A Question...Just That, A Question

[Lucky]

What is so wrong with asking a person who shows up to vote to identify himself with some official form of ID?

[TotallyOz]

I do not see an issue with this at all. I know that is not the "liberal" stance as they say it disenfranchises blacks and the poor. But, an ID card should be had by all over 16 and it should be required to have and hold. IMHO

Sorry, if I said something wrong here guys. I just don't see the issue with it. But, when you lump this issue with other restrictions like less voting hours, etc. I do see the issue.

[RA1]

I have argued for that point of view over and over but some don't seem to get it. In TN, whether you are 103 or 23 years old, you have to show government issued ID in order to buy beer in a grocery store (or anywhere else). Beer, wine and other alcohol spirits seem to be popular beverages which leads me to believe most everyone has an ID.

I, unfortunately, do not appear to be under 21 so if anyone has their rights being usurped it is all of us who are old enough to know better but drink (or vote) anyway.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

It wouldn't keep me from voting. Neither would shorter voting hours. Nor would standing in a long line or traveling a few miles farther away to cast my ballot. But there are enough stories about folks who would be deterred by these things that I'm inclined to give them some credence.

It also seems more than coincidental that it's Republicans, rather than Democrats, who seem to like putting these extra hurdles in place. Again, I have to believe there's some correlation between putting these barriers up and getting a lower turnout of Democratic voters. I couldn't prove it, but folks smarter than I am believe it to be true.

Even then, it might make sense to make every voter have an ID, even if it means standing in a long line to get one, if it would cut down on voter fraud. But I've heard of so few instances of actual fraud that I have to wonder how such a shift in the law and increase in requirements can be justified on the basis of reducing fraud.

Besides making the elderly and poor jump through such hoops, the other folks I feel bad for are college students who would be required to return home to cast a ballot, rather than vote where they go to school. My college was hundreds of miles from my home town, and grad school was thousands of miles away. So those rules would have kept me from voting. As the majority of college students vote Democratic, and since it's Republicans who want to make them go home to do it, it's not a stretch to see the motivation behind that particular rule change.

In the absence of a demonstrable reason to do so, and with the widespread concern that such barriers would discourage Democratic turnout, I, for one, am not planning to lobby for requiring voters to show ID.

[RA1]

I understand your point of view but I think it is somewhat misdirected. Not only Republicans but also Democrats are the fat cats in power and they do not "govern" properly.

However, I have one question about your post and that is, how do we know that there is not frequent voter fraud? Just because there is very little reported means little. There is very little corporate fraud reported until there is a massive case of it, would you agree? Ditto political malfeasance. These things have to go on for a time before folks become so unhappy about them as to do something.

LBJ was famous for dead voters electing him. There is the Chicago political gang. The Boston gang. Etc. Etc.

I appreciate your thoughts of a better world. But I am not willing to accept it as being so with so little evidence supporting same. In fact, much evidence supporting otherwise.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest EXPAT]

As long as the ID costs nothing to get and easily accessible then I have no issue with it. Otherwise it becomes a poll tax which is unconstitutional.

But in North Carolina for example the ID they are allowing for free requires an original birth certificate which may exclude thousands up thousands of older people who no longer have it nor have access to it. And if they go to records it costs them to get it (again a poll tax).

It has to be easy, free and accessible.

[Lucky]

I limited my question to the one issue of government issued ID. Hurdles, to me, are shorter hours for voting, intentionally creating long lines by understaffing certain precincts, and similar. I don't like hurdles. But proving that you are, in fact, the registered voter seems baseline rather than a hurdle. Now I agree with EXPAT that hurdles can be created to get such an ID, and there shouldn't be any. But a birth certificate is neeeded in several areas of life and everyone should have one. And I do agree that it should not be a difficult or expensive task to do so.

[Guest zipperzone]

I always feel that birth certificates prove nothing. Who is to say the adult producing same is the person listed on the B.C.?

And as for picture ID, in many cases it is also useless. If a voter wears a turban and has a beard they all look similar.

[AdamSmith]

LBJ was famous for dead voters electing him. There is the Chicago political gang. The Boston gang. Etc. Etc.

It is not quite clear to me how voter ID laws will prevent vote fraud engineered by election officials, which is how it historically has happened, as you point out.

[RA1]

I always sneak in a another point, don't I? As long as we use Diebold voting machines voting fraud is very easy to perpetuate by officials. Perhaps we need to not only ID the officials but give them a polygraph as part of the election process.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

I always sneak in a another point, don't I? As long as we use Diebold voting machines voting fraud is very easy to perpetuate by officials. Perhaps we need to not only ID the officials but give them a polygraph as part of the election process.

Best regards,

RA1

I'm with you on this.

I believe that electronic voting devices ought to be limited to scanning machine-readable hand-marked ballots. You know, color in the oval. This provides a hard copy record of the hand marked ballot. Also, the ballots should be scnanned in 'lots' of a size practical to count manually, say 5000 ballot lots. Each lot recorded and bound separately. As part of the count process a handful of these lots should be selected at random and hand counted for comparison with the machine totals. That would guarantee the accuracy and validity of the process and reduce the temptation to influence the results.

[TampaYankee]

As long as the ID costs nothing to get and easily accessible then I have no issue with it. Otherwise it becomes a poll tax which is unconstitutional....

It has to be easy, free and accessible.

I'm with you on this. Voter ID is proper as long as it does nothing to impede the voting of those entitled by citizenship to vote. That is the reason for voter registration. You prove citizenship and register to vote.

One size of proof does not fit all. It depends on individual circumstances. In similar circumstances my grandparents needed proof of birth for collection of social security benefits. Neither had birth certificates being born before those records were required by law. Neither was born in a hospital, rather at home. They were born and died in the same county. The SS Admin determined that sworn affidavits by neighbors as well as ancillary documentation like a marriage license established a historical record. THe SS worked to find a way to help them establish a legitimate claim rather than erecting rigid procedures that were actually obstacles making a legitimate claim.

Few of these present day voter ID procedures seem to lean towards facilitation of legitimate voter participation, and look more like procedures to erect obstacles to legitimate voter participation. Anyone who sincerely favors the broadest possible legitimate voter participation would see that.

The same holds for early voting, Sunday voting, voting by mail, etc.

[AdamSmith]

I believe that electronic voting devices ought to be limited to scanning machine-readable hand-marked ballots. You know, color in the oval. This provides a hard copy record of the hand marked ballot. Also, the ballots should be scnanned in 'lots' of a size practical to count manually, say 5000 ballot lots. Each lot recorded and bound separately. As part of the count process a handful of these lots should be selected at random and hand counted for comparison with the machine totals. That would guarantee the accuracy and validity of the process and reduce the temptation to influence the results.

Agree. In fact in MA and NC where I have voted by this mechanism, in practice it appears to work more or less as you say. I mark my paper ballot, then in MA place it in a cover sheet for privacy, hand it to the election official, then watch her feed it into the machine reader, which reads it and stores the hardcopy. In NC I mark the ballot, then feed it into the reader myself. In both cases I know that physical ballot is in there, in a stack in the same order in which my vote was tallied electronically.

The Diebold-type technology ought to be outlawed at the federal level, if that is legally possible.

[Lucky]

Diebold's voting machines are a huge scandal. Maybe Diebold should have to prove each machine is tamper proof before they can be used.

[Lucky]

Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the majority decision saying that requiring ID from voters was legal, now says that he was wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us/politics/judge-in-landmark-case-disavows-support-for-voter-id.html?hp