11–20 of 255 posts
I'd rather a library card take almost no information as well, but you could run into issues with stealing, so it makes sense that it would take more.
I don't see any particular reason why the identification process for a corporation should be more stringent than a library card. What is astonishing to me is that both are meaningfully more stringent than voting. In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/register-to-vot...
I don't see any particular reason why the identification process for a corporation should be more stringent than a library card. What is astonishing to me is that both are meaningfully more stringent than voting. In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/register-to-vot...
My thoughts on this are old school. Like 1700's old school.
A person's right to vote exists with or without documentation. A piece of paper, an entry in a ledger, or a row in a database has no bearing on whether that right exists, or should be exercised.
In many of the states where I've lived (13 so far), all that was needed to vote in the absence of identification was to sign an affidavit stating that I am who I say I am. The people at the polling station could ask for ID, but they couldn't require it. It's up to the people who handle the vote (often the county clerk or county board of elections) to decide later if my vote was valid or not.
A lot of that is changing these days as the concept of being constantly tracked, monitored, and tabulated becomes normalized in America.
Just a generation ago we made fun of the Soviet Union and various totalitarian regimes for having police stop people for no reason and demanding, "papers, please." Now there are people who think it's perfectly OK to require domestic passports ("Real ID" and similar) just to walk down the street.
I wonder if two generations from now people will think we're old and crazy because we don't think it's OK for the government to require a chip be implanted in our brains so our thoughts can be monitored by bureaucratic minders.
It's sounds like tinfoil hat sci-fi slippery slopism, but so would today's facial recognition in airports to people just 50 years ago.
I don't see any particular reason why the identification process for a corporation should be more stringent than a library card. What is astonishing to me is that both are meaningfully more stringent than voting. In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/register-to-vot...
Voting is a constitutional right, forming a corporation or getting a library card is not.
I don't see any particular reason why the identification process for a corporation should be more stringent than a library card. What is astonishing to me is that both are meaningfully more stringent than voting. In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/register-to-vot...
To the contrary: There were only four known cases of voter fraud in the 2016 elections[0]; more stringent voting requirements suppresses voting, especially by poor, black and/or Latinx voters.[1] It certainly seems the case that more damage has been done to society via corporations to which no human person can be associated than by voter fraud. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-... [1] h…
Seems like we should focus on making sure poor/minorities have easy/free access to IDs, rather than keeping the voting process lax.
I don't see any particular reason why the identification process for a corporation should be more stringent than a library card. What is astonishing to me is that both are meaningfully more stringent than voting. In Minnesota for example, all one needs is another registered voter to vouch for them. https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/register-to-vot...
To the contrary: There were only four known cases of voter fraud in the 2016 elections[0]; more stringent voting requirements suppresses voting, especially by poor, black and/or Latinx voters.[1] It certainly seems the case that more damage has been done to society via corporations to which no human person can be associated than by voter fraud. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-... [1] h…
If there is voter fraud, it might go away if we got reliable detection. Fraud is less likely when being caught is certain, and it is far more likely when being caught is about as likely as getting hit by lightening.
Even if there isn't voter fraud, the mere fact that people are worried about it is undermining trust in our elections. That needs to be fixed, and the only way to fix it is to have a means to prove that there is no voter fraud.