So, in order to split the debate on ID requirements etc from the thread about the Republican Primaries, I set up this thread.

Here's a precis so far:

In order to cut out the potential for fraud, some think that an ID requirement to vote should be in place.

Some have questioned the actual extent of the fraud (and the partisan nature of allegations concerning it), and whether that justifies insisting on ID. Also that about 4% of Americans don't have ID (by the way, I believe a large number of people in the USA who are natural citizens don't actually have State issued birth certificates, and in adoption cases, they are not actual records of the correct details of birth)

One or two have noted that there is in English speaking countries a resistance to a 'papers please' approach from the State, in contrast to the more European (mainland) way.

Sass has pointed out that absentee ballots / postal voting have a greater potential for fraud at elections. Brad's response was to oppose them outright, but then there's the question of whether there are situations where that's just plain unfair.

Ricky mentioned the different area of 'voter suppression' - which is perhaps where more of the accusations of racism come from. Such as where people are directed to the wrong polling place, or where incorrect lists of felons are compiled.

I will note something - there is a consistent pattern here. Brad takes up against things that may lead to some fraud, and wants the system tightened up so as to completely eliminate it. However, when that means that some people miss out on their rights / entitlements, has the rule-making gone too far?

Oh come on ... let's call this what it is which is the Democratic Party using its power to reduce the possibility that it will lose a few votes. Meanwhile, the right wing fringe worries about the government gathering any information whatsoever.

Voter fraud happens. None of us can know the extent because there are virtually no procedures to prevent it. But using the "broken window thinking" of the recently departed social scientist James Q. Wilson, it is important to clean up these sorts of hygiene issues to reduce our cynicism in our institutions.

There's no reason why our laws cannot be crisp enough to both accommodate individual freedom and eliminate voter fraud. If we cannot solve simple stuff like this, how are we going to solve the hard stuff?

At the very least we can did our fingers in ink like the Iraqis.

Ray Jay wrote: But using the "broken window thinking" of the recently departed social scientist James Q. Wilson, it is important to clean up these sorts of hygiene issues to reduce our cynicism in our institutions.

Chicago this ain't (vote early, vote often). Russia this ain't (vote for me... or else).

I'm really not aware of much cynicism about the process of actual voting. I see much more cynicism in elections themselves, i.e. money, negative advertising, catering to special interests, primary systems, etc...

I'm just not buying that potential voter fraud is such a problem that it's worth potentially disenfranchising voters. Head-to-head, one fraudulent vote is less egregious a crime than one denied vote (to me anyway).

Ray Jay wrote:Oh come on ... let's call this what it is which is the Democratic Party using its power to reduce the possibility that it will lose a few votes. Meanwhile, the right wing fringe worries about the government gathering any information whatsoever.

Ah well, at least you aren't generalising based on a partisan basis...

There are those on the left (not just the right) who worry about how much information the State has about citizens, and the extent of mandaroty requirements.

I'm sure also that there are actually some Republican voters who don't bother to take ID when they go to vote, some of whom may object to it.

Voter fraud happens. None of us can know the extent because there are virtually no procedures to prevent it. But using the "broken window thinking" of the recently departed social scientist James Q. Wilson, it is important to clean up these sorts of hygiene issues to reduce our cynicism in our institutions.

Assuming that his theory is correct.

There are ways to quantify voter fraud, by the way, that don't necessitiate a change to requirements. Small-scale studies for example. First of all, let's see if we can detect fraud, then if we can quantify it. Then we'll know if the windows are actually broken, or it's just that people think they might be even if they don't see it.

In other words, let's find out if there is a problem before we fix it?

There's no reason why our laws cannot be crisp enough to both accommodate individual freedom and eliminate voter fraud. If we cannot solve simple stuff like this, how are we going to solve the hard stuff?

You will never 'eliminate' fraud. Certainly there are always ways that any system can be subverted, and concentrating on one place may miss weaker spots. And making laws in only a very small part of it.

At the very least we can did our fingers in ink like the Iraqis.

Sure, Of course, no-one would think to try and find a solvent that can remove the ink, or to coat their fingers with a thin film of PVA that can be peeled off, and no-one at the polling place could be minded to or bribed to ignore inky fingers or ''forget" to apply ink to particuar fingers. However secure you think your system is, there's always a hack out there waiting to be found, and the most vulnerable parts are the wetware (people).

