Voter Id Laws: A Fake Solution To A Fake Problem

[Anomaly]

For the record, I still hold the opinion that if you can't get any ID in today's society, I'm not that sorry you can't vote.
Just about all states require some sort of ID to vote, the voter registration card, or some other form of identification, such as a utility bill, bank statement, etc. The quest for photo ID's is trying to standardize requiements and provide some assurance to the citizenry that the votes were cast by REAL citizens.

[u]Unlike all other modern democracies[/u], the US does not maintain a National Data Base of eligible voters. You don't have to provide any ID to register to vote, just sign an affidavit like buying fireworks if Florida stating you will use them for agricultural purposes.
The States can all decide how each of them can validate and verify who are eligible voters. It's the States who have to make sure they are likely citizens, not felons, not dead, not registered multiple times, not aliens (legal or not), etc. and ensure that it's ONLY citizens that are voting.

We could go to a National Registry Of Citizenship maintained by the Federal Government, but in the US, we're free to participate or not participate in Society to what ever degree makes our boat float.

I'm also not a big fan of early voting and mail-in voting either, but I don't know how to practically accomodate military, students, travelers, and not-mobile-ederly without the system being used for the plain lazy. I like the idea of Voting Day being a Federal Holiday.

Voting is a right, but is a also a heavy responsibility as well. Some things are not all about ease and convenience, especially something as important as voting on our elected officials.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1346634323' post='2477711']
[url="http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146827471/study-1-8-million-dead-people-still-registered-to-vote"]http://www.npr.org/2...istered-to-vote[/url]
[/quote]

If there is a potential for significant fraud, then that must be addressed one way or another. Anything less is just asking for trouble. And ID is not necessarily a problem for people. Heck, we send our census takers to people's houses and not charge them for the information given! We could at the most send ID agents out to people's homes and given them the opportunity to apply for free at their door! There are options and possibilities to make this fair to everyone. But to leave a door open for fraud -- especially now that it is well-known -- is reckless!

[kujo]

How can you say that fraud ***could*** happen when it isn't happening, at least not in any statistically significant or coordinated way? Isn't the lack of evidence of a problem sort of evidence of the lack of a problem?

[MIKolbe]

this makes sense.

let's wait until some fraud happens.

[kujo]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1348859672' post='2487661']
this makes sense.

let's wait until some fraud happens.
[/quote]

Right.

Why should we fix something that isn't broken, particularly since the current plan to "fix" it will have the consequence--intended or otherwise-- of placing an additional burden in the way of legal citizens of this country? This plan smells of elderberries, so unless you can find one that doesn't smell of elderberries, I'm gonna have to say that fixing stuff that ain't broken shouldn't be high on the list of priorities.

[kujo]

It's like this.

I have 2 locks on[font="lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif"][color="#333333"][size=2] [/size][/color][/font]my front door--one that opens from the outside with a key, and a deadbolt that can only be locked and unlocked from the inside. Now, people's homes are broken into all the time--dare I say, it's a more legitimate fear than voter fraud!-- so a legitimate case could be made that simply have 2 locks on your door isn't enough of a security blanket to ward off burglars. Of course there's a possibility that a criminal could kick in the door or use some sort of crazy Ocean's 11 style gadget to break into my apartment, but at the end of the day, that hasn't happened yet. So for me to go out and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to rig up a Fort Knox South-style security contraption to "protect" my 900 sq. ft. 2 bedroom apartment would seem to be an overreaction to a fear that isn't quite salient. Now, if there was a rash of break-ins in my neighborhood, where the criminals were specifically using tools that could break through our dual-lock doors, then yeah, investing in a 3rd lock, or an alarm system, or a sawed-off shotgun and a lawn chair that I could station in front of my front door would be worthwhile. But right now, as it currently stands, such actions would be an over-reaction.

[Anomaly]

kujo,
That is a legitimate opinion. I differ in not thinking it's on over-reaction, but part of a movement to modernize the voting process for a participative Governing in American Society. It will face legal challenge, but it's been allowed in other States.
You may not be aware of the Federal Government sharing data with the States that would enable them to update and validate persons registered to vote. There will be hell raised again after this election about 'valid or in-valid' votes because it's going to be a close election. It'll come down to court challenges in either Florida or Ohio.

[abercius24]

Of course, we don't need to over-do it, but there should be a rational approach to voter security. We employ a reasonable methodology in IT. The very minimum security that is called for is the one that at least "keeps honest people honest". That's the lock on your front door or the password on your computer. But there's also the situation where say Anonymous puts out a number of usernames and passwords on the net for public use. Are you going to leave all those accounts open to be hacked? Or are you going to disable the accounts and send an email out to the users telling them to change their passwords? It may or may not have been a problem before, but now that the vulnerability IS known to the public now, the most likely scenario is that it will be abused. To leave a vulnerability like this open to abuse is dangerous. And yeah, you might be willing to leave your house open to vulnerabilities, but that's just your stuff. You're talking about the value of MY vote here, and the value of the votes of every citizen in this country! If my vote can be nullified by the vote of a non-citizen, how is that protecting my freedom? Americans deserve to know their vote matters, else they'll end up not voting at all!

