Alabama illustrates the problem with voter ID laws

[Cozarkian]

It's almost impossible to imagine how in person voter fraud could do that in any plausible scenario. The mechanics of it are simply too hard. That's basically zero benefit.

The mechanics are about as simple as it gets. It is a fundamental principle in our society that one citizen = one vote. Passing a law that would make it more difficult for me to violate that principle in the next election protects that principle. That is a massive benefit.

That is a benefit!

Most Americans don't see voter fraud as a major problem though, and the number that see in-person voter fraud as a major problem is likely much smaller than that. Would you advocate disenfranchising people now based on the potential that Americans' opinions would change in the future? Doesn't that set a really bad precedent for laws?

Most? What is this most? Most people have IDs but you still argue on behalf of the few, why would you deny a different few a tangible benefit?

Also, it isn't just public perception. Think in terms of the people that want to steal an election. When people claim there was a bus full of illegals voting, we have to decide whether to investigate. Put a voter ID law in place and that decision gets a lot easier.

That's almost certainly untrue. Implementing this policy would likely be several orders of magnitude more expensive than most investigations. You're talking millions per year per state.

We already have the necessary government entities for issuing IDs. At most add a few employees, only if the current ones are already stretched to capacity.

If you want to get more people ID's, then just pass a law to get more people IDs.



That's an argument for passing laws to get people IDs, not an argument for voter ID laws.

At which point the cost of a voter ID law is - bring the ID you already have, which is certainly an acceptable cost for the benefit of preventing single fraudulent vote in any election at any point in the future.

 

[fskimospy]

The mechanics are about as simple as it gets. It is a fundamental principle in our society that one citizen = one vote. Passing a law that would make it more difficult for me to violate that principle in the next election protects that principle. That is a massive benefit.

It's a 'massive benefit' that is nearly certain to never affect a single election's outcome ever, all in the name of the integrity of elections, at the cost of many many millions of dollars that could be spent to clothe the needy, house the homeless, and feed the hungry.

We may have very different definitions of 'massive'.

Most? What is this most? Most people have IDs but you still argue on behalf of the few, why would you deny a different few a tangible benefit?

Because the right to vote is protected in our society and the right to be catered to over a mistaken and nebulous belief that in-person voter fraud is an issue isn't.

Also, it isn't just public perception. Think in terms of the people that want to steal an election. When people claim there was a bus full of illegals voting, we have to decide whether to investigate. Put a voter ID law in place and that decision gets a lot easier.

I am thinking in terms of people that want to steal an election. If you're trying to steal one through in-person voter fraud you're the dumbest election thief ever. It's a totally ineffective strategy.

We already have the necessary government entities for issuing IDs. At most add a few employees, only if the current ones are already stretched to capacity.

You realize that states that have implemented these ID laws have actually drawn up budgetary costs for getting people IDs, right? It's many millions of dollars.

At which point the cost of a voter ID law is - bring the ID you already have, which is certainly an acceptable cost for the benefit of preventing single fraudulent vote in any election at any point in the future.

You think requiring 300 million people to undertake extra work every time they vote is an acceptable cost to prevent a single fraudulent vote at some yet to be determined point in the future? Not to mention eligible voters who may have lost their ID, etc, etc and will be disenfranchised by this.

I don't know what to say other than I would be very very surprised if you apply this cost/benefit standard to other public policies. If you think you do, I can draw up an awful lot of very liberal policies that you should be a huge fan of.

 

[Jhhnn]

The only reason there's an additional burden is because your side is adamantly opposed to spending money or resources getting them IDs. Because again these aren't real people who could be helped by having an ID, they're just abstract votes for your team.

Your side just opposed that dumbass.

I believe you are mistaken. Please elaborate.

 

[glenn1]

I believe you are mistaken. Please elaborate.

Okay, one person opposes, another one says IDs are good but not for elections. Evidently he'd forgo the benefit free IDs would provide to poor people in order to protect the people from the burden of showing their free IDs. Because freedom or something.

 

[Cozarkian]

So to be clear, you think investigating to see if in person voter fraud exists costs too much money, but you're willing to spend millions and millions of dollars every year to prevent the very in-person voter fraud that you don't know exists.

