Post: #26

(11-28-2016 03:03 AM)weambulance Wrote:  I don't really understand your point. Why would anyone care if people knew whether or not they voted? You don't put your name on the ballot. Nobody knows who you voted for.

Not voting record as in how you've voted but when and where. Not exactly biggies but still leaving a footprint that I can see a lot of people balking at.

Quote:
As to who will be discouraged, I'm going to say probably a lot more lazy asses on the progressive side than on ours.

Do you seriously believe that conservatives who generally are suspicious of government oversight would be more positive to this than progressives who get hard on the thought about big government and another citizen database?

I'm not against the idea of a voter id, I actually don't care either way, but I doubt it's very practical. Instead of expanding the state's bureaucracy the properties of a voter ID should be integrated into any other of the common papers people hold.

Post: #27

State ID and ink finger with a paper voting ballot. Finger print ID will set off the rabid conspiracy theorists and Data protection lawyers. State ID can be used to buy alcohol, tobacco etc. You have one paper ballot.

Post: #28

I'm still amazed that people even dare ask such a question like "Is it plausible?". How could it ever be NOT plausible?! All civilized countries, even some banana republics, have voted ID laws, the USA is the only outsider.

You'd think that if you have such an important rule like "one person, one vote, citizens only" you'd have a strong interest in enforcing it and prevent illegal/multiple voting, and the easiest way to ensure it is to check the ID of the person.

What is supposed to be so difficult to check an ID? It's not like it's an exotic document, you have to have some form of ID to do just about anything officially.

(11-28-2016 03:03 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:  If you can't even get census takers to pass alive through certain southern counties, how many legitimate voters will be discouraged from voting if they have to carry an id attached specifically to their voting record?

I don't really understand your point. Why would anyone care if people knew whether or not they voted? You don't put your name on the ballot. Nobody knows who you voted for.

As to who will be discouraged, I'm going to say probably a lot more lazy asses on the progressive side than on ours.

Also this. Voted IDs aren't meant to track your voting record. It's usually a check at the voting booth so you can receive a ballot and go do your secret voting. This way, the gov worker can check 1) if you're actually eligible to vote (citizen, valid ID, age, not deceased) 2) if you already voted, then they'd turn you away. Why would you care if the gov only knows THAT you voted, but not who exactly you voted for? It's nothing secret and nothing to be shamed for.

Post: #29

Beyond stupid not to have some form of ID system for voting. An example where the left's argument/position inhibits common sense policies.

Who says requiring photo ID to vote is racist?

Post: #30

I did some looking into this yesterday and had considered the requirement for voting ID laws to be a no-brainer, given that we have voter ID requirements here in Canada (although Prime Minister Justin Castro looks like he wants to repeal those requirements).

Turns out things are more nuanced than I had hoped. A photo ID law on its own is useless unless:

1) The ID is only issued to people who can prove that they are US citizens in order to get said ID; and

2) The law is actually enforced at the polling place.

The seminal (indeed only) academic study on non-citizens participating in Federal Elections in the US was done in 2014 by Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest. It was peer-reviewed and entitled, "Do non-citizens vote in US elections?" Here's a link: https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content...-et-al.pdf

The study itself has been vehemently criticized by many, academics included. It's fair to say that much of the criticism was often on political lines, although not all. However, the authors themselves later admitted that reliance on self-reporting and a sample size in the many tens of thousands as opposed to hundreds of thousands could create statistical anomalies. That said, it is the ONLY peer-reviewed study of its kind (there should be more undertaken and undertaken soon) so it is what should be referenced at the moment.

The first thing to note from the study is that the pool of non-citizen and therefore potentially illegal voters is larger than one might think.

We've all seen during this most recent election speculation about how many undocumented, illegal immigrants there are in the United States. According to the last US Census, the number was around 11 million - that has some likely flaws in it because it relies on people to tell the truth about their illegal status. Estimates have ranges from 11 million to as high as 30 million, although it is literally impossible to know thanks to the culture of lawlessness that has arisen with respect to US immigration law (this is thanks to BOTH major parties). Certainly illegal aliens represent a large potential pool of illegal voters.