[4588686]

[quote name='abercius24' timestamp='1348855065' post='2487638']
We could at the most send ID agents out to people's homes and given them the opportunity to apply for free at their door! There are options and possibilities to make this fair to everyone.
[/quote]


And those laws would be very fair. Those aren't the laws being passed.


I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1348861309' post='2487674']
It's like this.

I have 2 locks onmy front door--one that opens from the outside with a key, and a deadbolt that can only be locked and unlocked from the inside. Now, people's homes are broken into all the time--dare I say, it's a more legitimate fear than voter fraud!-- so a legitimate case could be made that simply have 2 locks on your door isn't enough of a security blanket to ward off burglars. Of course there's a possibility that a criminal could kick in the door or use some sort of crazy Ocean's 11 style gadget to break into my apartment, but at the end of the day, that hasn't happened yet. So for me to go out and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to rig up a Fort Knox South-style security contraption to "protect" my 900 sq. ft. 2 bedroom apartment would seem to be an overreaction to a fear that isn't quite salient. Now, if there was a rash of break-ins in my neighborhood, where the criminals were specifically using tools that could break through our dual-lock doors, then yeah, investing in a 3rd lock, or an alarm system, or a sawed-off shotgun and a lawn chair that I could station in front of my front door would be worthwhile. But right now, as it currently stands, such actions would be an over-reaction.
[/quote]


Particularly when said over-reaction would cause tens of thousands (at the lower bound of estimates) of citizens to be denied their opportunity to vote.

[abercius24]

Hey, I'm just saying something realistic and effective needs to be done. I don't like leaving a vulnerability unattended, nor do I want restrictions to turn into abuses. There is a middle ground. As far as what THEY will do out there in politics-land, they have alterior motives, so anything they do should ALWAYS be suspect as it is!

Edited October 3, 2012 by abercius24

[kujo]

[quote name='abercius24' timestamp='1349302121' post='2489699']
Hey, I'm just saying something realistic and effective needs to be done. I don't like leaving a vulnerability unattended, nor do I want restrictions to turn into abuses. There is a middle ground. As far as what THEY will do out there in politics-land, they have alterior motives, so anything they do should ALWAYS be suspect as it is!
[/quote]

A) Why does anything need to be done if nothing is happening?

B) What exactly is "vulnerable" here?

C) What evidence is there of "abuses"

D) If I told you the sky is brown, and you told me the sky was blue, it would be retarded to try to seek a "middle ground" to resolve the conflict. There are things which are objectively true, while other things are objectively false.

[abercius24]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1349420256' post='2490268']

A) Why does anything need to be done if nothing is happening?

B) What exactly is "vulnerable" here?

C) What evidence is there of "abuses"

D) If I told you the sky is brown, and you told me the sky was blue, it would be retarded to try to seek a "middle ground" to resolve the conflict. There are things which are objectively true, while other things are objectively false.
[/quote]

So if you met a homeless person who was days from any food source, but he clearly had one meal in his possession, you wouldn't feel obligated to make sure he was going to be fed later? If you see the possiblity for trouble, you are obligated to avoid it.

And the problem is that people DO suspect that voter fraud is happening, they just can't prove who is doing it. We have found cases of dead people voting, we just don't know how it's happening. The concern for abuse is enough to do something about it. Confidence in the voting process is important, too.

[abercius24]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1349420256' post='2490268']

A) Why does anything need to be done if nothing is happening?

B) What exactly is "vulnerable" here?

C) What evidence is there of "abuses"

D) If I told you the sky is brown, and you told me the sky was blue, it would be retarded to try to seek a "middle ground" to resolve the conflict. There are things which are objectively true, while other things are objectively false.
[/quote]

So if you met a homeless person who was days from any food source, but he clearly had one meal in his possession, you wouldn't feel obligated to make sure he was going to be fed later? If you see the possiblity for trouble, you are obligated to avoid it.

And the problem is that people DO suspect that voter fraud is happening, they just can't prove who is doing it. We have found cases of dead people voting, we just don't know how it's happening. The concern for abuse is enough to do something about it. Confidence in the voting process is important, too.

[abercius24]

Looks like the evidence is beginning to show itself:

[url="http://www.examiner.com/article/video-republicans-caught-committing-voter-fraud-only-registering-romney-voters"]http://www.examiner.com/article/video-republicans-caught-committing-voter-fraud-only-registering-romney-voters[/url]