Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce new voter ID law

[HumblePie]

because you have to show a registration card or other piece of identifying documentation, even before voter ID laws came about.

i suppose you could swear an affidavit that you are registered, but don't have any of the identifying information. any evidence that there's a large number of these out there or a growing trend? can you think of less intrusive ways to find out if there is in person voter fraud happening that way?

Depends on the state. Again, some states are very little in the way of laws in requirements for registration and obtaining absentee ballots.

mail it in? you mean, absentee? those ballots are printed up, then mailed to the person making the request. so, either people are driving around stealing mail, or there's large numbers of absentee ballots going to the wrong address. the first is unlikely, and the second should be caught by the system.

No and see my previous post for why.

yeah, and you don't start with the least likely/most expensive one.

Who said anything about starting with it? Why not start with all of them? It's not a grocery list that a government can only address one potential problem at a time.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Holy shit is that not undetectable, not to mention it's horrendously inefficient. And you say you know stuff about security?

1. You now have two choices:
1a. You are tasked with personally driving to countless polling places all over the state, only casting a single vote at each one in order to not risk detection.
1b. You enlist a number of co-conspirators, which has now made your scheme infinitely more detectable. Additionally, you will either need to find significant numbers of people who are also willing to risk jail time to cast a single fraudulent vote or you need to start laying out cash. Either way, your scheme is now wide open for exposure.

2. The method you are describing would almost certainly turn up numerous double votes, which would be a big red flag. Asking people how likely they are to vote is a dubious process at best. Even a cursory examination of voting returns would turn these up immediately. That would then lead to an investigation of the people responsible, and that investigation would likely lead back to your surveyors and to you. Enjoy your prison time.

I get the feeling you have not thought this through. Your plan is easily detectable and requires either a large number of co-conspirators or an ineffective number of additional votes cast.

So after reading you two's back and forth the argument boils down to this. You're saying that the issue is undetectable or negligible and therefore there needs to be no monitoring.

Humble Pie is advocating for some sort additional checks and balances in place to make sure IDs are checked. This has nothing to do with security, nor do you need to be a security expert. As someone who works in an FDA regulated industry, we're trained to understand quality systems, and to me it looks like this:

You have a system in place where things could potentially go wrong (fraudulent votes). The severity is high (5 on a scale of 1-5) with a low occurrence (1). Just because you have a low chance of occurrence doesn't mean you do nothing about it. But the criticality of the issue still exists.

When you talk about quality systems, there needs to be a system in place to prevent the occurrence of said failures. So that primarily means a system of detection. What that means could be voting in person only, voter IDs, blah blah blah. Voter ID is only one of the many possible systems to detect voter fraud.

But the point is you're not even advocating for ANY system at all. Your argument all along has been the problem is negligible, therefore we do nothing about it. Go look at any manufacturing operation out there. Just because the yields are high doesn't mean you don't put in inspection processes.

Humble Pie may be a security oriented guy, but the same thing applies there. Just because there's no crime hasn't occurred in the past, doesn't mean you don't have a detection system in place. We currently not only have a prevention system, but no detection system for voting fraud. By the time its detected by double voting, etc. it's already too late, that's already a sign that the fraud is everywhere.

People in this thread bring up great points regarding absentee ballots being a potential source of fraud, and I agree. We need to look at all the possible weak points in this system. But once again that doesn't mean we don't setup a system to prevent fraud through detection and prevention.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So after reading you two's back and forth the argument boils down to this. You're saying that the issue is undetectable or negligible and therefore there needs to be no monitoring.

Humble Pie is advocating for some sort additional checks and balances in place to make sure IDs are checked. This has nothing to do with security, nor do you need to be a security expert. As someone who works in an FDA regulated industry, we're trained to understand quality systems, and to me it looks like this:

You have a system in place where things could potentially go wrong (fraudulent votes). The severity is high (5 on a scale of 1-5) with a low occurrence (1). Just because you have a low chance of occurrence doesn't mean you do nothing about it. But the criticality of the issue still exists.

When you talk about quality systems, there needs to be a system in place to prevent the occurrence of said failures. So that primarily means a system of detection. What that means could be voting in person only, voter IDs, blah blah blah. Voter ID is only one of the many possible systems to detect voter fraud.

