One of the things I learned recently is that in Canada, although they ask for picture ID at the Ballot box for Federal elections, you can vote if you don't have one. You require someone who is clearly identified to vouch for you and complete some kind of form...
Apparently 154,000 people voted this way last election. (I guess they don't have their health card or drivers license with them? )
The conservatives here are trying to change the law to eliminate this option.
Their logic is that these 154,000 people were somehow cheating... Which would mean that 154,000, the vouchers, would have been complicit...

rickyp wrote: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?

Good comparison. No, really. Brilliant.

Let me know when we start trying to shoot people for leaving the country with no intention of returning, having committed no other crime than wanting to leave.

#castroisnotobama

danivon wrote: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.

But, as it stands now, there is NO effective deterrent to multiple forms of fraud. As I've said many times, were it not for my personal convictions, I could easily commit fraud. I could vote as many times as I was willing.

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...

I have no idea what such cards cost. I do know that using them for employment would reduce their net cost by reducing fraud in other areas. I'm dubious the cost alone would stop me from favoring the idea.

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.

True, but the point is you get a card at one point. Without it, you are not "real" in a number of respects--can't work, open a bank account, etc.

Doctor Fate wrote:True, but the point is you get a card at one point. Without it, you are not "real" in a number of respects--can't work, open a bank account, etc.

You don't need the "card", you need the number, and all the card does is supply you with the number and 'prove' that it is yours.

As you clearly understand, people are using fraudulent numbers all the time. But many people are not doing so and don't use their cards - they just know their number (just as I have a National Insurance number but can't find my card - I still know the number, and I reckon it would be fairly easy to come up with a fake NI number for various purposes, given that I have worked on pension systems that are keyed on NI numbers)

But, as it stands now, there is NO effective deterrent to multiple forms of fraud. As I've said many times, were it not for my personal convictions, I could easily commit fraud. I could vote as many times as I was willing.

Maybe. But people have been prosecuted or convicted of voter fraud in 46 US states since 2000. So they have been detecting fraud and punishing it to some effect. Perhaps more publicity for the cases, and stiffer penalties would also prove a deterrence?

fate

Good comparison. No, really. Brilliant.

Let me know when we start trying to shoot people for leaving the country with no intention of returning, having committed no other crime than wanting to leave

.
Actually the internal passport in use in Cuba is exactly the same as what you seem to be considering. But you are right, that how one government or another uses tools like this are what matters.

But the national ID is resisted by large segments of the US, simply because they believe that it offers too much control for the government. (And they would present Cuba for comparision) Similarly the same arguments are made against gun registration are they not?

The biggest reaction to ID voting would eventually come from the loony libertarians like Cliven Bunden.

I'm with you on voter IDs however. I just think you need to insure that people aren't being disenfranchised by the failure of the government to supply free identification to every qualified voter. It shouldn't cost money to vote. And I think, that is a constitutional right in the US?

In Canada about 1% of voters were "vouched for" last election because they didn't have the right ID in the last election. Sometimes because they were in the midst of changing residences, sometimes because they didn't have a home, sometimes because ID was lost. You need to ensure that circumstance like this don't disenfranchise people too. If voter ID laws had provisions for all of that, perhaps they would be more readily accepted?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:True, but the point is you get a card at one point. Without it, you are not "real" in a number of respects--can't work, open a bank account, etc.

You don't need the "card", you need the number, and all the card does is supply you with the number and 'prove' that it is yours.

Thank you for agreeing with me. I wrote (as you quoted, but seemed not to notice):

True, but the point is you get a card at one point.

Because everyone gets a card (at some point), it makes it a relatively reasonable place to start with an ID card.

As you clearly understand, people are using fraudulent numbers all the time. But many people are not doing so and don't use their cards - they just know their number (just as I have a National Insurance number but can't find my card - I still know the number, and I reckon it would be fairly easy to come up with a fake NI number for various purposes, given that I have worked on pension systems that are keyed on NI numbers)

All the more reason to tighten up the system with biometric info.

