Alabama illustrates the problem with voter ID laws

[werepossum]

There were already standards on the books that would keep people from voting as many times as they wished . They are simply tightening those standards so much as to make a de facto poll tax and inhibit the ability of "undesirables" to vote.

There are laws against it, but not laws that prevent it. That's an enforcement issue at least as much as a legal issue.

Let's not forget that there are other locations in Alabama to obtain a legal ID for voting, such as the mobile units that go around the state, registering voters and providing them with a free ID. But those places are only available for a couple hours in any given month. If your goal is to make sure all registered voters have the ID necessary to vote, cutting funding and making it more difficult for them to get that ID is diametrically opposed to your stated goal.

Agreed. If we are to install photo ID laws - and I think we should - then that must be accompanied by increased access, not less access.

It's equally amusing and disturbing that one must have government-issued photo ID to get into a Hillary speech, but not to vote her in as President.

 

[Aikouka]

Yes, and it would be the same for a photo ID. But not to get the FIRST photo ID. After that - heck, they probably wouldn't ever have to renew it. But you still have to get there once. (And that's assuming the camera is working and the lady didn't call in sick.)

An Alabama drivers license expires every four years, so you do have to renew it. Although, it seems kind of odd to complain about having to go to get your initial ID. I mean... I would imagine that most care about getting their initial license to allow them to drive more so than allowing them to vote. The latter is important, but given that the United States doesn't have a great public transport system in most urban areas, driving is usually necessary for daily life.

One thing that just came to mind... has anyone ever posed the question of how much money closing these DMVs will actually save? Alabama does have budget problems, but saving a couple proverbial pennies on the dollar to add extra inconvenience to your constituents doesn't seem like a great way to go.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ahhh but you are forgetting that they HAVE to speak of voter fraud as if it's happening in the thousands of votes per district in order for the rest of the argument to have any merit.

You're looking at it from a position of reality.

Stupid librul.

The whole Voter Fraud/Voter ID schtick is a fraud, a cover for disenfranchisement. Given that they cannot demonstrate fraud at a significant level, it can be no other way. It's like saying we should clear cut the national forests so Bigfoot won't have a place to hide.

This episode in Alabama is adding insult to injury.

 

[glenn1]

I have absolutely no issue with what you've posted there. However, as it's been stated ad infinitum by myself and others, my objection to the methods the Repubs have been utilizing in regards to Repub initiated voter ID laws is whether by coincidence or not, they all have in common this one unique feature that discriminates against those that have a preference for voting against them.

Why is it that the case when, with their total control over the process of legislating voter ID laws, they have the power to write into their legislation language that makes it even easier for ANYONE to cast a vote rather than the opposite effect these laws have now?

The Repubs who wrote and passed these laws didn't seem to care at all about how much it cost to create and implement them, yet they are going way out of their way to avoid costs that ensure that these laws guarantee that not a single person will be negatively affected by them, and, amusingly so, with the very same passion and effort that they exert toward making people believe that these laws were passed toward ensuring that not a single person would be able to commit fraud.

In effect, these Repub controlled states have committed fraud to prevent a kind of fraud that they have demonized into existence for the express purpose of "fixing" the voting process in their favor.

edit - And forgive my long-winded replies. I'm home on sick leave bored with nothing much to do while I'm fighting an stubborn ear infection I got while spearfishing.

Well then support solutions that do make it easier to vote (and show you're the voter you say you are) beyond just the crappy non-standards we have now. Set up a federally-administered voter ID that's issued for free to anyone who can't get a driver's license for whatever reason. You could probably leverage the infrastructure of the national armed forces draft or Census and probably do it for minimal cost. The reasoning is sound, the purpose is just, and there's no reason for the left to throw up their hands and say "it's an impossible task" when obviously it's not.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Well then support solutions that do make it easier to vote (and show you're the voter you say you are) beyond just the crappy non-standards we have now. Set up a federally-administered voter ID that's issued for free to anyone who can't get a driver's license for whatever reason. You could probably leverage the infrastructure of the national armed forces draft or Census and probably do it for minimal cost. The reasoning is sound, the purpose is just, and there's no reason for the left to throw up their hands and say "it's an impossible task" when obviously it's not.

Speaking as a member of the left, we don't think it's an impossible task, we think it's an unconscionable use of funds that are better spent virtually anywhere else. Even if you estimate the costs at only $1 per ID, and assume that you'd only need to give out around 50 million nationally, you won't find a single liberal in America who thinks that $50 million dollars wouldn't be better spent on education or some other such thing. We could absolutely do it, but the perceived benefit comes nowhere close to justifying the cost.