Personally, I don't have a problem with the principle of ensuring that people who vote are able to prove that they are who they say they are and that they only vote once etc. However, when it comes to the practice, there will always be problems to overcome.

One such - and this is potentially a 'major' one in the USA depending on your point of view - is that it's not actually difficult to obtain ID that is fraudulent itself. Illegal immigrants can get documents, kids can get fake ID to buy booze, etc.

So, how do you ensure that any American who wants to can easily get proper ID, and yet also ensure that no-one can get fake ID?

I think there are two questions here. The first question is whether it's unreasonable to expect prospective voters to prove who they say they are. I'd say the answer to that question is no. Presenting ID shouldn't be a serious problem to many people and there are few obstacles to getting hold of a form of ID if you don't have any. As such I don't think people can complain too much if the authorities in their area decide to enforce a rule requiring ID before you can vote, so long as sufficient advance warning is given to enable all registered voters to get hold of the necessary documents and so long as people are reminded of the need to present ID regularly as polling day approaches (at least until the practice is well established and everybody is used to it).

The second question though is whether the problem of voter fraud is actually such a big deal. I'd say the answer to this question is also no. I'm sure it does go on to some extent but not on any major scale and I'm far from convinced that it's sufficient to have a decisive sway on any significant elections. I'm also unconvinced that requiring ID at polling booths is going to make much of a difference one way or the other. As I said in the other thread, postal voting is much easier to fiddle.

So should we do away with absentee voting ? Probably not. I don't see how you could realistically justify that decision based on a suspicion of a possibility that it might prevent an unquantifiable amount of fraud. There are all kinds of reasons why somebody might need to make an absentee vote and almost all of them are perfectly legitimate. It would be, if not impossible, then certainly politically difficult to ban postal voting. Voters would feel rightly upset about it.

From my own perspective, the only form of photo Id I own is my passport, which is now 10 years old and has a very flattering and totally unrecognisable picture of me on it. I'm sure that would still be accepted, but equally I'd be somewhat irritated to have to carry it around all day just so I could cast my vote. But if push came to shove I'd probably do it anyway. I wouldn't have too many complaints, it's just that i don't really see the point.

Owen,
Please quote me correctly. I said I disagree with absentee ballots unless ID is shown. Having used absentee ballots in the military (while overseas, mind you), so I do understand the need. I also understand the need for ID to get the ballot. I had to show my ID to the election officer and have my request for absentee certified for the state of residency.

I am not the conservative ogre you paint...

I don't think it is a major problem -- we certainly have many more that are more pressing -- but I do think it is a relatively straightforward problem. Yes, there are complexities as the various comments astutely point out. But those are tactical bumps to be worked out. They turn into road blocks because of vested political interests.

I'm under the impression that the 1960 Presidential election was stolen by Illinois election fraud. Isn't that enough of a reason to crack down on this? And of course there are many close local elections.

You also have to combat the perception of voter fraud. Those perceptions can be pernicious in our Democracy.

I do think that we have to accommodate absentee voting since it is a win for Democracy.

bbauska wrote:Owen,
Please quote me correctly. I said I disagree with absentee ballots unless ID is shown. Having used absentee ballots in the military (while overseas, mind you), so I do understand the need. I also understand the need for ID to get the ballot. I had to show my ID to the election officer and have my request for absentee certified for the state of residency.

I am not the conservative ogre you paint...

But surely that's doesn't deal with the potential for an absentee ballot to be hijacked on it's way to you. You don't need to provide ID when you send the vote back...

Ray Jay wrote:I'm under the impression that the 1960 Presidential election was stolen by Illinois election fraud. Isn't that enough of a reason to crack down on this? And of course there are many close local elections.

Generally we need more than an impression of what happened over 50 years ago to derive that we have a problem today of enough significance to act.

It would also be interesting to note what actual method of (alleged) fraud was used in Texas and Illinois in 1960 and whether the proposed solution would have made any effect.

You also have to combat the perception of voter fraud. Those perceptions can be pernicious in our Democracy.

Hmm. But what if people are using the perception to whip up partisan feeling and attack the opposition without any actual evidence for their accusations? I mean, Randy has been asked twice to back up his 'buying votes' statement and there's been no response on it from him or anyone else.