The often forgotten further potential pool is permanent residents. This pool is what the study assumes most of the self-reporting respondents were. They are individuals who are lawfully within the United States, but are not citizens (and may never be unless they qualify for and choose to naturalize). Current estimates of the amount of permanent residents in the US are around 15 million, about half of whom qualify for naturalization.

As can be seen, there is a potentially enormous pool of non-citizen voters. So the question is, how many of them voted illegally?

The conclusions of the study were that in the 2008 and 2010 US Federal elections, non-citizen voting was low, but it was also non-zero. The low range they came up with was around a few hundred thousand, the high range was close to 3 million (my view would be that it would probably be toward the lower range but that is simply an opinion).

In either case, there are indications of a significant issue. Non-citizens should NOT be voting in US Federal elections. It is illegal. Even if only a few thousand votes are cast illegally, the potential exists to affect critical district and electoral college races, something the authors of the study acknowledge.

The question becomes, if non-citizen voting is to remain illegal (and most here would probably agree it should), then what does the state do to prevent it? Voter ID seems to be the standard Republican answer, and was mine as well until I looked into the results of this study.

The authors are dubious about voter ID, in and of itself, as an effective bar:

Quote:Our results also suggest that photo-identification requirements are unlikely to be effective at preventing electoral participation by non-citizen immigrants: In 2008, more than two thirds of non-citizen immigrants who indicated that they were asked to show photoidentification reported that they went on to cast a vote. A potential response to the inefficacy of photo-id at preventing non-citizen voting is found in laws recently passed by Kansas and Arizona that require voter registrants to prove citizenship. By highlighting and emphasizing the citizenship requirement (and by requiring documentation non-citizens should be unable to provide) it seems likely that such laws would prevent more non-citizens from voting. That said, enforcement would be critical for efficacy (and much would depend here upon local election offi­cials), particularly since federal voter registration forms do not require proof of citizenship. In addition, already registered non-citizens might well be able to continue voting. In any case such measures would come with significant costs for some citizens for whom the necessary documentation could be challenging to provide.

This is a critical point.

Unless the ID can only be obtained by someone who proves they are a citizen first, and that law is also enforced, the law is useless.

Take the voter registration form in California, for example. A social security number as requested, but not mandatory and can be avoided on both the online and paper form by clicking/checking a box stating the registrant doesn't have one. That is ridiculous as it is the best guard against a non-citizen attempting to register.

A driver's license number is required. However, it is just the number and not a reproduction of the license itself (i.e. a picture or photocopy of it). California is a jurisdiction that issues driver's licenses to people who are unable to prove they are lawfully within the United States. Such a license has a proviso right on its face that states it cannot be used for ID for voter registration. However, since all the registration forms ask for is the number and not a reproduction of the license itself (which would be so easy to ask for in modern society), you can see my immediate concern. I could also find no indication that the State uses a special numbering for the unauthenticated licenses versus the authenticated ones. I also have concerns that in a true-blue Democrat State, where 22% of the current population was foreign born, the proper cross-checking would even be done by the civil servants.

This raises the other point from the study. No law will be effective unless it is actually enforced. The fact that Sanctuary Cities in the United States even exist is an indication of how seriously certain American local governments take Federal immigration laws.

A reform is going to be a lot more difficult (and likely expensive) and the usual Republican notions of requiring photo IDs. A National Voter ID that is only issued to people who can prove their citizenship is something that comes to mind, but that is going to be both expensive and time consuming (as well as raising certain constitutional issues).

That said, I believe it is something my Southern neighbours must engage in. The culture of lawlessness when it comes to immigration in the US must end. It's just that the solution might well be more time-consuming, expensive and complicated than the immediate answer that generally comes to mind.

Post: #31

Quote:That said, I believe it is something my Southern neighbours must engage in. The culture of lawlessness when it comes to immigration in the US must end. It's just that the solution might well be more time-consuming, expensive and complicated than the immediate answer that generally comes to mind.