But the point is you're not even advocating for ANY system at all. Your argument all along has been the problem is negligible, therefore we do nothing about it. Go look at any manufacturing operation out there. Just because the yields are high doesn't mean you don't put in inspection processes.

Humble Pie may be a security oriented guy, but the same thing applies there. Just because there's no crime hasn't occurred in the past, doesn't mean you don't have a detection system in place. We currently not only have a prevention system, but no detection system for voting fraud. By the time its detected by double voting, etc. it's already too late, that's already a sign that the fraud is everywhere.

People in this thread bring up great points regarding absentee ballots being a potential source of fraud, and I agree. We need to look at all the possible weak points in this system. But once again that doesn't mean we don't setup a system to prevent fraud through detection and prevention.

This is all well and good, but you've completely ignored the potential impact it may have in regards to disenfranchising legal votes. That's something that has to be considered as well. Going back to an earlier analogy of a warehouse installing a security camera, if installing the camera potentially lowered my sales volume (maybe it's a porn warehouse and my clientele is paranoid about ending up on camera), is it worth it to me to enact that measure to prevent theft I don't even have evidence is happening? I don't think anyone would make the argument that measures to reduce potential fraud are bad in a vacuum (which is not a good place to hold an election), but that the potential cost of disenfranchising voters is not worth it to combat a problem that doesn't actually seem to occur outside of hypothetical scenarios.

 

[ElFenix]

No and see my previous post for why.

App for Texas to request absentee ballot. Doesn't have to be sent to the person's address. Could be sent to a relative or PO box pretty easy. Which isn't uncommon since many people in Texas are rural and don't get post delivery to a physical address. Not hard to setup the ballots to go somewhere else at all.

That is Texas, and some states are even easier to commit such fraud.

Florida requires a photocopy of a valid photo ID to process an absentee vote for instance which is regarded by many "experts" of having a higher potential for voter fraud.

again, to do so in sufficient numbers to affect results, there'd have to be 100s of absentee ballots sent to suspect addresses for smaller races, and 1000s for anything at the state or countywide level. that should be detectable by the system, even without ID requirements. if the system isn't checking the addresses ballots are being mailed to against other known addresses, then that's a massive security hole.

Who said anything about starting with it? Why not start with all of them? It's not a grocery list that a government can only address one potential problem at a time.

take it up with the republican party. i mean, to the extent we're talking about your hypotheticals, i fully agree with showing photo ID for voting and registration so long as getting the ID doesn't put a burden on people.

problem is, we live in the real world.

 

[fskimospy]

So after reading you two's back and forth the argument boils down to this. You're saying that the issue is undetectable or negligible and therefore there needs to be no monitoring.

Humble Pie is advocating for some sort additional checks and balances in place to make sure IDs are checked. This has nothing to do with security, nor do you need to be a security expert. As someone who works in an FDA regulated industry, we're trained to understand quality systems, and to me it looks like this:

No, I'm saying that the issue IS detectable AND is negligible. We already do monitoring, but the severity of the issue in no way justifies the significant additional expense of ID systems nor does it justify the burden put on people who might not have it.

The response is simply irrational.

You have a system in place where things could potentially go wrong (fraudulent votes). The severity is high (5 on a scale of 1-5) with a low occurrence (1). Just because you have a low chance of occurrence doesn't mean you do nothing about it. But the criticality of the issue still exists.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the severity. The severity is low: you're talking about single additional votes in elections that frequently involve thousands, millions or hundreds of millions. The odds of those additional votes changing the election is vanishingly small.

So you're talking about a 1,1 threat here. That definitely changes your calculus, doesn't it?

When you talk about quality systems, there needs to be a system in place to prevent the occurrence of said failures. So that primarily means a system of detection. What that means could be voting in person only, voter IDs, blah blah blah. Voter ID is only one of the many possible systems to detect voter fraud.

But the point is you're not even advocating for ANY system at all. Your argument all along has been the problem is negligible, therefore we do nothing about it. Go look at any manufacturing operation out there. Just because the yields are high doesn't mean you don't put in inspection processes.

Nowhere have I said we do nothing at all, I've just said that the cost/benefit for voter ID is horrendous and it is therefore illogical. If you look at any well run manufacturing operation you'll see that they only do inspections insofar as it makes economic sense to do them. You don't spend a ton of money to weed out a defect that happens 0.00000034% of the time and causes only a tiny problem.

That's a good way to go out of business.

