Maybe I don't have one. :p

Maybe not where you are, but then again, you believe dead people voting only happens in three cities. I also don't understand "This old methods of bulk voting for known dead voters" - I assume you mean it is an old method of having dead voters vote in bulk, or are you referencing some additional methods, plural?

If you have to show an id in order to vote you will be unable to vote for people other than yourself, unless you have a fake id.

FWIW, I was an election judge for years in Hays County. MC, it was before the HAVA was passed in 2002, so I was unaware of the first-time voter id procedure.

Two thoughts:

1.) Fake ids - If identification is too easy to replicate then that needs to be addressed. In this day and age it should be easier than ever to make a difficult to reproduce form of identification (I know the new passports include technology making it far more difficult to make fake ones.)

2.) As an aside - I hate the current primary system and wish we could go to one nationwide primary on one day instead of this long, drawn out process which puts too much power in the hands of certain voters.

What I mean by bulk voting is...dead people voting is a systematic vote like stuffing the ballot box. It wasn't a problem because people knew their dead relatives were still on the voting rolls and impersonated them to vote twice. Dead voters were a problem in big cities where political machines would identify large blocks of dead voters still on the rolls and stuff the ballot boxes using their names. It's why they now purge voting rolls of dead constituents. A couple of people voting for their dead relatives would be a minuscule issue. The dead people voting issue was not about that and, as I said earlier, wouldn't be helped by having IDs.


ETA: for what it's worth, a passport is a federal ID that the vast majority of Americans do NOT have. Saying that state level IDs should rise to the level of a passport on the level of security is ridiculous. Don't you remember the mandate after 9/11 that all states upgrade the security of their IDs and several states flat out refused. I doubt they'll change their minds for this issue.

"Ridiculous"? Rather subjective adjective, not to mention begging the question. Difficult? Maybe. Unlikely? Maybe. It all depends on how serious states are about insuring that their identification cannot be replicated. If fake identification is the problem that some on this thread have indicated then the question is, how big of a problem? If it is minor, then yes, the cost/benefit ratio will be such that it won't be worth the expense. If it is indeed a major problem, then a look at the cost/benefits will show that it would be something to pursue. Just because some states chose not to implement controls on their identification doesn't mean the idea is without merit.

Please note that the issue was raised by those who believe voters should not be required to show id in order to vote. The claim is that ids can easily be forged and often are. If that is indeed the problem, it can be remedied.

For what it's worth, HAVA also requires states to have centralized and computerized voter registration records that are regularly cross-referenced with other state-maintained databases, such as DMV and vital statistics. This means deceased people are regularly removed from the registration records, so the chances of a dead person still being on the voter registration lists (and therefore being deemed eligible to vote at the polls) is not nearly as great as it once was.

It is easier and it is done. Most states have incorporated a number of security features into drivers licenses, for example. But often, those security features require special equipment to "read," or they involve aspects that only a trained eye can recognize and distinguish from fakes.

Are we going to provide poll workers, almost all of whom are volunteers, with the necessary equipment or training to identify which IDs are real and which are fakes? If we are, then how do we justify the expense and trouble of that if we haven't first determined that voter fraud is an actual problem instead of an assumed problem and that requiring photo IDs will effectively address that problem? If we're not going to provide them with those resources and that training, then what's the point in requiring photo IDs to begin with?

Which is precisely the same question that goes for voter fraud: If voter fraud is the problem that some on this thread have indicated then the question is, how big of a problem?

I still say it's putting the cart before the horse to advocate a solution when we don't really know if there's a problem or if the solution advocated will effectively address that problem. That's especially the case when the proposed solution comes with problems of its own.

Since I raised the issue of fake IDs, I'll ask that you please not put words in my mouth. I clearly said upthread that I have no problem in theory with requiring photo IDs. But since a photo ID requirement can bring its own problems, and since I live in a state where currently no ID is required (beyond the first-time voter who registered by mail), I think the onus is on those advocating photo ID requirements to establish that voter fraud is more than an occasional (or anecdotal) problem and that requiring photo IDs will effectively address that problem.

