IS there a good argument against voter ID requirements?

[All-American]

Voting should be incredibly easy. It should be something we can do in ten minutes or less, not counting time spent deliberating or self-educating. The harder it is to vote, the more likely it is that electorate participation will be skewed toward the especially passionate and polarized.

As of now, I am more worried about the effect of an hour-long line to vote than fraudulent voters on the health of our democracy. That said, I don't think the two concerns are mutually exclusive by necessity. We can come up with a secure and efficient voting system if the parties perceived the benefit of doing so. It comes as little surprise to me that the two entrenched parties do not see the need.

[Uncle Ted]

I largely agree with Pellegrino. If ID is free and isn't designed to create issues for poor people in obtaining an ID, and provided the ID requirement doesn't mysteriously pop up in an election year, I have no issue with it. Unfortunately, that's not the context in which 99.999% of voter ID laws appear. They tend to be passed right before elections, tend to still cost people money, and tend to present lots of obstacles to poor people in particular to obtain an ID. The reasons should be pretty obvious for this: few states are actually working to fix voter fraud. Instead, they are attempting to prevent minority (read "Democratic) voters from participating in an election- ironically being just another type of election fraud.

The stoopid supreme court and that 0.001% law in Indiana...

The Supreme Court on Monday backed Indiana's law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns thousands of elderly, poor and minority voters could be locked out of their right to cast ballots.

The 6-3 vote allows Indiana to require the identification when it holds its statewide primary next week. It also will give most state legislatures time to revise their voter laws for the November elections.

[...]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/scotus.voter.id/

[Uncle Ted]

Voting should be incredibly easy. It should be something we can do in ten minutes or less, not counting time spent deliberating or self-educating. The harder it is to vote, the more likely it is that electorate participation will be skewed toward the especially passionate and polarized.

As of now, I am more worried about the effect of an hour-long line to vote than fraudulent voters on the health of our democracy. That said, I don't think the two concerns are mutually exclusive by necessity. We can come up with a secure and efficient voting system if the parties perceived the benefit of doing so. It comes as little surprise to me that the two entrenched parties do not see the need.

Fraudulent voters...

Welcome to the 21st century. The computer engineers that build and program the voting machines get to decide who will be elected around here:

For example:


In Fairfax County, Virginia in 2003, a programming error in the electronic-voting machines caused them to mysteriously subtract 100 votes from one candidate's totals.


In a 2003 election in Boone County, Iowa the electronic vote-counting equipment showed that more than 140,000 votes had been cast in the municipal elections, even though only half of the county's 50,000 residents were eligible to vote.


In San Bernardino County, California in 2001, a programming error caused the computer to look for votes in the wrong portion of the ballot in 33 local elections, which meant that no votes registered on those ballots for that election. A recount was done by hand.


In Volusia County, Florida in 2000, an electronic voting machine gave Al Gore a final vote count of negative 16,022 votes.

There are literally hundreds of similar stories.

http://www.schneier.com/essay-068.html

[pellegrino]

Fraudulent voters...

Welcome to the 21st century. The computer engineers that build and program the voting machines get to decide who will be elected around here:


http://www.schneier.com/essay-068.html

voting machines suck almost as bad as the security placed on them before and after election day.

I'm in favor of low tech, accurate ways of tabulating votes. I'm in favor of each polling station giving each voter a unique stamp charged with ink that won't wash off easily as they turn in their ballots. I'm also in favor of making election day a national holiday that requires employers to give eligible voters time off to do their civic duties.

If there are long lines then we need more polling stations and smaller precincts or more voting booths in current precincts.

[calicoug]

Voting should be incredibly easy. It should be something we can do in ten minutes or less, not counting time spent deliberating or self-educating. The harder it is to vote, the more likely it is that electorate participation will be skewed toward the especially passionate and polarized.

As of now, I am more worried about the effect of an hour-long line to vote than fraudulent voters on the health of our democracy. That said, I don't think the two concerns are mutually exclusive by necessity. We can come up with a secure and efficient voting system if the parties perceived the benefit of doing so. It comes as little surprise to me that the two entrenched parties do not see the need.

Well look at that. We agree on something.

[calicoug]

The stoopid supreme court and that 0.001% law in Indiana...


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/scotus.voter.id/

Like I said, I don't have a problem with laws that comply with the elements I described above. But they are rare these days.

[Uncle Ted]

voting machines suck almost as bad as the security placed on them before and after election day.

I'm in favor of low tech, accurate ways of tabulating votes. I'm in favor of each polling station giving each voter a unique stamp charged with ink that won't wash off easily as they turn in their ballots. I'm also in favor of making election day a national holiday that requires employers to give eligible voters time off to do their civic duties.

If there are long lines then we need more polling stations and smaller precincts or more voting booths in current precincts.

The paper fill-in-the-bubble ballots are nice because they create a paper audit trail.

I don't think a yet another holiday is needed. Just early voting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[All-American]

Well look at that. We agree on something.

I guess you can't be wrong ALL the time.

[pellegrino]

The paper fill-in-the-bubble ballots are nice because they create a paper audit trail.

I don't think a yet another holiday is needed. Just early voting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

agree on the first, disagree on the second. It's not every year you have a federal election, the holiday would increase voter turnout.

[Uncle Ted]

agree on the first, disagree on the second. It's not every year you have a federal election, the holiday would increase voter turnout.

So does being able to vote the Saturday before election day (early voting).

[pellegrino]

So does being able to vote the Saturday before election day (early voting).

if the goal is to ensure the integrity of the vote then I'm not really a fan of early voting, as it allows for the possibility of people voting in multiple locations on different days. Put everyone on an equal footing, give everyone the day off, stamp their hand at the poll, make sure the registration is accurate and avoid potential accusations of fraud.