Humble Pie may be a security oriented guy, but the same thing applies there. Just because there's no crime hasn't occurred in the past, doesn't mean you don't have a detection system in place. We currently not only have a prevention system, but no detection system for voting fraud. By the time its detected by double voting, etc. it's already too late, that's already a sign that the fraud is everywhere.

That doesn't make sense. It's most certainly not too late as election results have been nullified in the past. Additionally, you're basically arguing that even though we have no evidence of it in a billion ballots cast that we should undertake significant expense and make it so tens of thousands of LEGITIMATE voters have difficulty voting so that we can 'close' this hole.

Back to manufacturing, if you do something that fixes one problem but creates literally tens of thousands of additional ones, that's an illogical fix.

Given that, I hope you can clearly see what a terrible idea voter ID laws are.

People in this thread bring up great points regarding absentee ballots being a potential source of fraud, and I agree. We need to look at all the possible weak points in this system. But once again that doesn't mean we don't setup a system to prevent fraud through detection and prevention.

Why don't we start with the one that literally everyone agrees is a larger problem? I'll tell you why: Republicans vote absentee more often than Democrats do. This is a naked attempt to hijack the electoral system and everyone should be against that.

 

[HumblePie]

This is all well and good, but you've completely ignored the potential impact it may have in regards to disenfranchising legal votes. That's something that has to be considered as well. Going back to an earlier analogy of a warehouse installing a security camera, if installing the camera potentially lowered my sales volume (maybe it's a porn warehouse and my clientele is paranoid about ending up on camera), is it worth it to me to enact that measure to prevent theft I don't even have evidence is happening? I don't think anyone would make the argument that measures to reduce potential fraud are bad in a vacuum (which is not a good place to hold an election), but that the potential cost of disenfranchising voters is not worth it to combat a problem that doesn't actually seem to occur outside of hypothetical scenarios.

I do believe that some of the laws in places were enacted in an incorrect order, and possibly to disenfranchise minority voters. That doesn't mean the law itself is a discriminatory law. As I stated previously, having a law enforcing a photo-id validation in itself isn't disenfranchising. It is how obtainable the photo-id that may be the discriminatory part of the process. That is what should be looked at and redressed if a state decides to setup a photo-id law for voting.

 

[soundforbjt]

There is far more documented cases of voter fraud occurring via absentee and by those doing vote counting vs in person fraud, yet nothing is being done to correct the former, only the latter which disenfranchises more votes than it prevents fraudulent ones. Ask yourself why repubs are pursuing the least fraudulent method.

 

[HumblePie]

again, to do so in sufficient numbers to affect results, there'd have to be 100s of absentee ballots sent to suspect addresses. that should be detectable by the system, even without ID requirements. if the system isn't checking the addresses ballots are being mailed to against other known addresses, then that's a massive security hole.

There is no law stating that absentee ballots must be mailed to the address the person resides at. Not is there any checking on the address a person resides at being correct either. As stated, in many rural places, a physical address is impossible to get mail to as mail is delivered only to PO boxes for many rural people. So setting up a system to new absentee ballot requests from people who don't normally vote would be impossible without requiring photo-id. How would such a system catch either new voters or someone that hasn't voted in awhile deciding all of a sudden to "vote" again with a different address? Assuming that states have such systems of data to even record that information of who voted from what address from year to year. Most states don't even record that data at all let alone from a long historical perspective.

take it up with the republican party. i mean, to the extent we're talking about your hypotheticals, i fully agree with showing photo ID for voting and registration so long as getting the ID doesn't put a burden on people.

problem is, we live in the real world.

Meh, I am stating from an abstraction level that voter ID laws themselves aren't discriminatory. It's the processes of obtaining a valid photo id that may be. I do agree some of the voter ID laws may be setup with the idea of being discriminatory in intent. But there are 34 states with some form of voter ID law and many of which have had them for a long time without any hassles, discrimination, or repercussions. The controversy has only started because certain states that weren't allowed to make changes to their voting laws were in recent years legally allowed to do so.

 

[HumblePie]

There is far more documented cases of voter fraud occurring via absentee and by those doing vote counting vs in person fraud, yet nothing is being done to correct the former, only the latter which disenfranchises more votes than it prevents fraudulent ones. Ask yourself why repubs are pursuing the least fraudulent method.