Successful in person voter fraud is a crime that leaves very little to no evidence that it exists. Thus, the lack of evidence of voter fraud doesn't demonstrate there is no such fraud. To be certain there is no fraud, you would have to pay someone to go around and contact every person who voted in an election and ask them if they actually voted. I don't think that expense is justified when voter ID laws provide a much simpler and cheaper solution.

 

[Jhhnn]

False. The nature of this type of fraud combined with poor voter turnout makes it extremely difficult to detect this type of fraud and costly to investigate. It's like a murder in a war zone. It isn't worth the cost to conduct an autopsy on every dead body so there won't ever be evidence that the crime occurred.

That's the Bigfoot argument. It's bullshit. This voter fraud song and dance has been performed thousands of times for over a decade, likely more often than in person voter fraud occurred over the same time period. An enormous amount of effort has been expended in an attempt to prove that it exists with bumpkus to show for it.

Further, the problem is quite apparent. If there was a year with no car accidents, would you repeal mandatory insurance laws?

It wouldn't mean we need to insist on more insurance, that's for sure.

A well-written law would not. That may be the intention of many politicians and racists, but it isn't mine.

We are not presented with that. It's irrelevant.

I support the removal of "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. That doesn't mean I am a Satanist.

So what?

 

[glenn1]

Successful in person voter fraud is a crime that leaves very little to no evidence that it exists. Thus, the lack of evidence of voter fraud doesn't demonstrate there is no such fraud. To be certain there is no fraud, you would have to pay someone to go around and contact every person who voted in an election and ask them if they actually voted. I don't think that expense is justified when voter ID laws provide a much simpler and cheaper solution.

This is why I almost want Alabama and other states to go the other way and remove all ID requirements for voting outright. If you think it's an impossible burden to show a free-ID then you shouldn't be required to show utility bill or anything else as that's equally if not more burdensome. In-person Voter ID doesn't exist, so any amount of time and effort spent is too much.

 

[MrPickins]

This is why I almost want Alabama and other states to go the other way and remove all ID requirements for voting outright. If you think it's an impossible burden to show a free-ID then you shouldn't be required to show utility bill or anything else as that's equally if not more burdensome. In-person Voter ID doesn't exist, so any amount of time and effort spent is too much.

I used to have a little respect for you. This thread has caused that respect to evaporate.

 

[fskimospy]

Successful in person voter fraud is a crime that leaves very little to no evidence that it exists. Thus, the lack of evidence of voter fraud doesn't demonstrate there is no such fraud. To be certain there is no fraud, you would have to pay someone to go around and contact every person who voted in an election and ask them if they actually voted. I don't think that expense is justified when voter ID laws provide a much simpler and cheaper solution.

This is absolutely not true.

In-person voter fraud relies upon the person being impersonated not voting themselves. If in-person voter fraud were widespread you would have numerous cases of individuals double voting. There are also statistical flags that would show up in large data sets. None of this happens.

Additionally even if you wanted to go your canvassing route (which as I mentioned is already unnecessary), you would not need to contact every person who voted, you would just need to contact a subsample of them. Statistics and probability would take care of the rest. To do this would be much, much, much less expensive than implementing a voter ID policy. Like, a tiny fraction of the expense.

 

[glenn1]

I used to have a little respect for you. This thread has caused that respect to evaporate.

Probably for the best if advocating for free IDs for the poor caused you to lose respect for me.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

This is why I almost want Alabama and other states to go the other way and remove all ID requirements for voting outright. If you think it's an impossible burden to show a free-ID then you shouldn't be required to show utility bill or anything else as that's equally if not more burdensome. In-person Voter ID doesn't exist, so any amount of time and effort spent is too much.

Why does it have to be either an extremely strict level or nothing at all? Every state mandates some form of proving identity in order to vote; no one is saying we shouldn't make any effort whatsoever to certify people are legally allowed to vote before letting them cast a ballot. But why the need to say "no, utility bills or birth certificates don't count, only these three things qualify"? Alabama's previous voter identification laws seemed to be working just fine; it certainly didn't stop Republicans from holding a majority of elected offices in the state. Why the need to change from a system that was clearly working?

 

[MrPickins]

Probably for the best if advocating for free IDs for the poor caused you to lose respect for me.

