Excuse the essay but I've done a good bit of reading into American Voter ID laws and there's a lot to say about what a huge mess it is. There's a lot that nobody seems to be bringing up.
To start, "it has a negative impact on minority voters" is not an argument. It's a problem with implementation (assuming it's real, which this as well as my own anecdotal evidence suggests it isn't).
All that it would imply is that you have to sort the issue out before you can implement voter ID, it's not an argument against voter ID in and of itself. It's a little like Eisenhower saying "some people might not like racial desegregation and be angry about it, so let's not bother, fuck it". You can make that argument for keeping the status quo in numerous cases, and they've done countless times.
Virginia up until recently would give you a free photo ID that's usable only for voting when you go register to vote. I'd advocate for more accessible and affordable Passport Cards ($65 for a first timer is expensive no matter who you are, you can't deny that) but you can't get much more accessible than free. And let's not forget the fact that in all states but one, there are more 18+ people with driver's licenses than there are individuals who actually go and vote, so this whole disenfranchisement argument would affect a fairly minimal number of people in the first place.
Now for the love of God, can people also please realize that Photo ID is not the end-all solution to voter fraud? I don't just mean Voting Machines or Mail-in, I mean that even a federally-implemented Photo ID implementation can be skirted around and will be implemented poorly without other security checks, which nobody is discussing. Most states with Voter/Photo ID have very poor implementations of it that I guarantee you are used for fraud.
My country in its current state (current constitution, etc) has existed since 1991, our first democratic election for this government was in 1993 and we have this all figured out. Voter rolls based on the census, you're assigned to a particular voting location based on address, additional security checks if you're voting in a location you're not assigned to and of course, Photo ID.
How the hell has a nuclear super power, biggest most powerful country in the planet not figured this out a hundred years ago? Anybody, on any political side here (even our progressives) think your election security is a fucking joke. It's kind of disgusting that this is even a discussion and it's kind of sad that just saying "hey, let's implement easily-subvertible Photo ID laws" is a controversial thing.
I get the feeling that some rich and influential people are very glad that the discussion is limited to just Photo ID instead of stricter security, because they know how to subvert your otherwise-poor Photo ID implementations and either have been doing it, or will do it when the need arises.
tl;dr You're selling yourself short by focusing on just Photo ID.
I basically agree with you. There's nothing wrong with photo ID, it's important, but it's just one piece of the puzzle.
Elections are rarely stolen by individuals voting more than once. That was the old method. Now they just manufacture hundreds or thousands of fake ballots.
Voter ID won't help you when it's the election workers doing the stealing.
That's precisely my point. They'll try to subvert things one way or another. Mail-in is now the easiest path as it's so widespread. Voting machines after that. If you were to sort those things out (as I hope you will), then this becomes more important. And just like that recent article on mail-in, it's probably inconsequential in a presidential election but is often used in local elections.
Though individuals voting more than once are definitely used to try to steal elections. Let's not forget bussing and how big a scandal that was as recently as the 2016 election. You can't even verify whether someone voted in their local county, how are you gonna verify whether they voted in several? Like other forms of fraud, people will say that "there's not a lot of evidence that it happens" but how the hell would you know? The only ones getting caught have to be idiots.
A very simple (and yes, ultimately inconsequential form of fraud compared to some of the other stuff you hear, but still a possibility): what is stopping anybody from mailing in a ballot, then voting in person? Does anyone, in any state, double check this? How could they, if you don't keep track of who voted in person? I have not seen any evidence that they could double check this, or do.
A very simple (and yes, ultimately inconsequential form of fraud compared to some of the other stuff you hear, but still a possibility): what is stopping anybody from mailing in a ballot, then voting in person? Does anyone, in any state, double check this? How could they, if you don't keep track of who voted in person? I have not seen any evidence that they could double check this, or do.
I've wondered the same. I think it depends on the state.
We need to convince the left that Trump will steal the election with vote-by-mail. Then they might switch course.
I'm sure it's a bit more complex but logistically, I can't think of any way you'd ensure this in most cases.
