Alabama illustrates the problem with voter ID laws

[fskimospy]

It's simple. Show us the fraud. Produce the Bigfoot. If they can't, there no reason to believe it exists other than as a vehicle of deception to achieve political advantage.

It really is as simple as that. If in-person voter fraud is a serious enough problem that it requires spending millions of dollars and potentially disenfranchising thousands of voters, then show us that it's happening. If in-person voter fraud is actually happening on a meaningful scale I'll be the first person to support measures to stop it.

No song and dance, no anecdotes, just show the evidence.

 

[glenn1]

It really is as simple as that. If in-person voter fraud is a serious enough problem that it requires spending millions of dollars and potentially disenfranchising thousands of voters, then show us that it's happening. If in-person voter fraud is actually happening on a meaningful scale I'll be the first person to support measures to stop it.

No song and dance, no anecdotes, just show the evidence.

Show the evidence for your position that "unlimited donation money in politics has a corrupting effect." Until then you should likewise not oppose Citizens United.

Or you can just stop being a partisan hack and figure out how to implement the same commonsense standard we use for the dozens of other times when states require photo ID, you know the same thing that SCOTUS already decided was OK.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

People here would (and effectively have) argue that even if Alabama opened a DMV on every street corner that would still present too much a burden. They're not arguing from good faith, they won't even concede validating voter identity is a valid state interest.

Who has said that? Quote a post that's arguing that perspective. I've certainly argued that voter ID is silly since in-person voter fraud is a relative rarity, but I also completely understand the need of the state to verify votes are cast by legitimate voters. But other states have looser requirements for what constitutes valid proof of identity and they don't seem to have been completely overrun by fraud. They also don't pass a law to require ID and then turn around and close down all the places to get ID in locations that are the traditional strongholds of one political party. Even if you're in favor of making sure everyone has an ID, the actions that Alabama has specifically taken here are despicable.

 

[glenn1]

Who has said that? Quote a post that's arguing that perspective. I've certainly argued that voter ID is silly since in-person voter fraud is a relative rarity, but I also completely understand the need of the state to verify votes are cast by legitimate voters. But other states have looser requirements for what constitutes valid proof of identity and they don't seem to have been completely overrun by fraud. They also don't pass a law to require ID and then turn around and close down all the places to get ID in locations that are the traditional strongholds of one political party. Even if you're in favor of making sure everyone has an ID, the actions that Alabama has specifically taken here are despicable.

No argument on the despicable. Even if there were otherwise logical reasons for the decision to close the DMVs they still have the duty and responsibility to ensure their citizens can obtain access to needed services.

 

[fskimospy]

Show the evidence for your position that "unlimited donation money in politics has a corrupting effect." Until then you should likewise not oppose Citizens United.

That's not the standard. The standard is that an action leads to corruption or the appearance of corruption. My evidence that unlimited donation money in politics leads to the appearance of corruption are large numbers of polls that show Americans think just that.

See? My position is based on evidence. Now it's your turn to embrace positions based on evidence! When will you start?

Or you can just stop being a partisan hack and figure out how to implement the same commonsense standard we use for the dozens of other times when states require photo ID, you know the same thing that SCOTUS already decided was OK.

Various states require photo ID at tons of different times and they are not in any way uniform, nor should they be. If photo ID is necessary to prevent in-person voter fraud then provide evidence that in-person voter fraud is happening at meaningful rates. After all as a conservative, surely you would be strongly against laws that aren't based in evidence. Who wants extra unnecessary laws?

 

[glenn1]

That's not the standard. The standard is that an action leads to corruption or the appearance of corruption. My evidence that unlimited donation money in politics leads to the appearance of corruption are large numbers of polls that show Americans think just that.

See? My position is based on evidence. Now it's your turn to embrace positions based on evidence! When will you start?



Various states require photo ID at tons of different times and they are not in any way uniform, nor should they be. If photo ID is necessary to prevent in-person voter fraud then provide evidence that in-person voter fraud is happening at meaningful rates. After all as a conservative, surely you would be strongly against laws that aren't based in evidence. Who wants extra unnecessary laws?

Any rate that's not zero is meaningful when there are means to prevent it. If you don't like the photo ID standard you could establish something like a "secret voter PIN" that can help establish identity. It's hard to take you seriously when you argue with a straight face that a "security" measure that can be defeated by picking a piece of mail out of someone else's mailbox is anything but you not giving a shit about fraud because you think it benefits you.

 

[fskimospy]

Any rate that's not zero is meaningful when there are means to prevent it. If you don't like the photo ID standard you could establish something like a "secret voter PIN" that can help establish identity.

Well then why stop there? PINs can be stolen. We could implement retina scanners at every voting booth. Maybe add in a blood test and DNA sequencing. Remember, any rate that's not zero is meaningful when there are means to prevent it.

You'd probably say "that would be a stupid waste of money".

Exactly.

It's hard to take you seriously when you argue with a straight face that a "security" measure that can be defeated by picking a piece of mail out of someone else's mailbox is anything but you not giving a shit about fraud because you think it benefits you.

