Can you produce actual evidence of 'broken-ness', bbauska?

I think we have shown election fraud before. I can show both sides committing fraud again if you so desire.

bbauska wrote:I think we have shown election fraud before. I can show both sides committing fraud again if you so desire.

There have been many cases--recent cases. Maybe some here just don't care to know? I've read MSNBC trying to explain it away. They manage, under their own rules, to probably lower it to a few hundred in North Carolina. Okay, shouldn't we want zero?

What about dead people who vote?

I can't really understand why Canada and Europe seem to have no trouble with voter ID laws, but Democrats act like it's the reinstitution of slavery. I want people to vote. I also want ONLY eligible voters to vote. Oh, and just once each--thanks.

"Europe" is not homogeneous. In the UK we do not have Voter ID laws, and there is considerable public opposition to the concept of mandatory ID. All we need to do is give our name and address - we get sent a polling card with an identifying number but it is not required to show it.

Also, as far as I can tell, Germany does not require ID (you can bring a polling card instead), similarly Switzerland does not require photo ID - in some case a man can vote as long as he declares himself a free man able to bear arms by showing his sword (a woman can show a polling card).

Danivon, does fraud constitute broken-ness to you? That might be the disagreement we are finding ourselves in. We are talking about is voter ID cards, and you were saying that if the government would purchase them and provide them, then that would be ok. Now I infer that you are not saying that with your comments on other countries.

Do you agree that fraud is a problem that must be addressed?
Although the ID card would not solve all fraud, do you think that fraud would be reduced?

I am fine with the cost of the ID cards being taken out of the general fund w/o raising taxes. Perhaps we can go without these 10 examples to cover the cost:

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/12/30/mb-1230-booze-pole-dancing-luxurious-hotels-top-10-examples-government-waste-2013/

bbauska wrote:Danivon, does fraud constitute broken-ness to you? That might be the disagreement we are finding ourselves in.

Fraud is one aspect of broken-ness. But on the other hand there is whether there are obstacles to voting that stop people from exercising their democratic rights. In a perfect world, we could eliminate both. In the real world, we can't, and they will be inter-related issues.

We are talking about is voter ID cards, and you were saying that if the government would purchase them and provide them, then that would be ok.

What I mean is that if you are going to insist upon voter ID, if the state is going to impose that rule, then the state should ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote will get the ID required.

Now I infer that you are not saying that with your comments on other countries.

No, i was responding to DF's assertion that Voter ID was required in "Europe" with no problems. It is an incorrect assertion.

Do you agree that fraud is a problem that must be addressed?

Recognised, yes. Perhaps investigated, and quantified / qualified. Then based on that... addressed if need be, but with a mind on other issues.

Although the ID card would not solve all fraud, do you think that fraud would be reduced?

I don't know. Depends on how easy it would be to create a forged ID cards, and whether there might be an incentive to do so over and above just voting.

I am fine with the cost of the ID cards being taken out of the general fund w/o raising taxes. Perhaps we can go without these 10 examples to cover the cost:

In other words, you are 'fine' to pay for it as long as you don't actually pay for it. Waste in government should be tackled for it's own sake, and not used as some kind of trade-off for your pet policy.

danivon wrote:

We are talking about is voter ID cards, and you were saying that if the government would purchase them and provide them, then that would be ok.

What I mean is that if you are going to insist upon voter ID, if the state is going to impose that rule, then the state should ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote will get the ID required.

To what length is the State required to go? Must they go to the person's home at their request?

Now I infer that you are not saying that with your comments on other countries.

No, i was responding to DF's assertion that Voter ID was required in "Europe" with no problems. It is an incorrect assertion.

Right. A few do.

Then again, I'm not sure how big an issue multiple registrations (being registered to vote in two different jurisdictions--e.g. Florida and New York) are in Europe. Why can't we be more like Canada?

