Voter ID analogy

[Arkady]

I posted something like this in a reply, elsewhere, but thought it would be useful for the group. If you think voter ID is a good idea, and can't fathom why anyone would object, especially when getting ID is a mere inconvenience for anyone who is motivated enough to vote, this hypothetical may help you to see the issue in a new light.

Picture if we decided that merely requiring voter ID was insufficient, since fake IDs are so easy to make. Instead, people would be required to confirm their identity with some sort of biometric means, in order to get the card (facial recognition, DNA test, fingerprint analysis, voice recognition, iris scan, or something like that). Since this requires special equipment, the federal government will make the machines available, but only one per state. So, in each state the only place you can register to vote is downtown in the biggest city.

This is a more extreme version of what's being done with the proposed voter ID requirements. In order to address a theoretical (and almost certainly extremely rare) form of voter fraud, a rule is being created that will disproportionately inconvenience one set of voters (in this case, those that live away from the big city). The almost certain result will be to disproportionately lower voter turnout among that set of voters. The difference is the identity of the group disadvantaged. In this case, it will be rural voters that are expected to vote in lower numbers as a result of the inconvenience imposed. Since people who live in big cities are well known to be disproportionately liberal, and people most distantly removed from those cities are well known to be disproportionately conservative, this hypothetical "fraud-prevention" reform would be fully expected to change many election results, by way of giving liberals a kind of "home field advantage" in close elections. Sure, even the most rural person could still vote, if it mattered to him enough to undergo that inconvenience. But there's no doubting that a great many wouldn't bother, and thus wouldn't vote, and that this would skew election results in the aggregate.... and consistently in favor of the liberals. For example, the liberal voters of New York City, just a subway-ride away from registration, would vote at more or less the usual rate, while the conservative voters hundreds of miles away, in Buffalo, probably wouldn't.

I'll grant that the voter ID laws being proposed aren't as extreme as that. The inconvenience is smaller and so is the pool of people impacted, and so the effect on elections will be smaller. But that is merely a difference in degree. The impact will remain large enough to swing some very close elections in predictable ways -- always in favor of the conservatives. If you'd object to a liberal-favoring "reform" being pushed through nominally to prevent an exceedingly rare form of fraud, then shouldn't you object to a conservative-favoring "reform" being pushed through in the same way?

 

[GordonGecko]

Interesting idea. I assume the Right is simply playing the numbers.

That there will be "many more" Democratic votes prevented in big cities...than they will lose in rural areas which might be traditionally Republicans. In other words, they're willing to screw over their few "conservative country voters"...in order to try to blunt a lot of "liberal city votes".

 

[Dino]

If you have a state-issued ID that is good enough to drive a car, cash a check, open an account, obtain a passport, or fly on an airplane you'll have no trouble voting. Your exaggeration is silly.

 

[Doc]

I do not know how it goes in other states, but, in mine, you do have to show a "Voter ID" card. No picture on it, and you can get one through the mail.

But, they do check in these huge books, and, seem to mark my name off.

While that can most certainly be "gamed," I think it would be a lot of trouble.

Personally, I think that HARSHER penalites and enforcement for Voter Fraud would settle most of the problems. Maybe not put them in prison, but, lay out a hefty fine, and, perhaps some jail time.....

 

[ITALIA]

I do not know how it goes in other states, but, in mine, you do have to show a "Voter ID" card. No picture on it, and you can get one through the mail.

But, they do check in these huge books, and, seem to mark my name off.

While that can most certainly be "gamed," I think it would be a lot of trouble.

Personally, I think that HARSHER penalites and enforcement for Voter Fraud would settle most of the problems. Maybe not put them in prison, but, lay out a hefty fine, and, perhaps some jail time.....

Do you have absentee voting in your state? If so how do they show a "voter ID" card?

 

[ITALIA]

If you have a state-issued ID that is good enough to drive a car, cash a check, open an account, obtain a passport, or fly on an airplane you'll have no trouble voting. Your exaggeration is silly.

If, if, if, if. And if they don't just tough shit?

 

[BitterPill]

I posted something like this in a reply, elsewhere, but thought it would be useful for the group. If you think voter ID is a good idea, and can't fathom why anyone would object, especially when getting ID is a mere inconvenience for anyone who is motivated enough to vote, this hypothetical may help you to see the issue in a new light.

Picture if we decided that merely requiring voter ID was insufficient, since fake IDs are so easy to make. Instead, people would be required to confirm their identity with some sort of biometric means, in order to get the card (facial recognition, DNA test, fingerprint analysis, voice recognition, iris scan, or something like that). Since this requires special equipment, the federal government will make the machines available, but only one per state. So, in each state the only place you can register to vote is downtown in the biggest city.