But, as it stands now, there is NO effective deterrent to multiple forms of fraud. As I've said many times, were it not for my personal convictions, I could easily commit fraud. I could vote as many times as I was willing.

Maybe. But people have been prosecuted or convicted of voter fraud in 46 US states since 2000. So they have been detecting fraud and punishing it to some effect. Perhaps more publicity for the cases, and stiffer penalties would also prove a deterrence?

I'm not opposed to that. However, I see no reason to discourage people from even trying.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... eiler-vote

I'd love to have seen what happened when this registered voter showed up to exercise his democratic rights...

Doctor Fate wrote:All the more reason to tighten up the system with biometric info.

So you say. So what biometric info, how is it to be collected and how do you ensure it is accurate.

But, as it stands now, there is NO effective deterrent to multiple forms of fraud. As I've said many times, were it not for my personal convictions, I could easily commit fraud. I could vote as many times as I was willing.

Maybe. But people have been prosecuted or convicted of voter fraud in 46 US states since 2000. So they have been detecting fraud and punishing it to some effect. Perhaps more publicity for the cases, and stiffer penalties would also prove a deterrence?

I'm not opposed to that. However, I see no reason to discourage people from even trying.

Given that these states are detecting fraud and prosecuting it, are they being discouraged?

Sassenach wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/28/stockton-on-tees-dog-owner-allegedly-registering-rottweiler-vote

I'd love to have seen what happened when this registered voter showed up to exercise his democratic rights...

This seems to come up quite regularly. Some idiot puts their baby or dog or whatever on the electoral roll - possibly for a joke, possibly because they don't understand the forms, and then either get found out or even act all incredulous when a polling card turns up.

It seems innocent enough. He'd hardly have gone to the papers to joke about it if he'd genuinely intended on voter fraud. He wouldn't have gotten a polling card either, it would have been a postal vote.

Postal voting needs to be seriously looked at in my view. I'm not sure I'd want to see it banned outright, but the level of potential fraud involved is hideous. Some of the stories that came out of the Eastleigh by-election were quite alarming.

fate

All the more reason to tighten up the system with biometric info

Swatting at flies with a baseball bat>?
Spare no expense .... for what is proven to be a rare problem. And one that is almost certainly not occuring at a level that is affecting election results.

Frankly there are ways that your elections have failed the test of legitimacy at times that are far more problematic than an occasional crank voting twice or voting when they are qualified ...
Hanging chads and suspicious voting machines come to mind...
Robocalls to provide potential voters with inaccurate poll locations...

rickyp wrote:fate

All the more reason to tighten up the system with biometric info

Swatting at flies with a baseball bat>?
Spare no expense .... for what is proven to be a rare problem. And one that is almost certainly not occuring at a level that is affecting election results.

It's not rare. Danivon posted proven fraud in 46 states.

You don't know that it is not affecting results--especially given some of the close races we've seen. After Gore v. Bush, I don't know how anyone with a brainwave can deny a small amount of fraud could change an election.

IDs would only prevent impersonation fraud.
And that is not only a stupid crime, but one that would have to be committed thousands of times to effect an election.

rickyp wrote:IDs would only prevent impersonation fraud.
And that is not only a stupid crime, but one that would have to be committed thousands of times to effect an election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results

How many times does it need to be committed to affect the results of an election?

Alaska House of Representatives District 7, 2008 Incumbent Republican Mike Kelly defeated Democratic challenger Karl Kassel by one vote following a recount.

Really?

rickyp wrote:IDs would only prevent impersonation fraud.
And that is not only a stupid crime, but one that would have to be committed thousands of times to effect an election.

Not true. It would also prevent the ability of people to vote in different places--because cross-checking would be simple.

Further, since many elections (on the Federal level, but not necessarily Presidential level) are closer than 1000 votes, your assertion is false.