In Canada, by contrast, voter ID laws have always been on the books and no one seems to care. In fact, back in 2007, a bill to toughen them up passed the House of Commons unanimously  --  a rare feat in those minority parliament days. And now, the Fair Elections Act aims to make them tougher still, removing the so-called "vouching exception" that previously allowed some ID-less Canadians to cast ballots so long as they had a friend on hand.

Do you agree that fraud is a problem that must be addressed?

Recognised, yes. Perhaps investigated, and quantified / qualified. Then based on that... addressed if need be, but with a mind on other issues.

It has been "recognized." We have voter fraud. To me, one fraudulent vote is too much because it negates a legitimate vote.

Although the ID card would not solve all fraud, do you think that fraud would be reduced?

I don't know. Depends on how easy it would be to create a forged ID cards, and whether there might be an incentive to do so over and above just voting.

And yet, when I've brought up how easy it is to get a fraudulent Social Security card in these forums, I recall a remarkable skepticism from some (not saying it was Danivon). I'm all for a tamper-proof, biometric national ID card. It would be used for determining welfare benefits, employment eligibility, and voter ID. We would probably have to amend the Constitution so that its use could be limited to ONLY the intended means.

Waste in government should be tackled for it's own sake, and not used as some kind of trade-off for your pet policy.

I highlight that only to show we ALL make mistakes from time to time, even the great Danivon.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

We are talking about is voter ID cards, and you were saying that if the government would purchase them and provide them, then that would be ok.

What I mean is that if you are going to insist upon voter ID, if the state is going to impose that rule, then the state should ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote will get the ID required.

To what length is the State required to go? Must they go to the person's home at their request?

Depends. Should someone with severe motor disabilities be made to go and get it from the State? Just who is master and who is servant here?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Now I infer that you are not saying that with your comments on other countries.

No, i was responding to DF's assertion that Voter ID was required in "Europe" with no problems. It is an incorrect assertion.

Right. A few do.

Then again, I'm not sure how big an issue multiple registrations (being registered to vote in two different jurisdictions--e.g. Florida and New York) are in Europe.

I was registered in two places at once when I was a student. And entitled to vote in both for local elections but not for national ones. Not sure if they could or would have checked for double-voting in a General Election or EU Parliamentary election on my part (I didn't anyway).

I expect that is is fairly easy to be registered to vote in two countries at once within the EU, and quite hard to detect double-voting in EU elections.

Of course, it does depend on what the qualifications are to be registered in any place - is it to be living there permanently? In which case how do people who live in more than one place get registered (it would be tough for Congressmen and women for a start)?

Do you agree that fraud is a problem that must be addressed?

Recognised, yes. Perhaps investigated, and quantified / qualified. Then based on that... addressed if need be, but with a mind on other issues.

It has been "recognized." We have voter fraud.

I don't disagree. The rest?

To me, one fraudulent vote is too much because it negates a legitimate vote.

Surely then, any measures that stop a single legitimate vote equally important, on the exact same justification?

As I say, in reality you can't completely eliminate either, let alone both, and measures to drive down one could make the other worse. It needs careful thought, not simplistic one-eyed 'solutions' that only fix one side of the problem.

Although the ID card would not solve all fraud, do you think that fraud would be reduced?

I don't know. Depends on how easy it would be to create a forged ID cards, and whether there might be an incentive to do so over and above just voting.

And yet, when I've brought up how easy it is to get a fraudulent Social Security card in these forums, I recall a remarkable skepticism from some (not saying it was Danivon). I'm all for a tamper-proof, biometric national ID card. It would be used for determining welfare benefits, employment eligibility, and voter ID. We would probably have to amend the Constitution so that its use could be limited to ONLY the intended means.

Indeed, although it would be hard to stop people using them for other means (such as ID checking for private purposes, like age-related purchases or credit checks). Amending the Constitution is an interesting idea, perhaps that is the cure for all kinds of government snooping, such as the recent NSA and CIA sweeps. Perhaps not.