This is a more extreme version of what's being done with the proposed voter ID requirements. In order to address a theoretical (and almost certainly extremely rare) form of voter fraud, a rule is being created that will disproportionately inconvenience one set of voters (in this case, those that live away from the big city). The almost certain result will be to disproportionately lower voter turnout among that set of voters. The difference is the identity of the group disadvantaged. In this case, it will be rural voters that are expected to vote in lower numbers as a result of the inconvenience imposed. Since people who live in big cities are well known to be disproportionately liberal, and people most distantly removed from those cities are well known to be disproportionately conservative, this hypothetical "fraud-prevention" reform would be fully expected to change many election results, by way of giving liberals a kind of "home field advantage" in close elections. Sure, even the most rural person could still vote, if it mattered to him enough to undergo that inconvenience. But there's no doubting that a great many wouldn't bother, and thus wouldn't vote, and that this would skew election results in the aggregate.... and consistently in favor of the liberals. For example, the liberal voters of New York City, just a subway-ride away from registration, would vote at more or less the usual rate, while the conservative voters hundreds of miles away, in Buffalo, probably wouldn't.

I'll grant that the voter ID laws being proposed aren't as extreme as that. The inconvenience is smaller and so is the pool of people impacted, and so the effect on elections will be smaller. But that is merely a difference in degree. The impact will remain large enough to swing some very close elections in predictable ways -- always in favor of the conservatives. If you'd object to a liberal-favoring "reform" being pushed through nominally to prevent an exceedingly rare form of fraud, then shouldn't you object to a conservative-favoring "reform" being pushed through in the same way?

The analogy's only problem, in my opinion, is that the effect would benefit the Democrats more than Republicans; that is backward. Having the machine placed in the boonies would correct that.

 

[Arkady]

My exaggeration is for the sake of illustration. You're inability to comprehend that is silly. Try harder.

 

[UPNYA2]

I posted something like this in a reply, elsewhere, but thought it would be useful for the group. If you think voter ID is a good idea, and can't fathom why anyone would object, especially when getting ID is a mere inconvenience for anyone who is motivated enough to vote, this hypothetical may help you to see the issue in a new light.

Picture if we decided that merely requiring voter ID was insufficient, since fake IDs are so easy to make. Instead, people would be required to confirm their identity with some sort of biometric means, in order to get the card (facial recognition, DNA test, fingerprint analysis, voice recognition, iris scan, or something like that). Since this requires special equipment, the federal government will make the machines available, but only one per state. So, in each state the only place you can register to vote is downtown in the biggest city.

This is a more extreme version of what's being done with the proposed voter ID requirements. In order to address a theoretical (and almost certainly extremely rare) form of voter fraud, a rule is being created that will disproportionately inconvenience one set of voters (in this case, those that live away from the big city). The almost certain result will be to disproportionately lower voter turnout among that set of voters. The difference is the identity of the group disadvantaged. In this case, it will be rural voters that are expected to vote in lower numbers as a result of the inconvenience imposed. Since people who live in big cities are well known to be disproportionately liberal, and people most distantly removed from those cities are well known to be disproportionately conservative, this hypothetical "fraud-prevention" reform would be fully expected to change many election results, by way of giving liberals a kind of "home field advantage" in close elections. Sure, even the most rural person could still vote, if it mattered to him enough to undergo that inconvenience. But there's no doubting that a great many wouldn't bother, and thus wouldn't vote, and that this would skew election results in the aggregate.... and consistently in favor of the liberals. For example, the liberal voters of New York City, just a subway-ride away from registration, would vote at more or less the usual rate, while the conservative voters hundreds of miles away, in Buffalo, probably wouldn't.

I'll grant that the voter ID laws being proposed aren't as extreme as that. The inconvenience is smaller and so is the pool of people impacted, and so the effect on elections will be smaller. But that is merely a difference in degree. The impact will remain large enough to swing some very close elections in predictable ways -- always in favor of the conservatives. If you'd object to a liberal-favoring "reform" being pushed through nominally to prevent an exceedingly rare form of fraud, then shouldn't you object to a conservative-favoring "reform" being pushed through in the same way?

Let me ask you something about this last part first. You stated;

I]....But that is merely a difference in degree. The impact will remain large enough to swing some very close elections in predictable ways -- always in favor of the conservatives."

What is this based upon exactly? I see it often stated but have never seen it actually explained.

Why is it that pretty much every liberal seems to agree that the vast majority of folks who do not have, can not, or will not, get some form of proper ID would vote for the democratic party?

Seems to me that is an awfully lot like sterotyping. NEGATIVE sterotyping.

Apparently you are of the opinion that the people who have an ID or who can get an ID with little or no trouble would most likely vote republican and that the majority of people who are living in our society without proper ID or who might not want to try to get an ID will most likely vote democratic......

