thing. Now think of the migrant farm worker who "lives" in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and Pennsylvania during harvest seasons, but calls Texas their "home", because that's where their family lives. Where do they vote and how do they know where to vote?

It's suggested as racism or discrimination or voter suppression because it effects those least likely to be able to "figure it out", maneuver the complicated channels, or be able to pay for dual or redundant photo ID. Minorities, new immigrants, poor, and working poor make up our transient work force. Not to be confused with our commuter worker work force or university students.

Most people just want to know where to vote, and how to register to vote. Not "game" the system.

Now what if government (county/state/federal, have your pick) would provide every citizen who applies for it with a free-of-charge ID card so that these people can use their card for identification when required and not just at the polls ?

Most people would get a card because a ID-card is very handy, and those who really have a great aversion to owning/carrying one don't have to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

accusing those state legislators of being racist

---

yet you're the only one who keeps trying to force the discussion down this road :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Hang on, they may still have to register and re-register every single time.

---

You seem to have missed the whole purpose of this registration thing; it is because 'they' don't know who's eligible to vote. That problem does not exist with a comprehensive system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Now what if government (county/state/federal, have your pick) would provide every citizen who applies for it with a free-of-charge ID card so that these people can use their card for identification when required and not just at the polls ?

Most people would get a card because a ID-card is very handy, and those who really have a great aversion to owning/carrying one don't have to.

---

They already do. We get a voter ID card after registration that can be used as "government-issued ID" (including airports), just like a SSN ID card. They're paper cards, and neither have photos, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

They already do. We get a voter ID card after registration that can be used as "government-issued ID" (including airports), just like a SSN ID card. They're paper cards, and neither have photos, though.

---

That's exactly not what I meant then. What I meant is an ID card that can be used for all sorts of purposes INCLUDING voting, which then would not need any exclusive voter registration process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Dread, I'm not sure why you can't see how this could/would lead to voter suppression for certain groups like the poor, working poor, or new (legal) immigrants. And how that can/does translate to either racism or discrimination, even if it's unintended.

---

Because terms like "racism" and "voter suppression" implies deep and malicious intent. Verifying identification doesn't have malicious intent.

A poll tax or asking random math problems to qualify to vote was racism and voter suppression. We have an ugly history in that, which makes preserving the voting system even more important. Yet in many states we've now swung in the opposite direction. To an extent, we let people register to vote based on an honor system. That's not acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Verifying identification doesn't have malicious intent.

---

I think you are grossly misrepresenting voter ID efforts in certain regions, especially considering the evidence that already exists (and is ignored), when it comes to how the current ID systems that are spreading are cause lower voter turn out for certain groups. Not to mention how people are being silenced and fired for working within the system to make such efforts less burdensome for those that can least afford to adapt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I think you are grossly misrepresenting voter ID efforts in certain regions, especially considering the evidence that already exists (and is ignored), when it comes to how the current ID systems that are spreading are cause lower voter turn out for certain groups.

---

See, I think it's the other way around, that you *and perhaps Minx* are grossly misrepresenting voter ID as a means of suppression. It is firstly and primarily another expression of the desire to "modernize" our electoral apparatus after the embarrassment/disaster that was the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Partisan interests/opposition to this or that mechanism enter into things much later and serve, at best, as icing on the cake. I don't think measures like this are required at all and the teething problems with its implementation could potentially be reasons to oppose a particular proposal, but it does not follow nor is it the least bit sensible for anyone but a raging partisan to see such efforts as akin to efforts like stuffing ballot boxes or sabotaging the other side's GOTV efforts. Opposing a measure that serves a worthwhile interest and is otherwise reasonable on its merits because you think it will happen to fall more heavily on your side than the other's has, IMO, more of the invidious partisan tinge you're alleging against the GOP here than what they're doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