What we do here is we set Mail-in aside. They're only counted after the in-person election. When you vote in person, you add your signature next to your name for every ballot you accept (or your name is crossed out if you vote in another location). Either way, they know that you voted in person. Then they check the Mail-in against that.
Most American states (maybe all?) don't have a system of that kind. We have lists of eligible voters (based on the census I believe) so no registration is necessary. Since you don't keep track of that, you don't know who voted in person and can't double check the Mail-in. You could compare it to voter registrations in most regular elections but many states threw a wrench in that plan by sending ballots to everyone. And even aside for that, do any states actually mark down that you already voted in person? I haven't seen any evidence of that so far (but would love to be proven wrong). Without that, there would be no way to know that you voted in person and it defeats the entire point of what I've said so far.
Alternatively, you could put together a list of all people who voted by mail (as a friend of mine suggested), though this would require all mail-in ballots to arrive before election day (which is not going to be the case in any US state).
We made the Iraqis dip a finger in ink to show they’d already voted.
I have no problem with applying that rule to the US elections. Show ID, all vote on the same day unless valid reason for absentee, if absentee, have it notarized. And dip a finger in indelible ink.
While not a bad solution on paper (ha, get it), it does have a few flaws. Notably, you still have to ensure that the Voter ID implementation is checked against something substantial. As mentioned in another conversation, California hands IDs out to illegals already, you know democrats will do this in any blue/purple state if there was a Federal Photo ID requirement. You essentially need a Census that excludes illegals as Donald Trump is trying to do, and you need to check IDs against that Census because otherwise illegals could still vote one way or another.
This also requires heavy restrictions on absentee voting which you'd have a hard time passing. And even if you could get those, for this to simply work, you need all absentee voting to happen early, then assemble all absentee ballots and compile a full database of all citizens who voted by mail. Then doublecheck in-person voters against this database to ensure that nobody voted both by-mail and in person.
Alternatively, the aforementioned voter list which seems to be a solid (albeit certainly imperfect) way to solve multiple Voter ID shortcomings. At that point, the whole ink thing is a little bit needless however. Either way, either method's better than the nothing you have currently.
Excuse the essay but I've done a good bit of reading into American Voter ID laws and there's a lot to say about what a huge mess it is. There's a lot that nobody seems to be bringing up.
To start, "it has a negative impact on minority voters" is not an argument. It's a problem with implementation (assuming it's real, which this as well as my own anecdotal evidence suggests it isn't).
All that it would imply is that you have to sort the issue out before you can implement voter ID, it's not an argument against voter ID in and of itself. It's a little like Eisenhower saying "some people might not like racial desegregation and be angry about it, so let's not bother, fuck it". You can make that argument for keeping the status quo in numerous cases, and they've done countless times.
Virginia up until recently would give you a free photo ID that's usable only for voting when you go register to vote. I'd advocate for more accessible and affordable Passport Cards ($65 for a first timer is expensive no matter who you are, you can't deny that) but you can't get much more accessible than free. And let's not forget the fact that in all states but one, there are more 18+ people with driver's licenses than there are individuals who actually go and vote, so this whole disenfranchisement argument would affect a fairly minimal number of people in the first place.
Now for the love of God, can people also please realize that Photo ID is not the end-all solution to voter fraud? I don't just mean Voting Machines or Mail-in, I mean that even a federally-implemented Photo ID implementation can be skirted around and will be implemented poorly without other security checks, which nobody is discussing. Most states with Voter/Photo ID have very poor implementations of it that I guarantee you are used for fraud.
My country in its current state (current constitution, etc) has existed since 1991, our first democratic election for this government was in 1993 and we have this all figured out. Voter rolls based on the census, you're assigned to a particular voting location based on address, additional security checks if you're voting in a location you're not assigned to and of course, Photo ID.
How the hell has a nuclear super power, biggest most powerful country in the planet not figured this out a hundred years ago? Anybody, on any political side here (even our progressives) think your election security is a fucking joke. It's kind of disgusting that this is even a discussion and it's kind of sad that just saying "hey, let's implement easily-subvertible Photo ID laws" is a controversial thing.
