Election 2008

[Edie]

Barton/Tweedy 2020!

[mountain bed]

Barton/Tweedy 2020!

Yeah! Cafe Press - someone should get to it on this.

[giraffo]

vote for real change: Mike Gravel.

[Tweedling]

Could someone explain to me why requiring an ID when you go to vote is bad?

[ikol]

Could someone explain to me why requiring an ID when you go to vote is bad?

 

Because it disenfranchises fraudulent voters.

[MrRain422]

Unless state IDs are free (which as far as I know, they aren't anywhere), then it's a violation of the 24th Amendment.

[Tweedling]

I've been under the impression that if you can't afford the $10-$20 it takes for a state ID then they will give it to you at no cost. Does anyone know if this is right? I know this is the case in Indianna.........

[bjorn_skurj]

Not in New York, unless you are old and on SSI. A non-DL ID costs like $13.50.

[mountain bed]

Because it disenfranchises fraudulent voters.

I can't tell you how many times someone has tried to pose as me at the voting booth.

[ikol]

I can't tell you how many times someone has tried to pose as me at the voting booth.

 

And I would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids.

[MattZ]

Could someone explain to me why requiring an ID when you go to vote is bad?

 

Because some people think that folks should have the right to vote without any prerequisities. Many people don't have IDs. Whether that's because they are too poor or too lazy shouldn't matter.

 

It's also a slippery slope to requiring people to be literate, or charging a poll tax, or requiring people to know how many reps serve in the House. How many people in this country know the answer to that question? 20%? 10%? 5%? All of those requirements (as well as the requirement of an ID) fall disproportionately on poorer segments of the population...

 

On a side point, while Indiana's goal was to prevent voter fraud, they were unable to present any evidence that any voter fraud had actually occurred. Or, that's what NPR reported this morning on my way to work...

[JUDE]

I have no problem with requiring some form of ID in order to vote.

[ikol]

Because some people think that folks should have the right to vote without any prerequisities. Many people don't have IDs. Whether that's because they are too poor or too lazy shouldn't matter.

 

It's also a slippery slope to requiring people to be literate, or charging a poll tax, or requiring people to know how many reps serve in the House. How many people in this country know the answer to that question? 20%? 10%? 5%? All of those requirements (as well as the requirement of an ID) fall disproportionately on poorer segments of the population...

 

On a side point, while Indiana's goal was to prevent voter fraud, they were unable to present any evidence that any voter fraud had actually occurred. Or, that's what NPR reported this morning on my way to work...

 

So how would you prevent voter fraud?

[MattZ]

So how would you prevent voter fraud?

 

Well, like I said in my prior post, I heard on NPR today that Indiana wasn't even able to present evidence of voter fraud. So it's unclear to me that voter fraud even exists. And if it does exist, it's unclear to me that the fraud occurs on any level significant enough to impact anything. Statistically speaking, no way of counting votes is completely accurate -- even without fraud. There is always a margin of error for any number of reasons.

 

I am not suggesting that the goal should be to allow fraud to continue because it doesn't happen that often, but I'd have an easier time weighing the pros and cons of the issue if I knew the degree of fraud. We know for certain that people are disenfranchised by this...

[bleedorange]

Unless state IDs are free (which as far as I know, they aren't anywhere), then it's a violation of the 24th Amendment.

 

In Indiana, you can get an ID for free. But even if you couldn't, how does that constitute a tax?

 

Scalia's Concurrence

[ikol]

Well, like I said in my prior post, I heard on NPR today that Indiana wasn't even able to present evidence of voter fraud. So it's unclear to me that voter fraud even exists. And if it does exist, it's unclear to me that the fraud occurs on any level significant enough to impact anything. Statistically speaking, no way of counting votes is completely accurate -- even without fraud. There is always a margin of error for any number of reasons.

 

I am not suggesting that the goal should be to allow fraud to continue because it doesn't happen that often, but I'd have an easier time weighing the pros and cons of the issue if I knew the degree of fraud. We know for certain that people are disenfranchised by this...

 

If voter fraud was going on, how would you even prove it without being able to check photo IDs?

[MrRain422]

In Indiana, you can get an ID for free. But even if you couldn't, how does that constitute a tax?

 

Scalia's Concurrence

 

It's a requirement to pay money to vote. Simple as that.

[MrRain422]

To me the bigger issue is, what is the purpose of this requirement? As Matt pointed out, there is no evidence that there is voter fraud going on, so there has to be another purpose in doing it. I'm not sure if the point is to make voting more difficult for poor and minority voters, but if that's not it, then I can't think of what the purpose of such a rule is. It was implemented to prevent something that isn't really happening to any significant degree? That just doesn't make sense.

[MattZ]

If voter fraud was going on, how would you even prove it without being able to check photo IDs?

 

I dont know. I do know that people who are not committing fraud are being prevented from voting. Seems like an overbroad solution to a problem that we can't possibly calculate. Are we throwing out babies with bathwater?

 

Since we don't really know, and as you pointed out, it's tough to prove, why should we err on the side of disenfranching people?

[bleedorange]

It's a requirement to pay money to vote. Simple as that.

 

Well, you might have to pay for a bus ride to a polling place, too. Does that constitute a tax?

 

Also, why does there have to be evidence of voter fraud already in place in order to try to prevent it?

[ikol]

I dont know. I do know that people who are not committing fraud are being prevented from voting. Seems like an overbroad solution to a problem that we can't possibly calculate. Are we throwing out babies with bathwater?

 

Since we don't really know, and as you pointed out, it's tough to prove, why should we err on the side of disenfranching people?

 

How is being required to get a free photo ID disenfranchising people?

[bleedorange]

I dont know. I do know that people who are not committing fraud are being prevented from voting. Seems like an overbroad solution to a problem that we can't possibly calculate. Are we throwing out babies with bathwater?

 

Since we don't really know, and as you pointed out, it's tough to prove, why should we err on the side of disenfranching people?

 

But if you can obtain an ID for free, who is being disenfranchised? (Of course, I would argue that no one is disenfranchised even with the requirement of purchasing an ID, but that doesn't go to this case.)

[MattZ]

I think it could end up disenfranchising people who don't speak English or aren't well educated or don't know where to go to get an ID. I dont think any of those 3 things should be prerequisites to voting. And certainly not in a scenario when we have no evidence of fraud. Just my opinion.

 

It's a slippery slope, too, as I said above. Where are you going to draw the line?

[JUDE]

I have no problem with people having to do a little work in order to vote.

[MattZ]

... and this should go without saying, but hasn't been said yet -- there are other ways to prevent fraud. In NY, you have to sign your name in a book and they match it against your signature from prior years (or your voter election card). No photo ID.