jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's $#@! America. You don't need to carry ID in this country to exercise your rights.

Next thing, you'll be expecting people to have an ID when they want to purchase a firearm.

This is a terrible argument. I think people ought to show state issued photo ID when buying a gun. Presumably by the way you phrased that, you do too. Because our gun laws are flawed means we should keep a loophole open for vote fraud?

I actually don't think you should have to produce an ID to buy a gun. Or pretty much do anything else that's otherwise legal. Certainly nothing that is listed as a constitutional right.

Don't you have to undergo a background check when buying a gun in most (all?) states? Wasn't that part of the Brady Bill?

Gov. Easley is endorsing Hill-Rod today in NC. I'm a Hillary Clinton shock victory in NC away from thinking this sunuvabitch might actually drag on to Denver.

jerseyhoya wrote:Don't you have to undergo a background check when buying a gun in most (all?) states? Wasn't that part of the Brady Bill?

Government is taking our rights away. Same old same old.

Our right to commit vote fraud I think is one of those little talked about amendments in between the right against self incrimination and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.

Question. when voting in the US, do you get sent a voters card to your home address, which you then present at the polling station along with some form of ID?

Does that kind of arrangement vary from state to state.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's $#@! America. You don't need to carry ID in this country to exercise your rights.

Next thing, you'll be expecting people to have an ID when they want to purchase a firearm.

This is a terrible argument. I think people ought to show state issued photo ID when buying a gun. Presumably by the way you phrased that, you do too. Because our gun laws are flawed means we should keep a loophole open for vote fraud?

And I think everyone should be issued a gun, but be registered, fingerprinted, retinal scanned and cavity searched before they're permitted to buy ammo.

And that any gun 'operator' be required to fire a minimum of 2 clips if/when they discharge their gun in public. As good a standard as any for demonstrating rational usage.

the basic construction of election 'technology' essentially assumes an odd combination of the most elementary tools (empty boxes with slots, Xs on slips of paper) and the most abstract possible outcomes ("the winner, by a single vote...!").

Fraud prevention is inevitably a loss control function rather than attainment of an ideal; however rational the participants, there won't be a resolution discussion/debate about the 'right' amount of control.

Generally I err on the side of extreme caution on the issue of ID - I remain deeply suspicious and untrusting of compulsory National ID schemes - but I find it hard to think how you get a voting system to work without some kind of ID requirement.

Yeah, it's a pragmatic response, no, it's nowhere near ideal. but it seems like no matter where you are in the world, from the UK to Zimbabwe, there isn't a party electoral officer who isn't happy to screw over the voting system to get a result for their preferred candidate.

Wizlah wrote:Generally I err on the side of extreme caution on the issue of ID - I remain deeply suspicious and untrusting of compulsory National ID schemes - but I find it hard to think how you get a voting system to work without some kind of ID requirement.

Yeah, it's a pragmatic response, no, it's nowhere near ideal. but it seems like no matter where you are in the world, from the UK to Zimbabwe, there isn't a party electoral officer who isn't happy to screw over the voting system to get a result for their preferred candidate.

But IDs don't interfere with that. And, in fact, can easily serve that end. If you must produce an ID to a voting official, you've given that voting official a degree of power that he or she can use for nefarious ends. Now, a voter ID card that simply mimics the information on the voter registration roles (I think NJ had something to that effect, though you did not need to bring your voter registration card or anything else to the polling place on election day) limits the potential for that kind of abuse. But having to produce a drivers license or some such is bad stuff.

This is especially the case as identification tools are becoming more and more power in their ability to link you in various databases.

IDs might do a little to prevent certain kinds of voter fraud, but they make other kinds of voter fraud vastly easier. And if we really cared about voter fraud, we'd be paying a lot more attention to the voting machines, the technology they contain, and what happens to them as the votes are tabulated.

Anyway, I don't think it's crazy to see this rush for various forms of identification to do perfectly lawful things as Real ID and Total Information Awareness through the back door.

