Support NeoGAF

[Volimar]

Semantic correction. You can continue to vote at your previous polling place even after you move, but you can't vote at another place until you re-register. I had moved from one part of Atlanta to another part, and as long as I was willing to carry my ass to the other side of the city - I could continue to vote at my previous polling location.

Doesn't it also lapse if you don't vote in the presidential election or something. I'm probably remembering wrong.

 

[Htown]

The whole "it's to prevent poor people to vote" idea seems a tad on the conspiracy theory side. I'd say it's likely to avoid tons of stupid bureaucracy if a fraud problem does appear, or when you get registered and they have to contact you to double-check.

We have literally had Republican officials (some of whom later got fired for opening their big mouths) come out and say that the purpose of these ID laws is to keep voters who tend to vote Democrat from voting.

 

[Seth C]

I'm not against you but "voter fraud is rare anyways" is not a reason to notnot have laws in place stopping the possibility. it seems like common sense to me.

Okay. Let's try this. What is favorable? Allowing 10 of 1 billion votes to slip through fraudulently.

OR

Stop those ten votes but make it such that 1,00,000 legal citizens can't vote?

This shouldn't be hard.

 

[gcubed]

i liken voter id laws to drug testing welfare recipients

something that appeals to people with a lack of critical thinking skills

 

[daxy]

Everyone has ID in the Netherlands. Same process as you described. We also need it to vote. IIRC it costs somewhere between 30 and 50 EUR. I got mine on my own, and got all these elusive 'official documents' on my own when I was 16.

Is the US really that far in the stone age or that lazy that this is a problem? Wow.

 

[CyclopsRock]

he changed "voter fraud" to "in person voter fraud"

Right, because voter id would only solve the latter but he also changed it from "rare" to "doesn't exist", which obviously isn't true.

 

[milquetoast]

Okay. Let's try this. What is favorable? Allowing 10 of 1 billion votes to slip through fraudulently.

OR

Stop those ten votes but make it such that 1,00,000 legal citizens can't vote?

This shouldn't be hard.

“Most of these laws are not preventing the overall majority of folks who don’t vote from voting. Most people do have an ID, most people have a driver’s license, most people can get to the polls.”

--Barack Obama, Oct. 22, 2014, on Al Sharpton's radio shiw

 

[numble]

“Most of these laws are not preventing the overall majority of folks who don’t vote from voting. Most people do have an ID, most people have a driver’s license, most people can get to the polls.”

--Barack Obama, Oct. 22, 2014, on Al Sharpton's radio shiw

I think most people agree that these laws will negatively effect less than 50% of voters.

 

[Hunter S.]

“Most of these laws are not preventing the overall majority of folks who don’t vote from voting. Most people do have an ID, most people have a driver’s license, most people can get to the polls.”

--Barack Obama, Oct. 22, 2014, on Al Sharpton's radio shiw

Yes we can

 

[mrklaw]

This isn't true, you don't have to bring the polling card to vote and a phrase to this effect is printed on the front. I have voted many times without the card as I've been out without it for some other reason and passed near the polling place. All that's needed is your name/address.

Ok, sorry.

In that case this is an odd situation. Logically in my head, simply allowing people to go to a polling station and say 'this is me' with no ID or backup other than the name matching someone previously registered sounds like an open invitation to massive fraud.

Yet both the UK and US seem to use that system and there appears to be no evidence of any meaningful fraud.

These two things do not add up to me, but it clearly seems to work. Weird.

 

[SecretMoblin]

Ok, sorry.

In that case this is an odd situation. Logically in my head, simply allowing people to go to a polling station and say 'this is me' with no ID or backup other than the name matching someone previously registered sounds like an open invitation to massive fraud.

Yet both the UK and US seem to use that system and there appears to be no evidence of any meaningful fraud.

These two things do not add up to me, but it clearly seems to work. Weird.

The penalties for voter fraud are severe. Spending election day driving around and pretending to be different people so you can cast a dozen extra votes isn't anywhere near worth the risk.