Mystic Cat, you were not the only one to bring up the issue of identification being forged, which is why I did not quote you or name you. I apologize if you feel that you were lumped into the group of strident opponents to voter id; I trust your post has now clarified for all that you are not necessarily against voter id but have reservations.

Going back on topic, do you think voter identification would be a problem for college students?

Do those of you who have problems with voter identification also have a problem with federal firearm regulations ( I'm thinking of Title 1 requirements under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968) ? I raised the issue earlier as being perhaps the issue most directly comparable to voter identification efforts. Of interest might be this opening section :

SEC. 101.The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

No problem.

Possibly. To me, for a photo ID law to make any sense, the ID needs to be government issued. I think it is likely that as a group, college students are probably more likely to have such IDs, but I don't want to assume that's the case.

Just like I don't want assume that photo IDs will solve a real problem. ;) Like I've said, for me step one is to establish the nature and extent of the problem, if there really is one. There's just no point in talking about possible solutions if we,ve skipped that first step. And when I see people sidestepping that first step, I can't help but think it's because combatting voter fraud isn't really what people are trying toa accomplish. Voter fraud is just the easy excuse.

Cheers!

Hand to God, I don't wish to deny any legal voter the right to register his/her vote.

I also don't know how extensive any voter fraud is; it just seems to me that proving your identify before voting is a common sense approach to insuring the integrity of the vote.

eta - The issues with electronic voting apparatus, brought up earlier, really scare me.

For various reasons, I've flown on multiple occasions without any form of photo ID - I'm sure a good number of people who travel for work have had the same happen as well. The procedures are actually fairly painless.

... except the technology that makes the IDs more complex is really the same technology that allows people to make fraudulent IDs.

Also, dead people voting will happen via fake ID anyway ... that's straight-up a different issue than a de facto poll tax.

Oh, like those oh-so-powerful Iowa voters, who have correctly predicted the president by the winner in their primaries two times in history? (New Hampshire has a similarly shitty record)

It's not so much that Iowa picks the president - it's that Iowa gets to decide who everyone else gets to pick for candidate. Just watch - after Iowa several candidates will be out of the running. Mind you, it's probably going to be candidates I want to see gone, but still - should Iowa have that much power in picking the eventual Republican nominee?

"Common sense" is as subjective as when AOII Angel used "ridiculous." ;)

:) This reality adds something to the "well, we need a photo ID for everything else" part of the debate.

How painless the procedures are will vary by who, what, when, where, and why...but, photo ID is still not required. LOL.

And hand to God, I believe you. But partisan people in positions of power who advocate photo ID laws . . .

A very understandable sentiment that those who have other agendas will capitalize on. After all, who can argue with insuring the integrity of the vote?

The thing is, is the integrity of the vote in real danger without photo IDs? Requiring them may very well may be a feel-good solution that doesn't do much of anything to address a problem that may not really be a major problem, and in the process keeps some people entitled to vote from voting.

To quote directly from the TSA website:

"Adult passengers (18 and over) are required to show a U.S. federal or state-issued photo ID in order to be allowed to go through the checkpoint and onto their flight.
We understand passengers occasionally arrive at the airport without an ID, due to lost items or inadvertently leaving them at home. Not having an ID, does not necessarily mean a passenger won’t be allowed to fly. If passengers are willing to provide additional information, we have other means of substantiating someone’s identity, like using publicly available databases.
Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. Passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or onto an airplane."




So - they require an ID but if a passenger can provide additional information (unspecified) they may - or may not - be allowed to fly. I wonder how many of the aforementioned groups who do not have ID would be able to provide information that would allow TSA to pass them through the checkpoint. Not knowing what constitutes acceptable additional information I guess we'll never know.