Such cards would be harder to forge but as a result cost a lot more and be more hassle to create and obtain the data for.

Waste in government should be tackled for it's own sake, and not used as some kind of trade-off for your pet policy.

I highlight that only to show we ALL make mistakes from time to time, even the great Danivon.

[/quote]I accept that I erred on my apostrophe - mea maxima culpa. Quite often I have typos as I use my phone rather than laptop to post and it's hard to spot and correct errors and easy to make them.

I assume that you otherwise accept and agree with the sentence (when I point out errors of grammar, I also accompany it with a comment on the salient point as well, which is more important than any pedantry, surely).

I was registered in two places at once when I was a student. And entitled to vote in both for local elections but not for national ones. Not sure if they could or would have checked for double-voting in a General Election or EU Parliamentary election on my part (I didn't anyway).

My landlord, who also happens to be a good friend of mine who owns the house I live in, is still on the electoral roll for this house despite having moved out about 4 years ago. His polling card showed up in the mail the other day along with my own. I daresay he's also registered where he lives nowadays and will be voting there, but in theory I could take his card along to the local polling station and vote twice (or he could). Obviously I won't be doing that though, and neither will he.

In fact, I believe that I may still be registered at my parents address even though I haven't lived there for about 20 years. I suppose they may have gotten around to letting the authorities know that I'm no longer living there but there's no obvious reason to think that they'd have bothered since it doesn't affect them, so it's quite possible I'll still be getting sent a polling card to their address which I could theoretically use to vote twice. I know for a fact that this continued to happen for several years after I moved out so unless they've taken active steps to stop it then it could conceivably still be going on.

It's not a big deal really. Most voter fraud is done through postal voting.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

We are talking about is voter ID cards, and you were saying that if the government would purchase them and provide them, then that would be ok.

What I mean is that if you are going to insist upon voter ID, if the state is going to impose that rule, then the state should ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote will get the ID required.

To what length is the State required to go? Must they go to the person's home at their request?

Depends. Should someone with severe motor disabilities be made to go and get it from the State? Just who is master and who is servant here?

This is funny (unintentionally). We currently have the most arrogant administration in history. They answer to no one about the IRS, Benghazi, gun-running to Mexico, lying about the ACA, etc. So, your question is unintentionally ironic.

That aside, liberals consistently look for the "what if a person is mentally capable of voting, but they're physically disabled, live on an island, and have no one willing to transport them" situations. In other words, a law must solve the one-in-a-trillion problem in order to be legitimate. Okay. Meanwhile, there are people eligible to vote in multiple precincts, dead people who vote, etc. But, that's "not a big problem."



I know, I know. I "put words in (your) mouth." Actually, no, I just made fun of your logic.

I was registered in two places at once when I was a student. And entitled to vote in both for local elections but not for national ones. Not sure if they could or would have checked for double-voting in a General Election or EU Parliamentary election on my part (I didn't anyway).

Okay, the problem we have is people actually can and do vote in two places in national elections.

To me, one fraudulent vote is too much because it negates a legitimate vote.

Surely then, any measures that stop a single legitimate vote equally important, on the exact same justification?

Yes, but there is no evidence of that. It's all hypothetical.

As I say, in reality you can't completely eliminate either, let alone both, and measures to drive down one could make the other worse. It needs careful thought, not simplistic one-eyed 'solutions' that only fix one side of the problem.

This is preposterous and a pathetic caricature.

Every citizen of the US gets a Social Security card. If that can be done, it is UNREASONABLE to assume a voting ID card cannot be issued.

Indeed, although it would be hard to stop people using them for other means (such as ID checking for private purposes, like age-related purchases or credit checks).

I believe there are laws now to prohibit SS cards from being used for some of those purposes. Credit checks, of course, require Social Security numbers.

Amending the Constitution is an interesting idea, perhaps that is the cure for all kinds of government snooping, such as the recent NSA and CIA sweeps. Perhaps not.