I get the feeling that some rich and influential people are very glad that the discussion is limited to just Photo ID instead of stricter security, because they know how to subvert your otherwise-poor Photo ID implementations and either have been doing it, or will do it when the need arises.
tl;dr You're selling yourself short by focusing on just Photo ID.
I basically agree with you. There's nothing wrong with photo ID, it's important, but it's just one piece of the puzzle.
Elections are rarely stolen by individuals voting more than once. That was the old method. Now they just manufacture hundreds or thousands of fake ballots.
Voter ID won't help you when it's the election workers doing the stealing.
That's precisely my point. They'll try to subvert things one way or another. Mail-in is now the easiest path as it's so widespread. Voting machines after that. If you were to sort those things out (as I hope you will), then this becomes more important. And just like that recent article on mail-in, it's probably inconsequential in a presidential election but is often used in local elections.
Though individuals voting more than once are definitely used to try to steal elections. Let's not forget bussing and how big a scandal that was as recently as the 2016 election. You can't even verify whether someone voted in their local county, how are you gonna verify whether they voted in several? Like other forms of fraud, people will say that "there's not a lot of evidence that it happens" but how the hell would you know? The only ones getting caught have to be idiots.
A very simple (and yes, ultimately inconsequential form of fraud compared to some of the other stuff you hear, but still a possibility): what is stopping anybody from mailing in a ballot, then voting in person? Does anyone, in any state, double check this? How could they, if you don't keep track of who voted in person? I have not seen any evidence that they could double check this, or do.
I've wondered the same. I think it depends on the state.
We need to convince the left that Trump will steal the election with vote-by-mail. Then they might switch course.
I'm sure it's a bit more complex but logistically, I can't think of any way you'd ensure this in most cases.
What we do here is we set Mail-in aside. They're only counted after the in-person election. When you vote in person, you add your signature next to your name for every ballot you accept (or your name is crossed out if you vote in another location). Either way, they know that you voted in person. Then they check the Mail-in against that.
Most American states (maybe all?) don't have a system of that kind. We have lists of eligible voters (based on the census I believe) so no registration is necessary. Since you don't keep track of that, you don't know who voted in person and can't double check the Mail-in. You could compare it to voter registrations in most regular elections but many states threw a wrench in that plan by sending ballots to everyone. And even aside for that, do any states actually mark down that you already voted in person? I haven't seen any evidence of that so far (but would love to be proven wrong). Without that, there would be no way to know that you voted in person and it defeats the entire point of what I've said so far.
Alternatively, you could put together a list of all people who voted by mail (as a friend of mine suggested), though this would require all mail-in ballots to arrive before election day (which is not going to be the case in any US state).
We made the Iraqis dip a finger in ink to show they’d already voted. I have no problem with applying that rule to the US elections. Show ID, all vote on the same day unless valid reason for absentee, if absentee, have it notarized. And dip a finger in indelible ink.
While not a bad solution on paper (ha, get it), it does have a few flaws. Notably, you still have to ensure that the Voter ID implementation is checked against something substantial. As mentioned in another conversation, California hands IDs out to illegals already, you know democrats will do this in any blue/purple state if there was a Federal Photo ID requirement. You essentially need a Census that excludes illegals as Donald Trump is trying to do, and you need to check IDs against that Census because otherwise illegals could still vote one way or another.
This also requires heavy restrictions on absentee voting which you'd have a hard time passing. And even if you could get those, for this to simply work, you need all absentee voting to happen early, then assemble all absentee ballots and compile a full database of all citizens who voted by mail. Then doublecheck in-person voters against this database to ensure that nobody voted both by-mail and in person.
Alternatively, the aforementioned voter list which seems to be a solid (albeit certainly imperfect) way to solve multiple Voter ID shortcomings. At that point, the whole ink thing is a little bit needless however. Either way, either method's better than the nothing you have currently.