Why is that? What is this assertation based upon?

It HAS to be your view, based upon your statement, "If you'd object to a liberal-favoring "reform" being pushed through nominally to prevent an exceedingly rare form of fraud, then shouldn't you object to a conservative-favoring "reform" being pushed through in the same way", correct?

So again, based upon what YOU said right here, may I ask why exactly it is that you are of the opinion that the majority of people who are living in our society without proper ID or who might have trouble getting a proper ID, who may not even want to try to get a proper ID, will most likely vote for the democrat?

What exactly do you believe is what attracts those people who are living in our society without proper ID or who might have trouble getting a proper ID, who may not even want to try to get a proper ID, whatever, to the democratic politicians?

 

[Dino]

If they don't have one of those???

Then they could always acquire one.

Geez louise, what planet do you live on??

 

[Dino]

Your illustration is moronic since it's totally and wildly unrealistic. No one's standards have ever been that high for this well-established and legal legislation, so why would you even bother?

 

[gabriel]

they could but why should they? you could get a microchip installed under your skin too but i doubt you want to.

 

[Dino]

They would never have to...unless they want to do any of the things I mentioned. Or vote. The expense is minimal and there's no demand to do it if they vote by mail, is there?

So you're out of excuses.

 

[Woolleybugger]

The issue of voter fraud rests only upon two issues: are you eligible to vote and are you voting on the right ballot. Let us explore each one a bit.

Are you eligible to vote? Voting rights are not determined by the federal government. Your voting rights come from your state governments. Each state can set the criteria for voting rights as they see fit as long as they do not conflict with voting rights acts passed in response to states suppressing the vote or discriminating based upon race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. At the most basic level, you have a right to vote anywhere in the nation by virtue of citizenship. If you are a US citizen, you have the right to vote unless a law is passed and deemed constitutional taking your vote from you. Some states allow felons to vote, some not. The right to vote for 18 year old citizens was granted via an amendment in the 1970s. So at a basic level, as long as you are a citizen, you may be able to vote legally barring a violation of local laws.

Are you voting on the right ballot? National elections are usually mingled with state and local elections. Your legal address is not a factor in your vote for the POTUS, it is very important for Congress and the Senate. If your legal address was Detroit but you voted on a California ballot, you would be committing voter fraud by voting for a Senator or Congressman from San Mateo. If your address was in Kern County but you voted in Riverside county, your votes for the local offices and bonds in Riverside County would be fraud. When we hear about fraud, this is usually the type of fraud local politicians fear. Students voting on campus in a jurisdiction far removed from their homes always drive the losing side nuts. So your address and your ballot should match up for state and local elections.

What is the frequency of each type of fraud listed above? Are non-citizens voting en masse committing a felony in the process? No proof exists of this on any scale large enough to warrant the massive amount of noise being created over this type of non-existent fraud. I dare anyone to come up with real facts supporting illegal aliens voting. Voter fraud by location is likely more common but does it really affect outcomes as much as losing sides claim? I have a friend who has lost two local elections due to his inability to woo students at UCSB to his side. He has went to court challenging voter registrations and ballots cast by students and has lost every case. Why? No proof, only innuendo and suspicion. His claim is that students are transitory voters who do not have the greater community interests in mind which is a fancy way of saying they liked the other guy. Is a student that lives in an area for four to six years less worthy of voting locally than a family that moved from Detroit for a job in the local area six months ago? That is a tough case to make IMHO.

On top of all of this is the fact that our election systems are not uniform and susceptible to manipulation by local election officials. We do not have good ballots everywhere that are clearly understood and counted. The bigger problem for us is that valid votes are not counted correctly or cast correctly. When you talk about the 14th amendment, is not voting a national goal of equality as stated by the courts in Gore v Bush? Where is the equal protection of your vote present in a state like Florida where each county has a different ballot system, a different counting scheme, a different way of describing the choices and a different criteria for validating or invalidating a vote cast?

My advice is to modernize our voting systems nationally by making them standard everywhere. We need a national movement over the next 10 years to have valid IDs present at no cost to all citizens. We need a standard ballot, a standard means of casting votes, screening votes and validating votes. Basically, we need to take voting seriously at the national level and take this out of the hands of the states. You should not be treated differently in Texas than you are in Florida.