One would suppose the Fourth would stop the NSA nonsense, but the Constitution is malleable for big government types.

Such cards would be harder to forge but as a result cost a lot more and be more hassle to create and obtain the data for.

Given all the money we lose to fraud, all the people employed using fake cards, and all the ID theft that would be inhibited by this, I think it's a net gain.

Quite often I have typos as I use my phone rather than laptop to post and it's hard to spot and correct errors and easy to make them.

Would that we all would at least care as much as you do about the matter.

I assume that you otherwise accept and agree with the sentence (when I point out errors of grammar, I also accompany it with a comment on the salient point as well, which is more important than any pedantry, surely).

1. Pedantry is its own reward.
2. All waste in government should be eradicated.

Sassenach wrote:In fact, I believe that I may still be registered at my parents address even though I haven't lived there for about 20 years. I suppose they may have gotten around to letting the authorities know that I'm no longer living there but there's no obvious reason to think that they'd have bothered since it doesn't affect them, so it's quite possible I'll still be getting sent a polling card to their address which I could theoretically use to vote twice. I know for a fact that this continued to happen for several years after I moved out so unless they've taken active steps to stop it then it could conceivably still be going on.

I know that I am no longer registered at my parent's address, but don't know for sure that I have properly been taken off any other previous addresses (except those I can get hold of the electoral roll for as a political candidate) - I have to assume that the councils have done it properly.

My wife is still registered at her mum's house, which they put down to the ineptness of the council there. To be honest it's more likely to be either just returning the form each year without checking it, or when the form isn't sent back the council just copying over from year to year. I think that will change in the next two years when we go to Individual registration.

It's not a big deal really. Most voter fraud is done through postal voting.

Which of course means that ID presentation is not going to stop it at all, as one cannot present ID by post.

Doctor Fate wrote:That aside, liberals consistently look for the "what if a person is mentally capable of voting, but they're physically disabled, live on an island, and have no one willing to transport them" situations. In other words, a law must solve the one-in-a-trillion problem in order to be legitimate. Okay. Meanwhile, there are people eligible to vote in multiple precincts, dead people who vote, etc. But, that's "not a big problem."

No, I quite clearly point out that it is the same problem - if a fraudulent vote is bad because it nullifies a genuine vote, then surely so is anything else that has the effect of nullifying a vote.

I know, I know. I "put words in (your) mouth." Actually, no, I just made fun of your logic.

And as amusing as you may have found your little digression into highlighting the failures of government (with the usual partisan blinkers on), it is not really about the point I was making, and so not about my logic at all.

My logic is this:

Assuming that Lincoln's view of the government is correct, and that the government of the people should also be 'by' the people and 'for' the people, then that means that while there is a government, the people are sovereign, not the state itself.

And so, if we are talking about rules that concern the government, we should be wary of setting things up so that the people become the subjects of such rules (because it's monarchies that have 'subjects', not democratic republics - those have 'citizens'). The US Constitution seems to be quite clear that it is about limiting the powers of the Federal state to restrict the rights of the constituent states and (in my view more importantly) of the people.

So, if you are going to be supporting measures that place extra burdens on people in order to be able to vote (and voting is one major way that government becomes 'by' the people as well as just 'of' and 'for'), you need to be careful. Just as conservatives and libertarians are often concerned about slippery slopes and unintended consequences of government policies, it would seem to me to behoove them to check for the same for the ones they advocate. Especially where participative democracy comes in.

I was registered in two places at once when I was a student. And entitled to vote in both for local elections but not for national ones. Not sure if they could or would have checked for double-voting in a General Election or EU Parliamentary election on my part (I didn't anyway).

Okay, the problem we have is people actually can and do vote in two places in national elections.

To me, one fraudulent vote is too much because it negates a legitimate vote.

Surely then, any measures that stop a single legitimate vote equally important, on the exact same justification?

