Voter Photo ID -- Is It Really Terrible?

[Lewkowski]

Irrelevant. This policy in itself reduces turnout. It's judged on its own merits.

Reducing turnout isn't bad. That's like suggesting a politician going on the campaign trail spending most of their time on negative attacks in order to depress their opponents voter turn out is somehow anti-Democratic. For example: By painting Clinton as someone who 'stole' the election from Bernie Trump didn't get a single extra vote, the entire point was to discourage people from voting for Clinton.

[RandBlade]

I don't believe it will meaningfully reduce it.

[Dreadnaught]

No, I'm saying getting 100 million more US citizens to educate themselves and vote is vastly more important than adding yet another measure to try and reduce voter fraud that is already very low due to the methods currently used to mitigate or stop fraud.

Gotcha.

Irrelevant. This policy in itself reduces turnout. It's judged on its own merits.

Even if that were true, having an airtight election system has great value for the electoral process itself. Otherwise it's like crazy libertarians arguing that we shouldn't have driver's licenses at all; you want some level of accountability before someone gets on the road and into the ballot box.

[Loki]

Even if that were true, having an airtight election system has great value for the electoral process itself. Otherwise it's like crazy libertarians arguing that we shouldn't have driver's licenses at all; you want some level of accountability before someone gets on the road and into the ballot box.

Except you've yet to establish this is a serious problem. People have established your policy has huge costs. The onus is on you to prove that we need such a costly policy. And if you suddenly became a convert to this noble cause, why not also photo ID for free to anyone who asks for it? And the cut the red tape involved in getting one. Funny how none of the Republican proposals do those things.

I don't believe it will meaningfully reduce it.

Numerous studies prove you wrong.

Reducing turnout isn't bad. That's like suggesting a politician going on the campaign trail spending most of their time on negative attacks in order to depress their opponents voter turn out is somehow anti-Democratic. For example: By painting Clinton as someone who 'stole' the election from Bernie Trump didn't get a single extra vote, the entire point was to discourage people from voting for Clinton.

Making our political system less legitimate is bad. Making it more racist is also bad. I realize you don't care about either as long as they benefit your tribe, but some of us have an actual interest in the quality of democracy in this country.

[Dreadnaught]

Except you've yet to establish this is a serious problem. People have established your policy has huge costs. The onus is on you to prove that we need such a costly policy. And if you suddenly became a convert to this noble cause, why not also photo ID for free to anyone who asks for it? And the cut the red tape involved in getting one. Funny how none of the Republican proposals do those things.

Yeah, no. Voting errors are a known unknown. Consistent voter registration and identification practices are in-themselves a virtue. Our patchwork system leaves many gaps that are worth fixing, simply for the sake of preserving the legitimacy of the process. This was the conclusion of the Baker-Carter study, and it's the conclusion of a great many states. Otherwise you're just arguing we may as well do away from driver's licenses because it's too difficult to get one.

I'm all for making it easier and cheaper to get identification. Part (though hardly all) of the reason that doesn't happen is because there are so left-leaning activists who oppose simple identification, which creates the impression of bad faith.

[Loki]

Right Dread, this is why none of the GOP voter ID bills had these provisions. They must have just forgotten to include them.

[Aimless]

Right Dread, this is why none of the GOP voter ID bills had these provisions. They must have just forgotten to include them.

The GOP has been infiltrated by left-leaning activists

[RandBlade]

Would explain a lot.

[Aimless]

Otherwise it's like crazy libertarians arguing that we shouldn't have driver's licenses at all

It's really not, unless you'd like to argue that people should have to pass tests of skill and knowledge in order to prove that they know how to vote "right" ie. so that they don't vote in a way that causes them to injure or even kill other voters.

[RandBlade]

While it would be good to get people to do that, unfortunately people do still have the right to vote for left wing parties anyway even if that cause those effects.

[Aimless]

I'm sorry, I have no interest in continuing such a stupid line of discussion, but maybe someone else will be willing to take the bait rather than letting you suffer silently in shame.

[Dreadnaught]

Right Dread, this is why none of the GOP voter ID bills had these provisions. They must have just forgotten to include them.

You gonna stick with that line?

It's really not, unless you'd like to argue that people should have to pass tests of skill and knowledge in order to prove that they know how to vote "right" ie. so that they don't vote in a way that causes them to injure or even kill other voters.