No, it's the hoops you're jumping through to tow the party line that's caused it.

It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

 

[glenn1]

Why does it have to be either an extremely strict level or nothing at all? Every state mandates some form of proving identity in order to vote; no one is saying we shouldn't make any effort whatsoever to certify people are legally allowed to vote before letting them cast a ballot. But why the need to say "no, utility bills or birth certificates don't count, only these three things qualify"? Alabama's previous voter identification laws seemed to be working just fine; it certainly didn't stop Republicans from holding a majority of elected offices in the state. Why the need to change from a system that was clearly working?

Tell me what state you live in and I'll find something the state has a strict requirement to show photo ID for. Why the need for states to say "only these 3 things qualify" when talking about other activities? Is marriage in Philadelphia somehow a riskier right than voting in Alabama? It's called consistency, if you require photo ID for some things and not others then it's legitimate to question you why voting is some special exception. I'm just baffled why you and others think that using the best means to determine voter identity should not be the standard. Or even more puzzling, why you would support giving out IDs for free to all then think they shouldn't be asked for at the polls. That's the most ridiculous position I could possibly conceive of.

 

[fskimospy]

Tell me what state you live in and I'll find something the state has a strict requirement to show photo ID for. Why the need for states to say "only these 3 things qualify" when talking about other activities? Is marriage in Philadelphia somehow a riskier right than voting in Alabama? It's called consistency, if you require photo ID for some things and not others then it's legitimate to question you why voting is some special exception. I'm just baffled why you and others think that using the best means to determine voter identity should not be the standard. Or even more puzzling, why you would support giving out IDs for free to all then think they shouldn't be asked for at the polls. That's the most ridiculous position I could possibly conceive of.

A marriage likely has far, far greater implications for society than a single vote, yes. A marriage can radically influence future contractual arrangements, dispensation of property, health care, responsibility for children, etc, etc.

A single vote is statistically meaningless.

Can you explain why it would be consistent for weighty contractual arrangements and statistically meaningless votes to have the same standard of verification? That seems illogical.

 

[glenn1]

No, it's the hoops you're jumping through to tow the party line that's caused it.

It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

Yeah, because advocating for federal government provided IDs is right there in the GOP platform. Gotcha.

And I have a new idea, let's send out all government payments in the form of a check, payable on the spot with no ID required. Surely you'd be OK with that correct? And you'd be offended if I asked someone claiming to be you to show photo ID before handing over your cash?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Or even more puzzling, why you would support giving out IDs for free to all then think they shouldn't be asked for at the polls. That's the most ridiculous position I could possibly conceive of.

I agree with you there; I can't fathom the mindset behind advocating that the state make photo IDs for everybody but then don't bother requiring them for voting. I never advocated that truly bizarre position. I mean, if you know that all the people already have the ID, what's the harm in requiring it to vote?

I live in Oregon, where in-person voter fraud literally cannot happen as all our voting is done by mail. Which, by the way, is not only super-convenient, but offers another fantastic way to eliminate the specter of in-person voter fraud from plaguing your elections. Less costly than photo IDs, too.

 

[Jhhnn]

Okay, one person opposes, another one says IDs are good but not for elections. Evidently he'd forgo the benefit free IDs would provide to poor people in order to protect the people from the burden of showing their free IDs. Because freedom or something.

Why does free ID have to be tied to elections? To guard against non-existent voter fraud?

This is why I almost want Alabama and other states to go the other way and remove all ID requirements for voting outright. If you think it's an impossible burden to show a free-ID then you shouldn't be required to show utility bill or anything else as that's equally if not more burdensome. In-person Voter ID doesn't exist, so any amount of time and effort spent is too much.

Nobody has suggested anything like that. Your desperation is showing.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I live in Oregon, where in-person voter fraud literally cannot happen as all our voting is done by mail. Which, by the way, is not only super-convenient, but offers another fantastic way to eliminate the specter of in-person voter fraud from plaguing your elections. Less costly than photo IDs, too.

You crazy Portlandia hipsters, you.