It's hard to take you seriously when you keep arguing that something is happening but then can provide no evidence that it's happening. As a conservative you should not want laws that are passed based on no evidence, right? That is unless you only give a shit about it because you think it benefits you of course. (this is the actual answer, haha) It's always amazing to me how much conservatives that claim to be for small, hands off government suddenly grow to love intrusive government verification schemes when it might help them politically.

So again, provide evidence and I'm 100% on your team. How hard can that be?

Evidence, evidence, evidence.

 

[glenn1]

That's not the standard. The standard is that an action leads to corruption or the appearance of corruption. My evidence that unlimited donation money in politics leads to the appearance of corruption are large numbers of polls that show Americans think just that.

See? My position is based on evidence. Now it's your turn to embrace positions based on evidence! When will you start?

My evidence is that even higher poll numbers support voter ID because not doing so leads to the appearance of fraud. I see your poll numbers and raise to 8 in 10.

 

[fskimospy]

My evidence is that even higher poll numbers support voter ID because not doing so leads to the appearance of fraud. I see your poll numbers and raise to 8 in 10.

Except that when people are asked not about voter ID laws but if voter fraud is a major problem less than half of them say it is, and that would encompass ALL kinds of fraud, not merely in-person voter fraud. Since the appearance of fraud is what counts and not support for an ID law, looks like you struck out again, huh.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...s-but-public-awareness-of-their-effect-is-low

So now that you have no evidence of fraud and no reason to believe a majority of the public believes it gives the appearance of fraud, presumably by your own logic once again, you now oppose voter ID laws. Is this correct?

 

[glenn1]

Except that when people are asked not about voter ID laws but if voter fraud is a major problem less than half of them say it is, and that would encompass ALL kinds of fraud, not merely in-person voter fraud. Since the appearance of fraud is what counts and not support for an ID law, looks like you struck out again, huh.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...s-but-public-awareness-of-their-effect-is-low

So now that you have no evidence of fraud and no reason to believe a majority of the public believes it gives the appearance of fraud, presumably by your own logic once again, you now oppose voter ID laws. Is this correct?

Hey that's cool, I'm obviously not going to convince you or vice versa which is why federalism is so great. You can enjoy the fraud in your state and I can enjoy suppressing minorities in mine and everyone's happy. I'll even make sure to reduce Medicaid spending on those same folks while I'm at it just for good measure.

 

[dainthomas]

Hey that's cool, I'm obviously not going to convince you or vice versa which is why federalism is so great. You can enjoy the fraud in your state and I can enjoy suppressing minorities in mine and everyone's happy. I'll even make sure to reduce Medicaid spending on those same folks while I'm at it just for good measure.

If only all conservatives were as honest! :biggrin:

 

[Cozarkian]

Answer the original question asked. Why is this so hard for you to do?

Because the original question fails to explain the reason the 100k legitimatevotes are lost. If it is because people choose not to vote because it takes a little time and effort to bring an ID to the polls, then it is better to prevent the fraud.

If voters are actually disenfranchised, then it is better to accept the fraud.

There is no reason not to enact and implement a well-written voter ID law. The focus should be on improving laws like Alabama's, not eliminating them.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the original question fails to explain the reason the 100k legitimatevotes are lost. If it is because people choose not to vote because it takes a little time and effort to bring an ID to the polls, then it is better to prevent the fraud.

If voters are actually disenfranchised, then it is better to accept the fraud.

That's an arbitrary standard. The personal attributes of who is having their voting rights limited doesn't matter. The question should be simply how great of a burden it places on people as compared to the benefit it offers. The problem here is that evidence indicates the benefit is zero, meaning that literally even the lightest burden imaginable is too much.

There is no reason not to enact and implement a well-written voter ID law. The focus should be on improving laws like Alabama's, not eliminating them.

Except of course that they are designed to prevent something that evidence indicates does not exist. I would have to say I can't think of a stronger possible reason than that.

Unless you're a founding member of the Bear Patrol I guess?

 

[fskimospy]

Hey that's cool, I'm obviously not going to convince you or vice versa which is why federalism is so great. You can enjoy the fraud in your state and I can enjoy suppressing minorities in mine and everyone's happy. I'll even make sure to reduce Medicaid spending on those same folks while I'm at it just for good measure.

Hahaha, glad to see you stopped pretending that your position was actually based on logic and evidence.

 

[glenn1]

Hahaha, glad to see you stopped pretending that your position was actually based on logic and evidence.

Sure, why not? After all on my side I have the SCOTUS decision and my preferred standard in effect. You have the perception that you won an argument on the internet. I'll take that outcome every time.

 

[Jhhnn]

People here would (and effectively have) argue that even if Alabama opened a DMV on every street corner that would still present too much a burden. They're not arguing from good faith, they won't even concede validating voter identity is a valid state interest.

What a load of bullshit. That argument has not been made. Any person registered to vote should be able to do so on the basis of proof of residency & signature matching. They already proved their identity when they registered or should have been required to do so at the time. Any person not properly registered should be able to obtain the means to do so in a relatively convenient fashion.