Yes, but there is no evidence of that. It's all hypothetical. [/quote]There is clearly evidence of people who want to vote not being able to, and it being found later that they should have been able to (incorrect lists of those with felonies, being given the wrong polling place as a destination, etc). There is clear evidence of people's votes being nullified due to 'technicalities' or hanging chads etc.

And we have earlier looked at individual cases where people who have legitimately been voting for decades have found that due to new ID rules they can't because they don't have the right ID. Now that may be soluble, but it creates a hoop for people to jump through and this has affected people - particularly some older citizens.

Every citizen of the US gets a Social Security card. If that can be done, it is UNREASONABLE to assume a voting ID card cannot be issued.

Except that:

1) I did not 'assume' that a voting ID card cannot be issued, I am asking how it is done in an accurate way that also includes the kind of information that you want on it (as a SS card only has the name and number on it (and then they sign it).

2) Mistakes still get made - mainly where the name is misspelled, probably either because the applicant / parent wrote it badly or someone transcribed it incorrectly

Indeed, although it would be hard to stop people using them for other means (such as ID checking for private purposes, like age-related purchases or credit checks).

I believe there are laws now to prohibit SS cards from being used for some of those purposes. Credit checks, of course, require Social Security numbers.

Oh, well, if there are laws then I guess that solves it. It's not like anyone ever breaks a law and gets away with it (especially one that doesn't even have a 'victim' to report it).

Amending the Constitution is an interesting idea, perhaps that is the cure for all kinds of government snooping, such as the recent NSA and CIA sweeps. Perhaps not.

One would suppose the Fourth would stop the NSA nonsense, but the Constitution is malleable for big government types.

I think the real issue is that written laws, even the Constitution itself, are not sufficient on their own to stop people breaking them. Even 'small government types' are capable of bending laws to their own benefit sometimes.

Such cards would be harder to forge but as a result cost a lot more and be more hassle to create and obtain the data for.

Given all the money we lose to fraud, all the people employed using fake cards, and all the ID theft that would be inhibited by this, I think it's a net gain.

Perhaps. I think it wold be nice to see some real evidence on the cost-benefit analysis first.

2. All waste in government should be eradicated.

Yes, although it is easier said than done to eradicate waste, and I say that as someone who has seen it my entire time in companies rather than government. I also think it is not really the issue at hand - the question is what cost is reasonable to ensure that voter ID is implemented and works to yours and bbauska's satisfaction while not causing adverse impact to the rights of legitimate voters. Making people pay a fee for mandatory state ID is close to being a poll tax (indeed, linking it to voting seems even close to a poll tax), so unless you repeal the 24th Amendment, that means that the Federal government (or State governments) cannot legally charge for ID required to vote, and so would have to pay for it.

That waste exists is not really relevant. I'm sure anyone can come up with government spending they don't like (which may be 'waste' or just stuff they don't like, such as huge defence contracts or enforcing laws on jaywalking or NASA or whatever), but let's consider the point on it's own and ask a very simple question:

How much would it be reasonable for the US to spend, at a federal or aggregate federal and state level, on ensuring everyone who is entitled to it has their mandatory ID?

I assume that you are not intending to have a blank cheque be written.

danivon wrote:My logic is this:

Assuming that Lincoln's view of the government is correct, and that the government of the people should also be 'by' the people and 'for' the people, then that means that while there is a government, the people are sovereign, not the state itself.

So true. Unfortunately, I'm sure we'll disagree on the implications of that.

And so, if we are talking about rules that concern the government, we should be wary of setting things up so that the people become the subjects of such rules (because it's monarchies that have 'subjects', not democratic republics - those have 'citizens'). The US Constitution seems to be quite clear that it is about limiting the powers of the Federal state to restrict the rights of the constituent states and (in my view more importantly) of the people.

Again, I agree. Again, I'm sure you don't mean what it appears you mean. If you did, you would not like what the current Federal government is doing any more than I do.