 

[CitizenKain]

then how do they get to work, the store, mcdonalds.

You may have heard of other modes of transportation.

 

[werepossum]

An Alabama drivers license expires every four years, so you do have to renew it. Although, it seems kind of odd to complain about having to go to get your initial ID. I mean... I would imagine that most care about getting their initial license to allow them to drive more so than allowing them to vote. The latter is important, but given that the United States doesn't have a great public transport system in most urban areas, driving is usually necessary for daily life.

One thing that just came to mind... has anyone ever posed the question of how much money closing these DMVs will actually save? Alabama does have budget problems, but saving a couple proverbial pennies on the dollar to add extra inconvenience to your constituents doesn't seem like a great way to go.

Doesn't really matter if driving is necessary if one can't afford it. Besides that, I know people who travel primarily by bus because of a DUI, because of a suspended license due to "a friend" borrowing the car and running up unpaid parking tickets, and because of expensive repairs they just can't afford.

As for savings, I tend to agree with Atomic Playboy that savings in dollars was not as important as savings in votes, even though as has been pointed out that has little utility in Alabama.

Speaking as a member of the left, we don't think it's an impossible task, we think it's an unconscionable use of funds that are better spent virtually anywhere else. Even if you estimate the costs at only $1 per ID, and assume that you'd only need to give out around 50 million nationally, you won't find a single liberal in America who thinks that $50 million dollars wouldn't be better spent on education or some other such thing. We could absolutely do it, but the perceived benefit comes nowhere close to justifying the cost.

Okay, how about we hand out to each new ID holder an educational brochure? I am reliably informed that those are every bit as significant as an abortion and you know how much those cost. Everybody wins!

 

[Roflmouth]

The whole Voter Fraud/Voter ID schtick is a fraud, a cover for disenfranchisement.

Since everyone has or can get a photo ID, the only ones disenfranchised are the illegal aliens, felons, and dead people that Democrats count on to get elected. Better luck next time.

 

[Roflmouth]

FYI, if you're just renewing your license in Alabama, you don't even need to go to the DMV: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/online_driver_license_renewal.html

Bbbbbbbbut, how are the "poor" and minorities (who liberals insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, they aren't horribly denigrating by implying they're inept morons) supposed to get access to a computer? Are they supposed to magically teleport to their local libraries then walk with their legs to the nearest terminal then use their fingers on the keyboards then read the applicable websites with their eyes? Why don't you empathize with the millions of blind non-teleporters without arms and legs who would be disenfranchised by this monstrous undertaking?

 

[Jhhnn]

Well then support solutions that do make it easier to vote (and show you're the voter you say you are) beyond just the crappy non-standards we have now. Set up a federally-administered voter ID that's issued for free to anyone who can't get a driver's license for whatever reason. You could probably leverage the infrastructure of the national armed forces draft or Census and probably do it for minimal cost. The reasoning is sound, the purpose is just, and there's no reason for the left to throw up their hands and say "it's an impossible task" when obviously it's not.

You merely assume that the "concerns' about "voter fraud" astroturfed into your head were actually legitimate in the first place. They never were. They're an attempt to shape the vote by non-democratic means. Now that you believe it, facts don't matter, facts like the total inability to demonstrate any appreciable amount of in person voter fraud. It basically doesn't exist.

Either you're part of the fraud or you've been chumped into believing in the boogeyman, take your pick.

 

[Jhhnn]

Since everyone has or can get a photo ID, the only ones disenfranchised are the illegal aliens, felons, and dead people that Democrats count on to get elected. Better luck next time.

Remarkable affirmation of faith in total bullshit.

 

[CitizenKain]

Since everyone has or can get a photo ID, the only ones disenfranchised are the illegal aliens, felons, and dead people that Democrats count on to get elected. Better luck next time.

Its so adorable when rightwingers bring up voter fraud, you may as well bring up the importance of unicorns. Run along now stupid, its fun to see the special ed class try to make a contribution, but I think you've proven you don't have it.

 

[shira]

I repeat a question I posted earlier, but in a slightly different form.

In an election in a state with 2 million adult citizens, which is better:

• 1.3 million votes cast, with 10 votes fraudulent
• 1.2 million votes cast, with 0 votes fraudulent.

 

[glenn1]

I repeat a question I posted earlier, but in a slightly different form.

In an election in a state with 2 million adult citizens, which is better:

• 1.3 million votes cast, with 10 votes fraudulent
• 1.2 million votes cast, with 0 votes fraudulent.