 

[Arkady]

In my state, they check against the local list and then check off the name, without asking for ID. This eliminates any realistic possibility that voter fraud of the kind the Republicans are supposedly worried about will happen on the scale needed to influence an election. Yes, someone could theoretically show up before me and claim to be me to vote, but it would be risky as hell. Anyone who knew me could notice it, and they run the risk of showing up after me and really drawing attention when they identified themselves as someone who'd already voted. Since the people who don't have a right to vote are typically people who could have severe repercussions if they tried (aliens who could get deported, or parolees who could be sent back to jail), not many people are going to run that risk for nothing but the infinitesimal chance of influencing an election outcome. Most people don't even bother to vote when the only negative repercussions are the slight use of their personal time, so it's ridiculous to think a lo9t of people are going to do it when the negative repercussions could be banishment from the US or jail time. Plus, if that style of voter fraud happened in any systematic way, it would leave a clear track record (lots of reports of people trying to vote when their names had already been checked off the list), and there's been no such track record. It's simply not happening enough to influence elections.

 

[Arkady]

My illustration is exaggerated for purposes of demonstrating the principle. If your rather feeble brain can't cope with that, simply take things down until the inconvenience and impact is comparable to voter ID.

For example, consider if military personnel serving abroad weren't allowed to vote by absentee ballot (nominally because there's no way to confirm the actual identity of the person sending in such a ballot), but they were instead required to enter into a special voting power of attorney by which they'd allow someone they trusted to vote in person on their behalf, provided that the power of attorney were notarized and recorded with the registrar ahead of time. The expense and inconvenience of putting that proxy in place would be fairly minimal, and it would only affect a fairly small number of voters, and thus it would be more comparable in impact to the voter ID requirement. But, like the voter ID requirement, it would be expected to disproportionately lower voter turnout in a demographic with well known political leanings (in that case, the well-known conservative tendencies of military voters). And thus, it would tilt the election playing field a bit in the direction of liberal advantage... enough to change the results in some close elections.

That actually would have an impact far smaller than the expected impact of voter ID laws (around 9% of voters don't have ID, whereas nowhere near 9% of voters are military personnel serving abroad), so it's the opposite of my use of exaggeration to illustrate my point. But the principle is the same. In each case we'd be talking about a DISINGENUOUS CLAIM of concern about voter fraud being used to justify a "reform" whose real purpose was to skew voter turnout for partisan purposes. In each case, a patriot is morally compelled to oppose the action.

Now that I've gotten rid of the exaggeration, is your little brain finally capable of processing the point, or do you need it chewed up and spoon-fed to you in some even simpler form?

 

[Arkady]

Well, that reversal was intentional, since I want to force Republicans to think about how they'd regard this if it was their own side being disadvantaged by the tilting of the playing field.

 

[Arkady]

Various studies have examined who is more and less likely to have official photo ID. Those studies have shown higher percentages that lack ID among various demographic groups that tend to support Democrats, including the poor, racial minorities, urban dwellers, and young people. By comparison, photo ID is universally had by certain groups that tend to support Republicans (including active duty military personnel, military vets, and law enforcement personnel). That's not based on blind stereotyping. It's based on studies. And a lot of it makes sense when you stop and think about it. OF course military personnel have photo ID. It's issued to every member of the military and they're required to carry it with them, and to show it on a regular basis (for example, to get back on base). And of course urban dwellers are less likely to have photo ID -- when you can get around perfectly well without a car, you're less likely to get a driver's license, and less likely to carry a license around with you all the time even if you have one.

According to a Pennsylvania Secretary of State's report, about 9% of eligible voters lack the required ID to vote. Let's assume that's pretty standard. Let's also assume some portion of them will get ID if it's needed to vote. So, let's just guess that after the requirement has been in place for a while, somewhere between 5% and 9% of the total population of otherwise-eligible voters lacks ID (depending on what proportion will get ID merely to vote). Let's say that 3 out of 5 of them tend to vote Democrat (a very conservative estimate of the skewing, based on the studies). That means imposing voter ID can be expected to have somewhere between 1 point and a little less than 2 points of impact on the election, always in favor of the Republicans. That isn't going to matter in a normal election. But it's enough to sway an election as close as the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections. And that's what Republicans are counting on when they apply this. The smart ones among them (that very tiny minority), know that the kind of voter fraud this would prevent is extremely rare to the point that it's utterly statistically meaningless, but the kind of LEGITIMATE voting it would prevent is statistically significant enough to win them a few key elections, and that's why they want to see it.

 

[Arkady]

I'd love to see voting systems modernized nationally and standardized. But I don't expect it, because that would help Democrats. As we saw in the detailed analysis of Florida voting in 2000, the voting systems in place in richer neighborhoods were more robust, resulting in higher voter turnout (shorter lines), and less "spoilage" (fewer votes thrown out because of "dimpled chads" and the like). When you have a non-standardized system that disproportionately lowers votes in poorer areas, you have a system that gives Republicans a home-field advantage. They're not going to want to see that changed.

 

[BitterPill]

Well, that reversal was intentional, since I want to force Republicans to think about how they'd regard this if it was their own side being disadvantaged by the tilting of the playing field.

Perhaps you are asking too much. Analogies require some thought, after all.