TenuredVulture wrote:
But IDs don't interfere with that. And, in fact, can easily serve that end. If you must produce an ID to a voting official, you've given that voting official a degree of power that he or she can use for nefarious ends.

Definitely lost me here. Voter intimidation doesn't require ID cards, otherwise I'm sure Zanu PF and Fianna Fáil would have made them compulsory years ago. If my vote has been used up by me, no one else gets to use it. someone else rocks up and says, 'I'm wizlah, give me that voting slip', I'm not so happy. (Especially if they're poxy blairite scum.). I can't see how presenting existing proof of identity makes it any easier or harder for someone to intimidate you. You still make the decision on your own with the equivalent of a blank ballot slip, right?

IDs might do a little to prevent certain kinds of voter fraud, but they make other kinds of voter fraud vastly easier.

Other than intimidation, what other voter fraud can you think of that ID might facilitate?

Wizlah wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:
But IDs don't interfere with that. And, in fact, can easily serve that end. If you must produce an ID to a voting official, you've given that voting official a degree of power that he or she can use for nefarious ends.

Definitely lost me here. Voter intimidation doesn't require ID cards, otherwise I'm sure Zanu PF and Fianna Fáil would have made them compulsory years ago. If my vote has been used up by me, no one else gets to use it. someone else rocks up and says, 'I'm wizlah, give me that voting slip', I'm not so happy. (Especially if they're poxy blairite scum.). I can't see how presenting existing proof of identity makes it any easier or harder for someone to intimidate you. You still make the decision on your own with the equivalent of a blank ballot slip, right?

IDs might do a little to prevent certain kinds of voter fraud, but they make other kinds of voter fraud vastly easier.

Other than intimidation, what other voter fraud can you think of that ID might facilitate?

Of course voter intimidation doesn't require ID cards. However, election fraud in the US has not typically been perpetuated by thuggish looking guys with guns hanging around the polling place. Rather, things like non-secret ballots have been used. It seems to me that with more and more IDs containing RFID type devices combined with voting technology, it is much easier to link a specific vote to a voter. If I have no real reason to believe my vote is secret, I can be easily intimidated.

If the election board is producing the ids, then there is no reason to believe that tons of fictional voters can't be easily produced, with ID cards to match.

ID cards provide a tool for illegal voter disenfranchisement.

Is there any solid evidence of widespread voter fraud of the kind that IDs would prevent?

TenuredVulture wrote:
If the election board is producing the ids, then there is no reason to believe that tons of fictional voters can't be easily produced, with ID cards to match.

ID cards provide a tool for illegal voter disenfranchisement.

Okay, we're definitely talking at cross-purposes here. I'm talking about presenting acceptable proof of ID along with your voter registration card. I'm certainly not talking about some purpose built 'voting card'. But then I didn't see that mentioned in jerseyhoya's original link, either.

Wizlah wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:
If the election board is producing the ids, then there is no reason to believe that tons of fictional voters can't be easily produced, with ID cards to match.

ID cards provide a tool for illegal voter disenfranchisement.

Okay, we're definitely talking at cross-purposes here. I'm talking about presenting acceptable proof of ID along with your voter registration card. I'm certainly not talking about some purpose built 'voting card'. But then I didn't see that mentioned in jerseyhoya's original link, either.

What's the difference? If you need to produce an ID, and people who heretofore lack ids needs some way to get them in order to preserve their right to vote, then an obvious solution would be some kind of voting card. Viola, massive voter fraud.

How are absentee ballots handled with these programs anyway?

TenuredVulture wrote:
Viola, massive voter fraud.

How are absentee ballots handled with these programs anyway?

Easy muscles, you haven't come close to proving that one. There would be the "potential" for massive voter fraud. Just like there is the "potential" for massive voter when you don't have to present any ID here.