Voter fraud? If it existed to any appreciable way you'd be able to document it with court records. Obviously you cannot or you would have done so. Left or Right, officials charged with detecting it & prosecuting it take their duties seriously. Hell, the Bush Admin fired US Attorneys they deemed to have a lack of enthusiasm for the task while ID advocates have come up with Jack & Shit in the intervening decade.

From an evidentiary standpoint, voter fraud is a fraud, merely cover for other intentions.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, why not? After all on my side I have the SCOTUS decision and my preferred standard in effect. You have the perception that you won an argument on the internet. I'll take that outcome every time.

'I don't care if it's logical so long as I get my way' is a pretty funny standard to have, hahaha.

Never change, glenn.

 

[glenn1]

'I don't care if it's logical so long as I get my way' is a pretty funny standard to have, hahaha.

Never change, glenn.

Funny or not it's still higher than yours. Speaking of which, you should probably move along to your a la carte rights platform; oppose perceived restrictions on voting here, support limits on the 1st Amendment there, say the 2nd Amendment isn't applicable somewhere else...

 

[HomerJS]

Any rate that's not zero is meaningful when there are means to prevent it. If you don't like the photo ID standard you could establish something like a "secret voter PIN" that can help establish identity. It's hard to take you seriously when you argue with a straight face that a "security" measure that can be defeated by picking a piece of mail out of someone else's mailbox is anything but you not giving a shit about fraud because you think it benefits you.

It is statistically 0. There are many thingS where we tolerate a minute amount of something bad because getting to actual 0 would be more harmful or not cost effective. There are minute amounts of arsenic in drinking water.

Where are the reforms on handling ballots after votes are cast/ You lose more there.

 

[Cozarkian]

That's an arbitrary standard. The personal attributes of who is having their voting rights limited doesn't matter. The question should be simply how great of a burden it places on people as compared to the benefit it offers. The problem here is that evidence indicates the benefit is zero, meaning that literally even the lightest burden imaginable is too much.



Except of course that they are designed to prevent something that evidence indicates does not exist. I would have to say I can't think of a stronger possible reason than that.

Unless you're a founding member of the Bear Patrol I guess?

Assuming there is little actual in person voter fraud, there are several enormous benefits to a well-written law. First, at minimal to no cost it protects the integrity of the system by implementing measures to prevent or limit the potential for future actions that would violate the foundation of our government.

Second, it reduces the risk of political attacks on the confidence of election results through allegations of voter fraud. It is far less costly to prevent fraud then to launch an investigation to determine whether fraud occurred.

Third, a well-written law would result in more people with IDs.

With a well-written law, the burden in obtaining an ID is a net benefit because now the person has an ID. The law would literally pay for itself in terms of cost/benefit wuthout any need to include the benefit of preventing voter fraud in the analysis.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because the original question fails to explain the reason the 100k legitimatevotes are lost. If it is because people choose not to vote because it takes a little time and effort to bring an ID to the polls, then it is better to prevent the fraud.

If voters are actually disenfranchised, then it is better to accept the fraud.

There is no reason not to enact and implement a well-written voter ID law. The focus should be on improving laws like Alabama's, not eliminating them.

Of course people would take the time & effort to bring ID to the Polls, if they have it. Getting it is the problem for many. Many people don't need valid & current state ID at all in their day to day lives or they'd already have it. It can be no other way. You insist that they obtain it solely for the purpose of voting, thus knowingly inhibiting their participation.

The rest? Prove that in person voter fraud actually exists at a significant level, then we can talk. Reference reality, not your well propagandized imagination & suspicions.

 

[glenn1]

Third, a well-written law would result in more people with IDs.

With a well-written law, the burden in obtaining an ID is a net benefit because now the person has an ID. The law would literally pay for itself in terms of cost/benefit wuthout any need to include the benefit of preventing voter fraud in the analysis.

No evidence shown that the welfare of people without IDs is any concern for those who oppose Voter ID. Not even $1/person is worth it, remember?

 

[Cozarkian]

Any person registered to vote should be able to do so on the basis of proof of residency & signature matching. They already proved their identity when they registered or should have been required to do so at the time. Any person not properly registered should be able to obtain the means to do so in a relatively convenient fashion.

How about this: If you don't have a photo ID, when submitting your registration and proof of identity, include a passport sized photo. The proof of registration will be returned with the photo incorporated. Bring that to the polls.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Voter Fraud is just another Republican boogyman in the closet compared to a head poll worker finding twenty thousand ballots in her trunk she forgot to count.

 

[Cozarkian]

Of course people would take the time & effort to bring ID to the Polls, if they have it. Getting it is the problem for many. Many people don't need valid & current state ID at all in their day to day lives or they'd already have it. It can be no other way. You insist that they obtain it solely for the purpose of voting,

Thereby protecting the fundamental basis of our government.

If the government has a legitimate interest in taking a census of its population, it most certainly has a legitimate interest of asking voters to verify they are actually the citizen they claim to be.

Another question - what percentage of people without IDs rely upon illegal actions in their daily lives? For example, driving without a license, working for an employer that doesn't comply with I9 requirements, or buying alcohol at places that don't comply with ID laws?