See, I think it's the other way around, that you *and perhaps Minx* are grossly misrepresenting voter ID as a means of suppression. It is firstly and primarily another expression of the desire to "modernize" our electoral apparatus after the embarrassment/disaster that was the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Partisan interests/opposition to this or that mechanism enter into things much later and serve, at best, as icing on the cake. I don't think measures like this are required at all and the teething problems with its implementation could potentially be reasons to oppose a particular proposal, but it does not follow nor is it the least bit sensible for anyone but a raging partisan to see such efforts as akin to efforts like stuffing ballot boxes or sabotaging the other side's GOTV efforts. Opposing a measure that serves a worthwhile interest and is otherwise reasonable on its merits because you think it will happen to fall more heavily on your side than the other's has, IMO, more of the invidious partisan tinge you're alleging against the GOP here than what they're doing.

---

I don't understand the connection to the 2000 elections? Wasn't that whole mess about the voting technics and counting procedure? I don't remember voter registration having been a major concern back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I don't understand the connection to the 2000 elections? Wasn't that whole mess about the voting technics and counting procedure? I don't remember voter registration having been a major concern back then.

---

And really confusing ballots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I don't understand the connection to the 2000 elections? Wasn't that whole mess about the voting technics and counting procedure? I don't remember voter registration having been a major concern back then.

---

It provided the impetus for efforts to overhaul the entire election apparatus. Modernize the ballots. Well if we're modernizing the ballots why don't we do this too? Well we've done that, why haven't we done this other thing. And so on and so forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

It provided the impetus for efforts to overhaul the entire election apparatus. Modernize the ballots. Well if we're modernizing the ballots why don't we do this too? Well we've done that, why haven't we done this other thing. And so on and so forth.

---

Sounds a bit too much like the butterfly effect to me.

I think this debate is so messy because not so long ago voter registration actually was actively hampered for minority groups in the USA on the one side and a large number of American citizens simply don't trust anything government does.

Sort of how OG and Cain get on the anti-side of this debate for an entirely different sets of believes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

You seem to have missed the whole purpose of this registration thing; it is because 'they' don't know who's eligible to vote. That problem does not exist with a comprehensive system.

---

No, I get that part. I just meant that requiring a photo id wouldn't necessarily obviate the need for repeated registration like eg. in the UK.

I don't mind photo ID, but if you're going to change a system it doesn't hurt to see both pros, cons and challenges :) the obstacles this new scheme would put before some people are challenges that need to be overcome.

The issue of suppression is just something i became interested in. even if id requirements result in a form of suppression, suppression is probably not the intent. And who knows if democrats would be more suppressed :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

No, I get that part. I just meant that requiring a photo id wouldn't necessarily obviate the need for repeated registration like eg. in the UK.

I don't mind photo ID, but if you're going to change a system it doesn't hurt to see both pros, cons and challenges :) the obstacles this new scheme would put before some people are challenges that need to be overcome.

The issue of suppression is just something i became interested in. even if id requirements result in a form of suppression, suppression is probably not the intent. And who knows if democrats would be more suppressed :o

---

Photo ID wouldn't really change anything, a comprehensive register would. But attempts to get there run into the same problems as plans for photo ID; both left wing and right wing of the body political and populace are against it for their very own reasons. But they are against so vehemently that the center dare not tread this minefield.

Recently I went to my local election board to obtain an absentee ballot, which legally is supposed to be printed a certain amount of time before the election.

In order to get into the building, I was asked to produce a photo identification to be scanned into the building's database. "RACISM" I screamed! "YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME!"

I called my local branch of the AFSCME and and immediately demanded paper and markers to organize a picket. The African-American security guard put an exasperated look on his face (doesn't he realize how racist his demands are?) and called to the Board of Elections upstairs. They sent several staffers to come and speak with me in the lobby outside of the security checkpoint.

After I screamed at them for three minutes about ALEC and the racism of the Republican party, they said their procedures were to verify people's identity to get into the building and protect the integrity/security of their work, which in turn protects our democracy. "We can't just let anyone walk in here," she said.

