Keeping College Students from Voting

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I live in LBJ country - dead Texans have been voting for years.

While Mickey Mouse might seem to be a too obvious example, people successfully registering their pets to vote is another example. I would suggest that it may be that the tightening up needs to occur at the registration end of the voting spectrum. Currently in Texas you fill out the form and you are good. You are not required to send in any supporting documentation. Send it off and get your voter registration card back through the mail. Some states have same day registration - register and vote. Would those who oppose voter id oppose tighter registration requirements? It also occurs to me that the best analogy to requiring id for voting might be the requirements to buy firearms . The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, but we have decided that it is not one without limitations.

The issue of dead voters is not an issue of individuals coming in and voting for dead relatives. This old methods of bulk voting for known dead voters. Mandating IDs won't stop this type of election fraud.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The issue of dead voters is not an issue of individuals coming in and voting for dead relatives. This old methods of bulk voting for known dead voters. Mandating IDs won't stop this type of election fraud.

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

[SWTXBelle]

"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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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?

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

If fake identification is the problem that some on this thread have indicated then the question is, how big of a problem?

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.

Please note that the issue was raised by those who believe voters should not be required to show id in order to vote.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.)

... 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.

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.

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)