I do think that we have to accommodate absentee voting since it is a win for Democracy.

Despite it being far more sucseptible to fraud, with ballots having to go through at least one postal system at least two times, the forms being filled out remotely and reliant on the honesty of everyone at the address they are sent out to.

We have in the UK several cases (across more than one political party) where ballot fraud has been carried out on the absentee ballots.

The ideal solution is that the social security number becomes a photo ID card . And the photos have to be updated every 5 years. All at no expense to the citizen. Landed immigrants or visitors with visas get an equivalent ID card.
This card would also be required to present to potential employers. Who would double check the SS# through an online verification program which would make them responsible for insuring they weren't hiring illegal aliens That online number verification computer could also be at the voting booth....
Why do i mention this? Because American employers in certain industries have fought the e-verify program tooth and nail.
And yet, such a photo id program would go a long way to solving the problems of illegal immigration (They won't come if they can't get decent jobs) and the alleged, but probably greatly exagerated, voter fraud problem.
But see what happens if its proposed and which special interests will say its impossible...

You shouldn't underestimate how difficult that would be, not to mention how expensive. In order to be any use they'd need to be full biometric ID cards, which cost quite a lot to produce per unit anyway, and then you'd need to employ thousands of people to record all the biometrics, entailing enormous waiting lists because millions upon millions of them would have to be produced even if you exclude American citizens from the system altogether. If you were to attempt to enforce it for all citizens then you have the biggest boondoggle in history, and all for somewhat limited utility.

We issue biometric ID cards instead of vignettes to new migrants in the UK these days. I've never really understood why. The cost is extravagant and the benefits hard to discern. I've never seen a plausible explanation for how the new system is supposed to help tackle illegal working or make the borders more secure.

I propose:

Since the government derives it's power through the will of the People it therefore must enfranchise voters to the point that at least a minimum 60% of the voting age public participates in the election and no candidate can win without a majority of that vote. A restricted caretaker government would sit in place until resolved.

sass

You shouldn't underestimate how difficult that would be, not to mention how expensive

I doubt it. Already SS numbers are automatic. All you are adding is hte cost of reissuing with new photos. It wouldn't be perfect. Nothing is... But the expense of adding in biometrics>? If you get compliancee with photo iDs I'd guess it eliminates the perception of voter fraud (I say perception because the incidence rate is probably virtually zero) and would at the same time make a huge dent in addressing illegal immigration. (Of course, what will happen is a worker shortage in some industries and there will have to be sponsorship of some workers to legalize their residence...)
Furthermore, by maintaining the program there would be other benefits; reduced cost to enforce immigration for one. And conservativs claim illegals are such a weight on social program costs....so there's that.
The ID cards would be a helluva lot cheaper then building ineffective fences across the Mexican border...

I doubt it. Already SS numbers are automatic. All you are adding is hte cost of reissuing with new photos.

So at this point you're expecting every citizen to have to provide new photos every 5 years (that was what you said right ?), which in itself is a huge logistical challenge and would invariably result in millions of people having to be chased up for them. That's an enormous expense right there. If you actually want an identity system that has any kind of merit then you need to be able to tie those photos in with stored fingerprints and/or retinal images, which would require every citizen to physically attend someplace where trained staff can verify the information and record it properly. That's a much bigger expense. I think you're underestimating the potential costs by a wide margin.

and would at the same time make a huge dent in addressing illegal immigration.

Would it ? Please explain exactly how this would work. I'm always very wary of people casually tossing around grandiose claims about how their pet schemes could solve intractable problems like illegal immigration, it tends to be bullshit. Employers are already required to check somebody's papers before employing them, but many don't. What makes you think these employers would suddenly start to do so just because there's this ID card system in place ?

Interesting...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ma ... isement-us

The NAACP has gone to the UN on voter suppression (not that the UNCHR can or will do much other than blather about it).

Interesting quote from the debate that introduced the 1901 Virginia law that bars convicts from voting

One of the attendants told the convention at the time that it would "eliminate the darkie as a political factor in this state in less than five years, so that in no single county … will there be the least concern felt for the complete supremacy of the white race in the affairs of government."

I'm sure that the justification has changed since then, but the law still stands.