As the election official stopped talking, a smirk grew on her face as she marveled in the smug superiority of her explanation. I then noticed that of the Board of Elections officials speaking to me, only 25% shared my race. "DISPERATE IMPACT!" I howled. "I AM GOING TO SUE YOU FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH OF YOU SHARE MY SKIN TONE!"

They seemed desperate to resolve this without my legal exposure of their vile and unreasonable discrimination, so one of them offered to just bring me an absentee ballot. The first Board of Elections member suddenly blushed, as she admitted that, due to a slow primary election counting process in a few Democratic primaries, there would be no absentee ballots until a week or two before the election.

"PERFIDY!" I screamed as the police flooded in to defend my legitimate right to walk into a building full of ballots, voter registrations and poll workers without any cursory verification of my identity and intentions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw

I think that the vast majority of people (including myself) who want voter ID laws want them because the very idea of (very easily concealable) fraud and abuse are repugnant to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Recently I ...

---

:):up:

Side-note:

Due to blanket country-wide Department of Justice legal threats (or something), and the fact that my city has an enormous Spanish-speaking population as a percentage, the city this year will be forced to produce the ballot in Spanish and English. They did this before, but not forcibly. Not my point, though...

My point, now: because of the verbosity of the three Massachusetts ballot questions before the voters, each ballot is two pages long -- that's double-sided, I believe, so four pages.

Instead of making one ballot in Spanish, and one in English of one page each, they made one in both, for two pages total for each person. Brilliant.

Perhaps because all ballots have to be identical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Perhaps because all ballots have to be identical?

---

Yes, I'm positive it has to do with some sort of perceived racism nonsense. "Oh look, he's taking the Spanish-language ballot. Let's beat him up!"

Those who never bothered to learn English and still want to vote should be happy that they were afforded this luxury, which in my opinion is an affront to all hard-working immigrants who took the time to at least try to learn English.

Dread, there's no constitutional right to enter a building as there is to vote. Your parody only managed to show that absentee-voting has the potential for fraud, not in-person voting. If fraud was the concern, where are the proposals to secure absentee-ballots, which can be mailed?

New photo-ID laws at polling stations are a solution without a problem. Voting in-person still checks identity with signatures, and there's been no proof that people are faking identity. If there's a need to upgrade or revamp our voting process, and everyone will be required to have state-issued photo-ID, they should have started the process long before this election....and figured out a way to get everyone that ID without charge (poll tax) or undo burden.

And if the real concern is about the 'sanctity' or validity of votes, they should have started with the machines and ballots themselves, especially after the FL fiasco and hanging chads. It's kinda pathetic that the US has so many different types of platforms, from ancient lever-curtain booths to fill-in-the-blank papers, instead of comprehensive/sophisticated computer models everywhere. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Yes, I'm positive it has to do with some sort of perceived racism nonsense. "Oh look, he's taking the Spanish-language ballot. Let's beat him up!"

Those who never bothered to learn English and still want to vote should be happy that they were afforded this luxury, which in my opinion is an affront to all hard-working immigrants who took the time to at least try to learn English.

---

Err, two things. One: it's not perceived racism nonsense. All the reasons I can think of why ballots should be identical have nothing to do with racism.

Two: IIRC English isn't the official language of the USA (at least federally), so there is no real reason why the government should not provide its services and ballots etc. in more than one language. Especially since you mention your city has a huge Spanish speaking population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw

---

Wowsa. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Dread, there's no constitutional right to enter a building as there is to vote. Your parody only managed to show that absentee-voting has the potential for fraud, not in-person voting. If fraud was the concern, where are the proposals to secure absentee-ballots, which can be mailed?

---

How can I enter the building to pick up and submit my absentee ballot if they are being racist plutocrats and demanding my ID? How can I conduct any business with the Board of Elections if they are going to stand behind the eeeeevil facade of asking me who I am?