 

[Roflmouth]

Successful in person voter fraud is a crime that leaves very little to no evidence that it exists. Thus, the lack of evidence of voter fraud doesn't demonstrate there is no such fraud. To be certain there is no fraud, you would have to pay someone to go around and contact every person who voted in an election and ask them if they actually voted. I don't think that expense is justified when voter ID laws provide a much simpler and cheaper solution.

Bbbbbut, going to the DMV once every four years is impossible, who do you think these disenfranchised voters are, functioning adults with working brains?

 

[fskimospy]

Bbbbbut, going to the DMV once every four years is impossible, who do you think these disenfranchised voters are, functioning adults with working brains?

Hahaha, another person using the "but complying with this irrational law is EASY" argument.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Bbbbbut, going to the DMV once every four years is impossible, who do you think these disenfranchised voters are, functioning adults with working brains?

Of course not; they live in Alabama.

BOOM! ALABAMA SLAM!

:biggrin:

 

[Jhhnn]

This is absolutely not true.

In-person voter fraud relies upon the person being impersonated not voting themselves. If in-person voter fraud were widespread you would have numerous cases of individuals double voting. There are also statistical flags that would show up in large data sets. None of this happens.

That alone shows their argument to be hokum.

Additionally even if you wanted to go your canvassing route (which as I mentioned is already unnecessary), you would not need to contact every person who voted, you would just need to contact a subsample of them. Statistics and probability would take care of the rest. To do this would be much, much, much less expensive than implementing a voter ID policy. Like, a tiny fraction of the expense.

You'd only need to do canvassing if the basis for doing so wasn't hokum in the first place. You'd need to see a double voting trend or attempts to even bother.

 

[Jhhnn]

Successful in person voter fraud is a crime that leaves very little to no evidence that it exists. Thus, the lack of evidence of voter fraud doesn't demonstrate there is no such fraud. To be certain there is no fraud, you would have to pay someone to go around and contact every person who voted in an election and ask them if they actually voted. I don't think that expense is justified when voter ID laws provide a much simpler and cheaper solution.

Why do you believe in significant voter fraud w/o proof of its existence?

Some sort of spiritual epiphany, or what?

 

[Cozarkian]

Why do you believe in significant voter fraud w/o proof of its existence?

Some sort of spiritual epiphany, or what?

I don't. I believe:

1. The integrity of our government by the people, for the people is dependent upon the integrity of our elections.
2. In light of #1, we need to protect the integrity of our elections by tsking action to ensure there is no voter fraud.
3. The nature of in person voter fraud prevents us from ensuring there is no voter fraud by relying upon post-election activities.
4. Therefore, we need pre-election preventive measures.
5. Voter ID laws are a stronger preventative measure than registration and signature and provide a substantial benefit by doing a better job of fulfilling our obligation in #2. They also reduce the potential cost of investigating post-election allegations of voter fraud.
6. Requiring somebody to bring an ID when they vote is a negligible burden that is vastly outweighed by the benefits in #5, especially in light of #1.
7. Problems related to people obtaining an ID are better resolved by making IDs easy to obtain, which is a benefit that pays for itself, and/or drafting the law to permit the use of forms of ID that are already easily-obtainable.

 

[trenchfoot]

I don't. I believe:

1. The integrity of our government by the people, for the people is dependent upon the integrity of our elections.
2. In light of #1, we need to protect the integrity of our elections by tsking action to ensure there is no voter fraud.
3. The nature of in person voter fraud prevents us from ensuring there is no voter fraud by relying upon post-election activities.
4. Therefore, we need pre-election preventive measures.
5. Voter ID laws are a stronger preventative measure than registration and signature and provide a substantial benefit by doing a better job of fulfilling our obligation in #2. They also reduce the potential cost of investigating post-election allegations of voter fraud.
6. Requiring somebody to bring an ID when they vote is a negligible burden that is vastly outweighed by the benefits in #5, especially in light of #1.
7. Problems related to people obtaining an ID are better resolved by making IDs easy to obtain, which is a benefit that pays for itself, and/or drafting the law to permit the use of forms of ID that are already easily-obtainable.

Good for you. So in reference to #1, what about gerrymandering and all of those other slick tricks the Repubs have been employing in their so-called efforts to "preserve the integrity of the one man-one vote principle". Seems to me they've been working very hard to accomplish just the opposite.