Why do you assume those are mutually exclusive propositions? I certainly don't think they are, and I could just as easily ask you if you'd accept an extra 100K fraudulent votes in exchange for 10 extra legitimate votes cast. Once you've accepted the premise of willingness to overlook fraud just to increase vote tallies, you've become the joke about "we've already established you're a prostitute, now we're just haggling over price."

 

[Bowfinger]

Why do you assume those are mutually exclusive propositions? I certainly don't think they are, and I could just as easily ask you if you'd accept an extra 100K fraudulent votes in exchange for 10 extra legitimate votes cast. Once you've accepted the premise of willingness to overlook fraud just to increase vote tallies, you've become the joke about "we've already established you're a prostitute, now we're just haggling over price."

Here in the real world, there is no such thing as perfect. His example is realistic; yours is diversionary nonsense. Can you answer his question -- honestly -- or not?

 

[Bowfinger]

Remarkable affirmation of faith in total bullshit.

I'm not sure why you're wasting electrons on our new junior troll. He's shown no interest in responding to facts and reason, nor any ability to do so. All he seems capable of is parroting the same lies and running away, again and again. He's much like Michal, except with spell check. Replying to him only encourages him to troll harder.

 

[Paratus]

Why do you assume those are mutually exclusive propositions? I certainly don't think they are, and I could just as easily ask you if you'd accept an extra 100K fraudulent votes in exchange for 10 extra legitimate votes cast. Once you've accepted the premise of willingness to overlook fraud just to increase vote tallies, you've become the joke about "we've already established you're a prostitute, now we're just haggling over price."

Glenn

If there were 100,000 fraudulent in person votes per election and we could stop that at the cost of 10 legitimate votes with stricter voter ID then we'd all be asking for stricter voter ID.

Instead back here in reality we're disenfranchising 100,000s of votes to prevent less than 10 fraudulent votes. So we don't support strict voter ID.

This is not a hard concept and I'm struggling to understand why you find it so difficult.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well then support solutions that do make it easier to vote (and show you're the voter you say you are) beyond just the crappy non-standards we have now. Set up a federally-administered voter ID that's issued for free to anyone who can't get a driver's license for whatever reason. You could probably leverage the infrastructure of the national armed forces draft or Census and probably do it for minimal cost. The reasoning is sound, the purpose is just, and there's no reason for the left to throw up their hands and say "it's an impossible task" when obviously it's not.

Accepting the fact that some people would lose their ID or move or simply the state kept bad records what is the magic number Glenn? Is it catch 10 fraudulent and prevent 10 legitimate or is it 10 to 25 or 1 to 10? Seriously this is an interesting question.

Personally I don't think voter fraud is a problem that needs to be addressed right now. Seems like its barely happening and that includes people who vote impersonating their parents who forgot to mail in their vote and are too frail to easily leave home. I don't consider this fraud.
To me if a system can be set up with negligible cost that can catch around ten times the fraud vs what it prevents is worth it.

 

[shira]

The argument of voter-ID advocates is, in essence, the following:

When the requirements for voting are made more difficult, no one who (i) voted in the past, (ii) wants to vote in the future, and (iii) could in theory satisfy the new requirements will fail to perform the actions needed to satisfy the new requirements.

Because if that is NOT what voter-ID advocates are arguing, then they are admitting that the new laws will in fact suppress legal voting.

 

[glenn1]

Here in the real world, there is no such thing as perfect. His example is realistic; yours is diversionary nonsense. Can you answer his question -- honestly -- or not?

Sure, the only truthful answer is that whatever yields the most accurate result is to be preferred. I'd prefer 100k less votes if they reflected actual voter preferences by even 0.000000001% more accurately. Your side doesn't even believe in "more voting = better" as otherwise you'd be pushing for compulsory universal voting which would make the problem of in-person vote fraud that much more manageable. Hell, fine those who don't vote and use the proceeds to fund IDs for those who don't have them.

But no, instead you're just advocating for a system that you clearly think benefits you while using any excuse imaginable. You know damn well that if Al Gore thought that lack of Voter ID in Florida had cost him the 2000 election that he would have disenfrachised the fuck out of people and you'd be in front of the line cheering him on.