I just read that there are 23 million Americans without photo IDs. If either party was really concerned with fraud or with voter access, is there a reason we can't buy each of these people an ID (if an ID costs $10 each, that would cost $230 million)?

Most voter ID laws include subsidies for free voter ID cards.

Though arguably the cost is actually much below $10 per card. Then again, it's government so the effective cost maybe would be $10 per card.

It's also worth noting that some voter ID laws don't demand photo IDs, but rather some kind of ID.

The argument has always been about the hurdles and fees on the randomly changing official documents required in order to get these IDs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

How can I enter the building to pick up and submit my absentee ballot if they are being racist plutocrats and demanding my ID? How can I conduct any business with the Board of Elections if they are going to stand behind the eeeeevil facade of asking me who I am?

---

You use the US postal service....just like bi-state residents and citizens overseas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I just read that there are 23 million Americans without photo IDs. If either party was really concerned with fraud or with voter access, is there a reason we can't buy each of these people an ID (if an ID costs $10 each, that would cost $230 million)?

---

And they could have planned to take those photos (free of charge) for every person voting at the polls this year, well in advance of the next election.

Unfortunately, we all know that the Republicans don't want certain people voting and the Democrats don't want to deter lazy and/or stupid people from voting (for obvious reasons).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Unfortunately, we all know that the Republicans don't want certain people voting and the Democrats don't want to deter lazy and/or stupid people from voting (for obvious reasons).

---

And there we have it -- the racist component. :sour:

It's fairly obvious by now that these "efforts" are meant to suppress or intimidate certain voters.

It's meant to suppress the votes of people who are generally less likely to vote, which happen to be minorities. I'm sure the GOP would be doing the same thing if those voters happened to be white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It's meant to suppress the votes of people who are generally less likely to vote, which happen to be minorities. I'm sure the GOP would be doing the same thing if those voters happened to be white.

---

Bull. The GOP can't afford to lose white voters, since they make up their 'base'. The GOP relied on outdated stereotypes about likely voters in 2008, and lost the youth, student, racial and ethnic Votes.

You're not being very creative. There are plenty different types of white voters, and quite a few of those aren't very GOP-friendly. The GOP has no problem with throwing a wrench under their feet. :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're not being very creative. There are plenty different types of white voters, and quite a few of those aren't very GOP-friendly. The GOP has no problem with throwing a wrench under their feet. :noob:

---

The GOP is now its own worst enemy, that's for sure. Too bad for the GOP that Romney is now their party leader, and too bad for Romney that he's now the leader of the GOP. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Err, two things. One: it's not perceived racism nonsense. All the reasons I can think of why ballots should be identical have nothing to do with racism.

---

Like..?

Quote:

---

Two: IIRC English isn't the official language of the USA (at least federally), so there is no real reason why the government should not provide its services and ballots etc. in more than one language. Especially since you mention your city has a huge Spanish speaking population.

---

Doesn't matter. It's a luxury that is hurting the country, socially (because of tensions related to miscommunications) and economically (because good communication is the key to success).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It's meant to suppress the votes of people who are generally less likely to vote, which happen to be minorities. I'm sure the GOP would be doing the same thing if those voters happened to be white.

---

Don't say "suppress"; been watching MSNBC lately?? No one is preventing anyone from voting, just making it more inconvenient for those who don't have.. any sort of documentation on their identity.

It's far more difficult to get a driver's license, at least sometimes. When I went to get my driver's license, I gave them my official birth certificate and my passport. Unfortunately, they claimed I needed THREE documents proving my identity until we started a storm. (passport not enough ID for these jerks??) I believe a utility bill/employer payment statement was enough to count for one of the three IDs. Equating passports to utility bills as a form of ID, and requiring three of them for a driver's license: your government at work.

You don't see democrat-liberals whining about the messed up driver's license acquisition process in Massachusetts (and probably many other states) all day on MSNBC, do you??