As Hilbert pointed out earlier, election fraud is more consequential at the administrative level. And given the sheer volume of voters in any given state during a national election, changes in voting procedure that affect even a small percentage of voters can have a measurable impact on the outcome, which is why the battles over these kinds of legislation are so bitterly fought.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Ok, sorry.

In that case this is an odd situation. Logically in my head, simply allowing people to go to a polling station and say 'this is me' with no ID or backup other than the name matching someone previously registered sounds like an open invitation to massive fraud.

Yet both the UK and US seem to use that system and there appears to be no evidence of any meaningful fraud.

These two things do not add up to me, but it clearly seems to work. Weird.

Tell that to Tower Hamlets!

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Great summary in the OP, but I did want to touch on a couple of things...

It would be one thing if the government offered free IDs to everyone, which would be accepted at polling places, but it doesn't.

Most of the voter ID laws being passed now days (except apparently the TX law whose finding of being unconstitutional was stayed by the SCOTUS since the election machinery for this cycle had already started) do include provisions for obtaining a voter ID card for free, including costs for the supporting documentation needed to get the voter ID card. Certainly, that can be a huge waste of time to get the supporting documents and ID card, but the SCOTUS has found that "time" is not an unconstitutional burden to get the card. Obviously, those guys (and gals) haven't heard the phrase "time is money."

This is not to say that voter fraud doesn't exist in the United States, because it does. The problem is, voter ID laws would do absolutely nothing to prevent the fraud that actually exists. Basically, absentee ballots are mailed to your home, and you can then mail your vote. There is plenty of fraud with this system, but likely because a large number of absentee ballot voters are Republican, there has been little done to fix the problem. (my emp.)

Anecdotally, Iowa Ds have always out early voted Iowa Rs. This election is the first time in my memory that the early vote race is close. Here's a resource with 2014 statistics showing Rs lead early voting in some states, Ds in the others. Those stats don't include overall party registration, but in a spot check in OR, both major party's early vote percentages are outpacing their registration numbers by ~3%.

When the topic came up on another forum several years ago, I spent some time searching for absentee voter fraud. There was a skew to the numbers in what I found, but I would rather not go into detail about that skew since my searching was by no means exhaustive. However, there is certainly absentee voter fraud on both sides of the aisle. (Which is not to excuse it or to say, "So what, both parties do it." Voter fraud, in whatever form and by whichever party should be punished.)

 

[roxyd43]

Absentee ballots
This is not to say that voter fraud doesn't exist in the United States, because it does. The problem is, voter ID laws would do absolutely nothing to prevent the fraud that actually exists. Basically, absentee ballots are mailed to your home, and you can then mail your vote. There is plenty of fraud with this system, but likely because a large number of absentee ballot voters are Republican, there has been little done to fix the problem.

I am in total agreement with you. I'm in Iowa and we absentee voting (which I love), but here, it's usually very heavily Democrats voting absentee because our ground game pushes it so hard. This year, though, it is proving to be different as the Republicans have submitted more absentee ballots. I'm going to attribute that to the very competitive Senate race we have.

 

[Hilbert]

Everyone has ID in the Netherlands. Same process as you described. We also need it to vote. IIRC it costs somewhere between 30 and 50 EUR. I got mine on my own, and got all these elusive 'official documents' on my own when I was 16.

Is the US really that far in the stone age or that lazy that this is a problem? Wow.

You don't have to associate it with your close minded stereotypes of America. It is not because of stone age, or laziness, or clapping, or whatever other joke or ignorance you want to trot out.

Your country is the size of one of America smaller states. Do you really think a solution that works for you will work for the entire country?

Also, you specifically mentioned that your ID cost you money. Needing to pay something in order to be able to vote is illegal in the united states, and just about everyone thinks it should remain that way. If you read the thread you would see this explained many many times.

Read the thread or even the OP before you comment. And just because your country does something a certain way, doesn't mean that it will work in another country, or that we even want it.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Keep seeing the new voter ID commercial in Texas, then I remember about the gun show that will be happening within a mile. Something is wrong when I need an ID to vote but I don't need one to buy as many guns as I want.