You know, you really MIGHT be better off making this a partisan issue, because while I could be swayed that 85 bucks, plus a day off of work, is an onerous task for the poor, you've argued very poorly in your attempt to convince me on voter intimidation. People could just as easily track my vote now by noting when I sign in, what place in line I am, and what buttons I push when I'm in the booth.

jeff2sf wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:
Viola, massive voter fraud.

How are absentee ballots handled with these programs anyway?

Easy muscles, you haven't come close to proving that one. There would be the "potential" for massive voter fraud. Just like there is the "potential" for massive voter when you don't have to present any ID here.

You know, you really MIGHT be better off making this a partisan issue, because while I could be swayed that 85 bucks, plus a day off of work, is an onerous task for the poor, you've argued very poorly in your attempt to convince me on voter intimidation. People could just as easily track my vote now by noting when I sign in, what place in line I am, and what buttons I push when I'm in the booth.

Maybe that could be done with some old fashioned election technology. But it would not be just as easy.

TenuredVulture wrote:
Okay, we're definitely talking at cross-purposes here. I'm talking about presenting acceptable proof of ID along with your voter registration card. I'm certainly not talking about some purpose built 'voting card'. But then I didn't see that mentioned in jerseyhoya's original link, either.

What's the difference? If you need to produce an ID, and people who heretofore lack ids needs some way to get them in order to preserve their right to vote, then an obvious solution would be some kind of voting card. Viola, massive voter fraud.
[/quote]

Or you go back to a basic reasonably inclusive list of what constitutes proof of ID and where you live, which is where I presume the argument lies. Sure, if it was only passports, that could be an issue. As a cyclist, I'd take issue if it was only Driver's Licence. But I'm guessing (and asking) that you can provide proof of ID and residence in more ways than that.

I see where I went wrong here though. I saw proof of ID, and as smooth pointed out, the issue revolves around what kind of ID. Yeah, if photo ID is prohibitive in some way, I wouldn't be in favour if I was you either.

There are driver's licenses and then state issued ID cards that aren't driver's licenses. I don't think Indiana created a special new ID card for voters who didn't have driver's licenses.

I don't know if these cards are free, but I think they should be if they're necessary for voting. Unless other state laws require that you have an ID or something.

We're all basically arguing in circles here because no one actually knows any of the details of the program we're talking about other than was in that NYT article, or at least no one has demonstrated any deeper knowledge.

I just think in general the idea that people should be required to prove they are who they say they are when voting is basic common sense. I'm not sure I follow how this means there will be more voter intimidation. If a poll watcher currently wants to intimidate a voter, they can just say they don't like their signature or their registration is expired or some other bullshit. If anything, having clearly defined, logical standards, like a valid state issued photo ID, communicated to the populace and enforced by poll watchers should make it harder for people to get away with any voter intimidation. It would also make it harder to commit voter fraud.

jerseyhoya wrote:There are driver's licenses and then state issued ID cards that aren't driver's licenses. I don't think Indiana created a special new ID card for voters who didn't have driver's licenses....

....We're all basically arguing in circles here because no one actually knows any of the details of the program we're talking about other than was in that NYT article, or at least no one has demonstrated any deeper knowledge....

Big Hoosier Brother's Voting Info Site

(EDIT: note that one of the acceptable alternative renderings of the fictive voter's name is NOT "BJ Crew")

I love the State of Indiana website's attention to this hot-button state issue. Here's the top story on ITs list of state goings-on:

New York's Radical Lace & Subversive Knitting exhibit opens at the Indiana State Museum

At a time when knitting, crocheting and even lace-making are staging a comeback, the Indiana State Museum is putting some edgy examples of those art forms on display in the exhibit Radical Lace & Subversive Knitting, opening April 25 and running through August 24....

I'm all in favor of eliminating fraudulent elections. I just don't think voter ID requirements do that at all. Other than assertions of common sense, I have seen no real argument that a voter ID card solves any problem we currently have, or that couldn't be solved in a more straightforward manner. I do think however, that it obscures a very real problem with the adoption of new voting technology that has tons of design flaws that could easily be exploited.

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/