When you consider the millions of men who have died for your rights to vote, it's all worth it.

Post: #32

(11-28-2016 11:32 AM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  I'm still amazed that people even dare ask such a question like "Is it plausible?". How could it ever be NOT plausible?! All civilized countries, even some banana republics, have voted ID laws, the USA is the only outsider.

This. The tendency to defend the status quo is strong.

In the country where I am, voter IDs are needed to perform many non-governmental administrative tasks. It fulfills the role that a driver's license does in the US. Want to sign up for cable TV? Show your voter ID. That's how it works here.

To me it's bizarre that that voter IDs in the US are administered by each individual state. Election fraud has national consequences. Paranoia about federal intrusion is so strong that we'd prefer to allow a corrupt state to sway a national election.

Post: #33

Why would you need a separate federal voter ID? Have them see your state license or photo ID that you show to when you are stopped by the cops or walk into a bar. We show ID for everything. Why would voting be exempt?

You would need zero changes to the system. Just tell people to bring their ID, which 99% of people carry with them everywhere in their purse or wallet. I can't believe this is even a discussion. The only benefit of not showing an ID is so non-citizens or felons can vote.

Post: #34

DannyAlberta pretty much killed the thread. That's the kind of excellent, SOURCED write up that this place needs to use as its standard.

Post: #35

(11-29-2016 03:23 PM)wi30 Wrote:  Why would you need a separate federal voter ID? Have them see your state license or photo ID that you show to when you are stopped by the cops or walk into a bar. We show ID for everything. Why would voting be exempt?

You would need zero changes to the system. Just tell people to bring their ID, which 99% of people carry with them everywhere in their purse or wallet. I can't believe this is even a discussion. The only benefit of not showing an ID is so non-citizens or felons can vote.

You apparently did not read the various posts here and do not understand that a driver's license or other photo IDs do NOT prove that someone is a citizen/legally allowed to vote. Felons have these, legal residents who are not citizens have these, in some states (such as California) completely illegal immigrants have these.

Your solution is really not much different/effective than what we have now.

Post: #36

My bad AO, just skimmed the thread. I went back and reread it.

I didn't realize illegal immigrants could get an ID so easily. I am aware of legal residents who aren't citizens having temporary SSN's and driver's licenses. I assumed there is a national database which shows who is a citizen/eligible voter and who is not. I know law enforcement can pull up your information regardless of which state you're in.

I recently moved to another state and had to get a new ID in that state. I had to show my Social Security Card, Birth Certificate, and 2 proofs of residence (energy, cable, or utility bill).

It was slightly inconvenient but they told me what I needed to bring beforehand. If it's not effective to just use an ID for the voting booth, maybe some combination of the above would be possible. Or they could scan your ID and look you up in a registry. If they can find everything about me when I leave and enter the country or commit a crime, it should be easy to identify legitimate voters on election day. Even gas stations scan ID's when someone buys alcohol or tobacco.

With the level of surveillance in this country, they should have no problem identifying eligible voters. They could easily enforce the laws if they actually wanted to.

Post: #37

(11-28-2016 03:25 AM)weambulance Wrote:  Uh oh, it might actually take some effort to exercise your right to vote. Why, if that were to happen, only motivated people will bother doing it! What a terrible thing!

Yeah, if it's a right I darn right I expect it to be easy like busting a nut and seamless. Keep pulling strawmans.

There's nothing more American than jerking off and going to vote without washing your hands.

Post: #38

You said you would rather voting be easy than secure, and implied it would be a problem if it was harder to vote. I disagreed sarcastically with that part of your post.

Not a strawman.

Post: #39

I can't get inside any government building without showing ID.

But people can elect the politicians working inside without showing ID.

Federal Voter ID is the right choice.

Post: #40

Nelson Mandela had a voter ID card; Rev. Desmond Tutu still does - I don't know how many lefties would call either of those guys racist, but yes, they require a voter ID card in post-Apartied South Africa.

Democrats always line up behind opposition to any kind of ID requirement because they want to preserve the ability to cheat, period.