Most of the voter ID laws being enacted also require a photo copy of the photo id to be mailed in with an absentee vote.

 

[soundforbjt]

There is no law stating that absentee ballots must be mailed to the address the person resides at. Not is there any checking on the address a person resides at being correct either. As stated, in many rural places, a physical address is impossible to get mail to as mail is delivered only to PO boxes for many rural people. So setting up a system to new absentee ballot requests from people who don't normally vote would be impossible without requiring photo-id. How would such a system catch either new voters or someone that hasn't voted in awhile deciding all of a sudden to "vote" again with a different address? Assuming that states have such systems of data to even record that information of who voted from what address from year to year. Most states don't even record that data at all let alone from a long historical perspective.




Meh, I am stating from an abstraction level that voter ID laws themselves aren't discriminatory. It's the processes of obtaining a valid photo id that may be. I do agree some of the voter ID laws may be setup with the idea of being discriminatory in intent. But there are 34 states with some form of voter ID law and many of which have had them for a long time without any hassles, discrimination, or repercussions. The controversy has only started because certain states that weren't allowed to make changes to their voting laws were in recent years legally allowed to do so.

By long time you mean in the last 5 ish years...:\

 

[HumblePie]

By long time you mean in the last 5 years...:\

photo-id laws are short. Other forms of id requirements a bit longer. It started in 2002 with the Help America Vote act. So about 12 years.

 

[fskimospy]

Most of the voter ID laws being enacted also require a photo copy of the photo id to be mailed in with an absentee vote.

False. Less than one third do.

Additionally, the purpose of the photo ID is pretty obviously thwarted when you can't compare it to the person casting the ballot.

 

[HumblePie]

False. Less than one third do.

Additionally, the purpose of the photo ID is pretty obviously thwarted when you can't compare it to the person casting the ballot.

Uhh yes you can. With a photo copy of the ID being sent in with the absentee ballot, a cross compare to the issuing agency is easy to do. WTF BS is that statement?

And I said for the new ones being enacted, which include Texas, Alabama, and Kansas as they were all previously barred from making voter id laws until recently. 9 states, out of the recent 34 total that require photo ids for voting, require at least a photocopy of a valid photo id or absentee voting. Many more require some other form of government document that can be cross compared to an eventual photo ID.

 

[ElFenix]

There is no law stating that absentee ballots must be mailed to the address the person resides at. Not is there any checking on the address a person resides at being correct either. As stated, in many rural places, a physical address is impossible to get mail to as mail is delivered only to PO boxes for many rural people. So setting up a system to new absentee ballot requests from people who don't normally vote would be impossible without requiring photo-id. How would such a system catch either new voters or someone that hasn't voted in awhile deciding all of a sudden to "vote" again with a different address? Assuming that states have such systems of data to even record that information of who voted from what address from year to year. Most states don't even record that data at all let alone from a long historical perspective.

again, i'll note that we've moved well beyond standard voter ID laws when we start talking about absentee - most only require photo ID to be shown for in-person voting, so the issue you're talking about isn't solved by the laws being passed. and that's the real problem - the laws being passed don't solve any appreciable issues.

if the states aren't tracking that sort of data for absentee ballots then they should be.

Meh, I am stating from an abstraction level that voter ID laws themselves aren't discriminatory. It's the processes of obtaining a valid photo id that may be. I do agree some of the voter ID laws may be setup with the idea of being discriminatory in intent. But there are 34 states with some form of voter ID law and many of which have had them for a long time without any hassles, discrimination, or repercussions. The controversy has only started because certain states that weren't allowed to make changes to their voting laws were in recent years legally allowed to do so.

very few of these are older than 5 years and pretty much all of them had litigation immediately. the only 2 older than 10 years (michigan and hawaii) are completely toothless (sign affidavit with your address and give address with DoB, respectively).

 

[fskimospy]

Uhh yes you can. With a photo copy of the ID being sent in with the absentee ballot, a cross compare to the issuing agency is easy to do. WTF BS is that statement?

And I said for the new ones being enacted, which include Texas, Alabama, and Kansas as they were all previously barred from making voter id laws until recently. 9 states, out of the recent 34 total that require photo ids for voting, require at least a photocopy of a valid photo id or absentee voting. Many more require some other form of government document that can be cross compared to an eventual photo ID.