I should have perhaps elaborated. The libertarian argument is split between people who object to requiring people to take a test to drive, and people who oppose being required to register with the government to partake in an activity. I was referring more to the later.

[Aimless]

When even Fox thinks you're wrong you're in trouble:

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/fo...gation-2017-1/

[Loki]

http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index....ed_closur.html

Step 1: pass a law to require photo ID.
Step 2: make it extremely difficult for people who don't support you to obtain said ID.
Step 3: profit!

[Aimless]

So sneaky: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1B32O3

[Lewkowski]

So sneaky: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1B32O3

"She said Texas was overreaching by "threatening severe penalties for perjury," and noted that the state's "history of voter intimidation" led her not to accept the new voter ID law as a solution for the "purposeful discrimination" in the one it attempted to improve upon."

What nonsense is this? Texas could choose to have life time prison sentence for perjury and that would be Texas's business. It is like the judge doesn't want harsh penalties for voter fraud on the basis that it would be discrimination. Uh, don't commit fraud, don't try to vote if you aren't allowed to, don't try to vote twice and you shouldn't have a problem.

[Aimless]

If the paragraph immediately preceding that one didn't make the reasoning clear enough then you can go straight to the decision for further clarification of that particular detail, starting on p 16: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzg...V3YlFBeDQ/view

[Lewkowski]

If the paragraph immediately preceding that one didn't make the reasoning clear enough then you can go straight to the decision for further clarification of that particular detail, starting on p 16: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzg...V3YlFBeDQ/view

That's like making the argument that any penalty for voter fraud could potentially disenfranchise legitimate voters.

[LittleFuzzy]

If the paragraph immediately preceding that one didn't make the reasoning clear enough then you can go straight to the decision for further clarification of that particular detail, starting on p 16: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzg...V3YlFBeDQ/view

I would say page 19 does so more clearly, IMO.
I did look a bit askance at that section in the news report but the actual opinion does an admirable job of walking through the reasoning (and the requirements put in place by higher court rulings) point by point and in (mostly) clear language.

edit: to summarize for you Lewk, the expanded perjury section of the bill is an issue because it A) comes along with the removal of any opportunity to demonstrate ahead of time that it's not perjury, B) a mechanism that makes it harder to avoid perjury, C) relates to something which doesn't actually have a thing to do with voter fraud), and D) all this is done by a state with a history of threatening criminal prosecution exactly like that as a mechanism racially-motivated discrimination and voter suppression. This is relevant because the state has a burden to show that their new law FIXES the previous discriminatory problem(s). Since this exacerbates the voter intimidation aspect and since they were already found at fault for being discriminatory, it very clearly does not fix the problem(s).

[Aimless]

That's like making the argument that any penalty for voter fraud could potentially disenfranchise legitimate voters.

Yes, and so to make that less likely you can include an "Other" option so that people can explain their reasons in their own words.

[Aimless]

I would say page 19 does so more clearly, IMO.
I did look a bit askance at that section in the news report but the actual opinion does an admirable job of walking through the reasoning (and the requirements put in place by higher court rulings) point by point and in (mostly) clear language.

I didn't want to shortchange him

[Aimless]

Thought I'd save Lewk the trouble:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...r-fraud-kobach

[Dreadnaught]

[Insert remark about difficulty of proving fraud, and demonstrated fraud is besides the point in an electoral system that has real theoretical security holes because of its patchwork of identification standards, which was a point highlighted by the bi-partisan commission that reviewed the 2000 election.]

[Aimless]

Insert remark about the US sucking

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckrak...enses-voter-id

[Loki]

It's hard to interpret this as anything but the GOP giving up on democracy (when it gives them the wrong results).

[Steely Glint]

They certainly haven't been acting like people who expect to face consequences at the ballot box recently.

[Aimless]

Guys, this is all just in your heads.

[Aimless]

They certainly haven't been acting like people who expect to face consequences at the ballot box recently.

Sure they have. They expect/fear they'll be punished by core GOP voters if they don't do these despicable things.

[Loki]

Sure they have. They expect/fear they'll be punished by core GOP voters if they don't do these despicable things.

I don't think it's that. They just want ever larger electoral majorities in states they dominate to make up for increasingly become a non-factor in other states.

[RandBlade]

Maybe America should split into a red nation and a blue nation?