Honestly I have no use for your partisan bullshit if you can't support what is a blindingly obvious and bipartisan problem. We need to make voting easier, less subject to fraud, and easier to audit. You attack every vector where inaccuracy or malicious actions come into play, whether it's registration, positive identification of voters, absentee voting, persons who vote from multiple jurisdictions (e.g. snowbirds), and anything else you can put on the table.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Sure, the only truthful answer is that whatever yields the most accurate result is to be preferred. I'd prefer 100k less votes if they reflected actual voter preferences by even 0.000000001% more accurately. Your side doesn't even believe in "more voting = better" as otherwise you'd be pushing for compulsory universal voting which would make the problem of in-person vote fraud that much more manageable. Hell, fine those who don't vote and use the proceeds to fund IDs for those who don't have them.

But no, instead you're just advocating for a system that you clearly think benefits you while using any excuse imaginable. You know damn well that if Al Gore thought that lack of Voter ID in Florida had cost him the 2000 election that he would have disenfrachised the fuck out of people and you'd be in front of the line cheering him on.

Honestly I have no use for your partisan bullshit if you can't support what is a blindingly obvious and bipartisan problem. We need to make voting easier, less subject to fraud, and easier to audit. You attack every vector where inaccuracy or malicious actions come into play, whether it's registration, positive identification of voters, absentee voting, persons who vote from multiple jurisdictions (e.g. snowbirds), and anything else you can put on the table.

You think eliminating 100,000 votes to avoid 1 illegitimate one is somehow more truthful? Getting rid of the will of 100,000 people somehow yields an accurate measure of what they want?

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, the only truthful answer is that whatever yields the most accurate result is to be preferred. I'd prefer 100k less votes if they reflected actual voter preferences by even 0.000000001% more accurately. Your side doesn't even believe in "more voting = better" as otherwise you'd be pushing for compulsory universal voting which would make the problem of in-person vote fraud that much more manageable. Hell, fine those who don't vote and use the proceeds to fund IDs for those who don't have them.

But no, instead you're just advocating for a system that you clearly think benefits you while using any excuse imaginable. You know damn well that if Al Gore thought that lack of Voter ID in Florida had cost him the 2000 election that he would have disenfrachised the fuck out of people and you'd be in front of the line cheering him on.

Honestly I have no use for your partisan bullshit if you can't support what is a blindingly obvious and bipartisan problem. We need to make voting easier, less subject to fraud, and easier to audit. You attack every vector where inaccuracy or malicious actions come into play, whether it's registration, positive identification of voters, absentee voting, persons who vote from multiple jurisdictions (e.g. snowbirds), and anything else you can put on the table.

I'm pretty sure people have come out in support of compulsory voting on here many times before. I'm quite sure I have. I've also never heard someone attack voter registration. Generally speaking the more people who vote, the better, as we get closer to the electorate's true preferences.

Now back to the question, which still hasn't really been answered. Do you think the 1.3 million votes with 10 fraudulent ones is likely to be a better representation of the preference of the voters than the 1.2 million with no fraudulent votes? I'm having trouble thinking of why it wouldn't be. If that's the case, then by your own logic you should oppose these voter ID laws as they are currently implemented.

 

[glenn1]

You think eliminating 100,000 votes to avoid 1 illegitimate one is somehow more truthful? Getting rid of the will of 100,000 people somehow yields an accurate measure of what they want?

Why would I assume those extra 100k voters would not reflect the voting preferences of the population at large? It's up to you to make the case why all those 100k would be people disenfranchised by Voter ID rather than people that didn't bother to vote or anything else. Even if you did I've laid out my reasons for my position and possible ways to mitigate any impact, the only thing your side has offered is that you don't give a shit about fraud. As someone said earlier, they'd value fraud prevention as worth zero dollars.

 

[glenn1]

I'm pretty sure people have come out in support of compulsory voting on here many times before. I'm quite sure I have. I've also never heard someone attack voter registration. Generally speaking the more people who vote, the better, as we get closer to the electorate's true preferences.

Now back to the question, which still hasn't really been answered. Do you think the 1.3 million votes with 10 fraudulent ones is likely to be a better representation of the preference of the voters than the 1.2 million with no fraudulent votes? I'm having trouble thinking of why it wouldn't be. If that's the case, then by your own logic you should oppose these voter ID laws as they are currently implemented.

It was asked and answered. I want the highest possible vote participant AND it to be as accurate as possible. They aren't mutually exclusive as you seem to think, otherwise your side wouldn't be complaining about things like absentee vote fraud but instead just celebrating that turnout was increased regardless of anything else.

 

[fskimospy]

It was asked and answered. I want the highest possible vote participant AND it to be as accurate as possible. They aren't mutually exclusive as you seem to think, otherwise your side wouldn't be complaining about things like absentee vote fraud but instead just celebrating that turnout was increased regardless of anything else.

You still didn't say which you preferred. Of the two choices given, which is preferable to you?