Now you have just created a whole new nightmare. Tons of people look a lot different than their ID, especially a photocopied one. Let me guess, we are now going to invest millions more in facial recognition software.

 

[HumblePie]

again, i'll note that we've moved well beyond standard voter ID laws when we start talking about absentee - most only require photo ID to be shown for in-person voting, so the issue you're talking about isn't solved by the laws being passed. and that's the real problem - the laws being passed don't solve any appreciable issues.

if the states aren't tracking that sort of data for absentee ballots then they should be.




very few of these are older than 5 years and pretty much all of them had litigation immediately. the only 2 older than 10 years (michigan and hawaii) are completely toothless (sign affidavit with your address and give address with DoB, respectively).

As I stated before you posted this, many of the new voter id law states also have laws in regards to absentee votes. The either require a photocopy of a valid photo id or a copy of a verified government document that could be used if needed to cross compare to a validated photo id with some digging.

 

[ElFenix]

Now you have just created a whole new nightmare. Tons of people look a lot different than their ID, especially a photocopied one. Let me guess, we are now going to invest millions more in facial recognition software.

wut? you compare what is sent with what is on file, they should match.


nm

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Now you have just created a whole new nightmare. Tons of people look a lot different than their ID, especially a photocopied one. Let me guess, we are now going to invest millions more in facial recognition software.

Oh come on, you're just moving goalposts here. The point isn't that an ID puts a bank vault on the voting process. Basic barriers make people think twice before committing fraud.

It's like having your belongings out of sight when you park your car on the street. Leave your iPod sitting in the cupholder, expect your windows to be smashed. Simply put it out of sight? Your chances improve greatly. Do people still smash car windows for the hell of it to see what they can find? Yeah, but a basic action by the car owner can go great lengths in reducing the chances of having a smashed window.

The idea with ID is that its simple. Most people have one, and if we were to equip more people with IDs, its not an impossible process.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh come on, you're just moving goalposts here. The point isn't that an ID puts a bank vault on the voting process. Basic barriers make people think twice before committing fraud.

It's like having your belongings out of sight when you park your car on the street. Leave your iPod sitting in the cupholder, expect your windows to be smashed. Simply put it out of sight? Your chances improve greatly. Do people still smash car windows for the hell of it to see what they can find? Yeah, but a basic action by the car owner can go great lengths in reducing the chances of having a smashed window.

The idea with ID is that its simple. Most people have one, and if we were to equip more people with IDs, its not an impossible process.

We already have "basic barriers" in place. While "most" people already have an ID, not all legally registered voters do and those that don't isn't some small number of five or 10, or 20, 100, no it's in the thousands.

So the question is; why put something in place that, at most (based on history), would prevent maybe 1 or two cases of in person voter fraud but would negatively impact 1000's of legally registered people and their ability to vote?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

No, I'm saying that the issue IS detectable AND is negligible. We already do monitoring, but the severity of the issue in no way justifies the significant additional expense of ID systems nor does it justify the burden put on people who might not have it.

The response is simply irrational.



This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the severity. The severity is low: you're talking about single additional votes in elections that frequently involve thousands, millions or hundreds of millions. The odds of those additional votes changing the election is vanishingly small.

So you're talking about a 1,1 threat here. That definitely changes your calculus, doesn't it?

The severity is that an election can flip the other way. That would be high my friend. Remember, single votes could've flipped the 2000 election. That's certainly got high consequences last I checked. You can't look at what probably happens. You have to look at all the potential harms, which is what severity is for. So for a single failure mode of vote fraud, you could have a low severity harm of shifting the results a few percentage points, or you could have a high severity harm of flipping an entire election. And that severity goes up depending on how high level that election is. If you want a better understanding, take a course on FMEAs. It's typical work quality engineers go through.

Nowhere have I said we do nothing at all, I've just said that the cost/benefit for voter ID is horrendous and it is therefore illogical. If you look at any well run manufacturing operation you'll see that they only do inspections insofar as it makes economic sense to do them. You don't spend a ton of money to weed out a defect that happens 0.00000034% of the time and causes only a tiny problem.

That's a good way to go out of business.

Obviously not a real figure, but you're just throwing that out there to show how small it could be right? Remember, this isn't just about small numbers, its about statistical significance. If checking ID cuts down on voter fraud significantly, then isn't it doing its job?