What also needs to be examined are the state level requirements for registering and how elections are conducted for federal offices. If they want to have weird deadlines, odd rules and requirements other assorted nonsense for state level crap and below, fine. But when it comes to sending someone to Washington to have a say in federal level decisions, taxation and appropriations, there needs to be greater uniformity in the process for sending people there. State and local rules like this change all the time depending upon which party is in power.

Post: #41

(12-03-2016 12:12 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  What also needs to be examined are the state level requirements for registering and how elections are conducted for federal offices. If they want to have weird deadlines, odd rules and requirements other assorted nonsense for state level crap and below, fine. But when it comes to sending someone to Washington to have a say in federal level decisions, taxation and appropriations, there needs to be greater uniformity in the process for sending people there. State and local rules like this change all the time depending upon which party is in power.

Agree completely. Federal elections shouldn't be subject to the whims of states who may not be doing enough to prevent fraud (or who may even be actively facilitating it).

In any event, our voting system will not change until major fraud is confirmed in an election. It will have to be something big and verifiable. Without that, inertia will rule.

Post: #42

America could look at our system in Canada.

The election comission is an independent, non partisan entity who's primary goal is to help as many Canadians citizens to excersise their right to vote. Voter ID is a non issue, because getting an ID is easy.

Here is the requirements for voting here:

Quote:1) Show one of these pieces of ID

your driver's licence
your provincial or territorial ID card
any other government card with your photo, name and current address
You can use ID with your mailing address if that address appears in your voter registration file. If you're not sure what address we have on file, check your voter registration.

OR

Quote:2) Show two pieces of ID

At least one must have your current address

health card
Canadian passport
birth certificate
certificate of Canadian citizenship
citizenship card
social insurance number card
Indian status card
band membership card
Métis card
card issued by an Inuit local authority
Canadian Forces identity card
Veterans Affairs health card
old age security card
hospital card
medical clinic card
label on a prescription container
identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care facility
blood donor card
CNIB card
credit card
debit card
employee card
student identity card
public transportation card
library card
liquor identity card
parolee card
firearms licence
licence or card issued for fishing, trapping or hunting
utility bill (e.g. electricity; water; telecommunications services including telephone, cable or satellite)
bank statement
credit union statement
credit card statement
personal cheque
government statement of benefits
government cheque or cheque stub
pension plan statement
residential lease or sub-lease
mortgage contract or statement
income tax assessment
property tax assessment or evaluation
vehicle ownership
insurance certificate, policy or statement
correspondence issued by a school, college or university
letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
targeted revision form from Elections Canada to residents of long-term care facilities
letter of confirmation of residence from a First Nations band or reserve or an Inuit local authority
letter of confirmation of residence, letter of stay, admission form or statement of benefits from one of the following designated establishments:
student residence
seniors' residence
long-term care facility
shelter
soup kitchen
We accept e-statements and e-invoices. Print them or show them on a mobile device.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?sec...dex&lang=e

Post: #43

(12-04-2016 04:32 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  America could look at our system in Canada.

The election comission is an independent, non partisan entity who's primary goal is to help as many Canadians citizens to excersise their right to vote. Voter ID is a non issue, because getting an ID is easy.

Here is the requirements for voting here:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?sec...dex&lang=e

You mean 'look at' as in 'don't emulate no matter what'? Not sure if serious. What the hell is a 'liquor identity card'? Unbelievable that you can just 'take an oath' if your ID doesn't show your current address. We need to verify citizenship. Period. Birth certificate or passport, I would say. It shouldn't be easy. It should be accurate.

Post: #44

At no point during the voter registration process is proof of citizenship required. As far as I know, the only commonly obtained document that requires proof of citizenship is a passport.

Post: #45

Yes.

You need an ID to rent a measly car for X-Mega corp and to spend a night at the holiday Inn.

Its only fair that deciding who uses our discretionary tax dollars prove they are valid to make such a suggestion.

Otherwise, people can start making claims in states with rampant voter fraud that they dont need to pay taxes and we all know how that went last time.