Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

12 (20.3%)

Maybe/Depends

5 (8.5%)

No

42 (71.2%)

Total Members Voted: 59

[Lagslayer]

I'm speaking primarily about US law, but feel free to chime in if you have an opion regarding another country's voter ID laws (but be sure to specify where).

Thoughts?
Opinions?
Please provide any level of detail or examples needed.



edit: if at any point you want to change your vote, the poll should allow for it.

[MonkeyHead]

The electoral register over here in the UK has the same error in my name each and every election, no matter how many times I enact a change. Despite this, I am always allowed to vote, with or without ID, which is a bit silly really - I am not the person the voter registration card says but I get to use it all the same.

[Akura]

I'm not quite sure what the issue is. In New York, at least, according to the voter registration forms we have in the campus bookstore, all you need is a valid ID(driver's liscense, state ID, etc.) or Social Security number, as well as being a US Citizen that is 18+ or will be by the end of the year, not currently doing time for a felony.

Seems good enough to me. Never heard of anyone requiring a Voter ID card or anything like that. At least not recently.

[kaijyuu]

Any valid identification is enough for me.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No. I got screwed out of voting once already because my state rather sneakily passed a provision of this that only applies to first-timers.

They also offered me a "disputed ballot", which means that you can vote and it doesn't count, which made me even more angry.

[Tellemurius]

Any valid identification is enough for me.

same here, i really don't know the fuss is about the voter ID crap, you have to register no matter where you live and need to show ID to prove your citizenship anyways.

[Flying Dice]

Anything more than govt.-issued photo id of any kind being required seems like another measure intended to prevent people from voting to me.

[misko27]

Voter fraud in the united states is exceedingly rare. To me, if you have an ID that the government acceots in other circumstances (Such as marriage license, or buying a gun) there really should be no need for it.

[Frumple]

Valid ID's enough. Just something that lets you be confirmed as a citizen and in the right area. Driver's license is usually fine. Photo ID and some mail or something (to show living address, i.e. make sure you're in the right place) would work, too.

Most of the recent bullshit I've seen regarding voter IDs is pretty much specifically (if not overtly stated as) being pushed to try to screw over chunks of the population. It's pretty damned detestable. Voting's already more of a pain in the arse than it needs to be, especially considering the rates of crap the barriers being throw up around it is nominally supposed to prevent.

[palsch]

Don't support them at all.

For me, voting needs to be a protected activity at the absolute highest level. Any law thing done that might decrease the ability of someone to vote needs to be strongly justified. Anything that might decrease the ability to vote of a particular segment of society disproportionately needs an even higher justification.

Voter ID laws disproportionately effect the poor, racial minorities, disabled people and the elderly. These are groups that need more stringent protections of their rights, simply because they rarely have social power through the structures in place. Anything that might deny them their vote and ability to have any influence on those same structures should have to clear an extremely high bar before being allowed.

For me that would mean three things;
1) The law be addressing a real and serious problem.
2) The law do so in an effective manner, actually addressing the problem directly.
3) The law accomplishes 2 in the least restrictive manner available.

This is mostly just a rephrasing of the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review, but it's a good standard for cases like this.

IMO, voter ID laws fail all three prongs.

1) Voter fraud is not a serious problem. It is incredibly rare, especially in the form that voter ID laws pretend to address.
2) If concerned about actual electoral or voter fraud there are far more significant areas that need to be addressed, while voter ID requirements don't really stop any actual problems.
3) This is a case-by-case thing, but most voter-ID laws I've seen are far from the least restrictive possible. Even some of the efforts to make them less restrictive have serious flaws.

One example of that (and this is from memory so I'll have to find a link for you all later) was when they made it so anyone registered but who didn't have ID on the day could cast a provisional ballot. These would be counted as valid unless challenged. Challenges were allowed from election observers who come from the parties, so this opened the door to partisan challenges, potentially along racial lines. Anyone whose ballot was challenged had to show up in court with valid ID or have their vote invalidated. I can't remember how or even if they were informed that their ballot was being challenged.

[Ancre]

Don't support it. I mean, is there even a serious problem, like voting fraud, that this kind of law would address ? I'm pretty sure that no, or that I would have heard about it in the news if it was the case.

It's not needed, I don't remember anyone asking for it, it would make voting more annoying than it is now. At best, this is a complete waste of time and resources, that could be spent elsewhere.

So, no.

[Zangi]

Do not support.  I just see it as a way to prevent people from voting... not to prevent voting fraud like they say.

[chaoticag]

Well, given how courts have repealed recent voter ID laws in Texas and Florida, based on that it discriminates against minorities, I don't support this.

[alway]

No.
1. Fraud is not an issue in the US; there's around 170 cases per decade; 17 per year.
2. What has been seen from such programs is that they end up costing states tens of millions of dollars to implement and distribute voter ids. Based on the cost vs voter fraud cases and some simple math, the ratio is somewhere around the number of '1 instance of voter fraud prevented at the cost of ~$10-20 million.' Indiana passed a voter id law, then spent ~$11 million providing IDs and running the system to implement the law. The number of voter fraud cases which would have occurred during that period of time was approximately in the range of 0.7 to 1.
Most instances of voter fraud are vote buying on the local level anyway, as any important elections have an electorate too large for any sort of organized voter fraud. So the question becomes this: is it really worth tens of millions of dollars to prevent a single corrupt judge or mayor from being elected in Smalltownnowhereville?

[mainiac]

Voter ID laws wouldn't even have stopped most of the few cases of voter fraud that did occur.  Usually voter fraud happens because someone is registered illegally (typically without knowing it) and forcing them to produce a photo ID wouldn't address.  It's nothing more then a cynical attempt to disenfranchise people but that's what you do when you are trying to push the interests of the minority.