You're absolutely right about spending a ton of money to get rid of a small defect, and I think what we're talking about isn't a major overhaul. For the majority of the US population, people have IDs. Remember to get a job, to get a bank account, to do basic things you have to have an ID. So we're talking about a SMALL group of individuals who lack IDs. Why don't we focus on getting them IDs?

That doesn't make sense. It's most certainly not too late as election results have been nullified in the past. Additionally, you're basically arguing that even though we have no evidence of it in a billion ballots cast that we should undertake significant expense and make it so tens of thousands of LEGITIMATE voters have difficulty voting so that we can 'close' this hole.

Back to manufacturing, if you do something that fixes one problem but creates literally tens of thousands of additional ones, that's an illogical fix.

Given that, I hope you can clearly see what a terrible idea voter ID laws are.

Why don't we start with the one that literally everyone agrees is a larger problem? I'll tell you why: Republicans vote absentee more often than Democrats do. This is a naked attempt to hijack the electoral system and everyone should be against that.

By all means lets address absentee ballots. I find them to be bullshit. They can be mailed practically anywhere and there's zero privacy and zero guarantee how they're handled once they're delivered to your mailbox. Heck I could steal my family's ballots in midterm elections or less important ones like those random odd year state elections because they likely won't ever vote on those 20% turnout elections anyway.

I'm not pushing for a certain party platform or anything, I'm pushing for a better system--one with the logical checks in place.

 

[her209]

Uhh yes you can. With a photo copy of the ID being sent in with the absentee ballot, a cross compare to the issuing agency is easy to do. WTF BS is that statement?

And I said for the new ones being enacted, which include Texas, Alabama, and Kansas as they were all previously barred from making voter id laws until recently. 9 states, out of the recent 34 total that require photo ids for voting, require at least a photocopy of a valid photo id or absentee voting. Many more require some other form of government document that can be cross compared to an eventual photo ID.

An attached copy of the ID doesn't prove that that was the person who filled it out. For example, a parent could fill out the absentee ballot for their son or daughter. Its not inconceivable for the parent to have a copy of the the voting ID either. What's the kid going to do - turn in their parent? Yeah right.

 

[glenn1]

Whatever you need to preserve your bubble. I pointed out the section of the Crawford ruling that explains how the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the relief they sought: invalidating the entire law as unconstitutional. They overreached for an extraordinary remedy but failed to provide the extraordinary evidence to justify it. That you cannot accept this is your failure.

Oh yes. SCOTUS so very much wanted to overturn the laws but their fondest wishes were thwarted because of the type of relief sought. Thus they've spent the intervening years regretting it ever since and have been forced to wait to for someone to phrase it the correct way - maybe the petitioners need to say "pretty please with sugar on top." As soon as they do, the SCOTUS will happily correct their previous error just as you say they are dying to do.

 

[glenn1]

There is far more documented cases of voter fraud occurring via absentee and by those doing vote counting vs in person fraud, yet nothing is being done to correct the former, only the latter which disenfranchises more votes than it prevents fraudulent ones. Ask yourself why repubs are pursuing the least fraudulent method.

And I would applaud Democrats taking the initiative to address that since the GOP isn't. Addressing one security concern doesn't preclude addressing the others.

 

[glenn1]

An attached copy of the ID doesn't prove that that was the person who filled it out. For example, a parent could fill out the absentee ballot for their son or daughter. Its not inconceivable for the parent to have a copy of the the voting ID either. What's the kid going to do - turn in their parent? Yeah right.

Oh noes, addressing one security risk won't address a completely unrelated risk? Who'd have ever thunk it? We should stop asking people to show IDs in banks to verify they own the account before making large cash withdrawals, because that ID check won't stop armed robbers from cleaning out the vault. Makes perfect sense.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh noes, addressing one security risk won't address a completely unrelated risk? Who'd have ever thunk it? We should stop asking people to show IDs in banks to verify they own the account before making large cash withdrawals, because that ID check won't stop armed robbers from cleaning out the vault. Makes perfect sense.

So now are you arguing that we should do what ever it takes to prevent something that rarely happens no matter what the cost is?

Or do you think, being the righty that you are, that laws and their unintended consequences, stated goals, and cost to acheive said goals should all be balanced against one another?

Be very careful how you word your answer because I will use it against you😉


Btw, bank/check fraud happens quite a bit and this is despite strict ID requirements.