So, if you are going to be supporting measures that place extra burdens on people in order to be able to vote (and voting is one major way that government becomes 'by' the people as well as just 'of' and 'for'), you need to be careful. Just as conservatives and libertarians are often concerned about slippery slopes and unintended consequences of government policies, it would seem to me to behoove them to check for the same for the ones they advocate. Especially where participative democracy comes in.

I have no problem with that. What I reject is the idea that the same people who can get a Social Security card, or welfare, or purchase alcohol or allergy medication or open a bank account, are somehow incapable of getting an ID to vote. Again, if it was the SSI card, I don't know how that would be a "burden" as all citizens HAVE to have one.

There is clearly evidence of people who want to vote not being able to, and it being found later that they should have been able to (incorrect lists of those with felonies, being given the wrong polling place as a destination, etc). There is clear evidence of people's votes being nullified due to 'technicalities' or hanging chads etc.

Can't agree re hanging chads. That whole thing was wrong and trying to decipher someone's intent via chads is insane.

Now, in the case of not being able to vote because one is wrongly on a felony list, that is a time when conditional votes should be permitted and the matter investigated. Same with wrong polling place given.

Requiring ID is common sense.

Every citizen of the US gets a Social Security card. If that can be done, it is UNREASONABLE to assume a voting ID card cannot be issued.

Except that:

1) I did not 'assume' that a voting ID card cannot be issued, I am asking how it is done in an accurate way that also includes the kind of information that you want on it (as a SS card only has the name and number on it (and then they sign it).

I don't get the mystery. Over a period of a few years, the Social Security Administration would issue new cards, including pictures. You would renew them in a manner similar to passports.

2) Mistakes still get made - mainly where the name is misspelled, probably either because the applicant / parent wrote it badly or someone transcribed it incorrectly

There is no PERFECT system. However, if the new ID card were treated as seriously as a passport, I suspect we'd be able to count the problems without much difficulty--meaning they would be manageable.

Oh, well, if there are laws then I guess that solves it. It's not like anyone ever breaks a law and gets away with it (especially one that doesn't even have a 'victim' to report it).

Oh, you mean like voter fraud? Welfare fraud? Illegal immigration? Government waste?

Look, we have privacy laws (HIPAA, for example) with draconian penalties. That works pretty well.

Making people pay a fee for mandatory state ID is close to being a poll tax (indeed, linking it to voting seems even close to a poll tax), so unless you repeal the 24th Amendment, that means that the Federal government (or State governments) cannot legally charge for ID required to vote, and so would have to pay for it.

"Close to" and "being" are two different concepts. I don't agree with you. However, SSI cards are free. So, there's that.

How much would it be reasonable for the US to spend, at a federal or aggregate federal and state level, on ensuring everyone who is entitled to it has their mandatory ID?

You can't make sure everyone has it. It's not possible. Some people will just avoid it. That doesn't make the program a failure. Some people have their own reasons. I will discuss one of them in a future forum. I've been chatting with a young man, a college grad, who is working for less than the minimum wage (ironically as a fundraiser for the DNC) because he is dodging paying back his college loans. He's not filed taxes for several years. He probably isn't voting either. That's not the system's fault.

fate

However, if the new ID card were treated as seriously as a passport,

You mean like the internal passports that people in Cuba have to carry?

You agree that there cannot be a perfect system. I agree that you can't make it so that everyone has their ID (and so someone's valid vote may be nullified as a result). This also means that you cannot be sure you will completely eliminate voter fraud either.

The system you suggest - SSI cards with additional information being sent out - seems practical, and indeed it would not be perfect, relying on the information being supplied by the people applying for the SSI cards and on administration of checking it. But it would also increase costs, and as yet I am not sure what the limit is on the costs...

By the way, all citizens do not 'have to have' a SSI card. They all get one, and can all ask for a replacement if they lose it or things change, and they need to use the SS No for various things, but they don't actually need the card itself. If you know your own SS No, I suspect you can do various things.