Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?'

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: 'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?'

#111

Post by nsp »

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #104
MichaelSalib wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should do some research on voting in the US. You can start by looking at web pages like this: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleifv/howreg.htm

Thanks. I clicked on that. And then the "Massachusetts Mail-in Voter Registration form (PDF) – English" link. In the instructions for that PDF form, #7 says: Federal law requires that you provide your driver’s license number to register to vote. If you do not have a current and valid Massachusetts driver's license, you must provide the last four digits of your social security number. If you have neither, you must wri…

"Acceptable identification must include your name and the address at which you are registered to vote, for example: a current and valid driver’s license, photo identification, current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document showing your name and address."

A utility bill isn't a photo id.

Re: 'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?'

#112

Post by poke111 »

Another data point that suggests that voter fraud is a real problem: The New York City Department of Investigation reported that their undercover agents were able to obtain fraudulent ballots with a 97% success rate. It's likely that fraud is happening and we just aren't aware of it:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367278/report-new-york-...

Re: 'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?'

#113

Post by callesgg »

warble wrote: post #7
callesgg wrote: post #5

It is interesting how USA is portrayed as a leading country. Amongst things, What is the point of having to register to vote. All the fucked up bureaucracy that USA has reminds me more of a dictatorship than a democracy.

one person = one vote, so you need to track who voted. I don't think the way we do it is necessarily effective, but that's the justification. Your other comments are probably justified though.

Here in Sweden one just goes to the voting place(in ones district) shows their ID and one gets checked of the list.

The List is just a list of every one that lives in the area.

Re: 'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?'

#114

Post by MichaelSalib »

Casseres wrote: post #110
MichaelSalib wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you could maybe read a name...and then you have to show up later in front of the same election worker who checked you in earlier. Don't you think they'd recognize you? When I vote, I have to make eye contact and speak with four different poll workers. The odds that I could vote several times without any of them noticing are very low. The odds that a bunch of people could each vote many times over without any of…

You read the name and vote with that name, not your own... Go to next polling station and repeat with a different name.

And what happens when someone whom you voted as shows up to vote? I mean, if this is going to happen on a large enough scale to affect the outcome of an election, that event has to happen many times. Which means poll workers and police are going to record many cases of voter fraud.

So, can you show me an election in the US where that has happened? Even just one?

Or is this a fantasy?

The point is that if each fraudulent voter has to go to multiple polling stations, that dramatically increases the cost and raises the likelihood of detection. In order to scale that attack up to be practical, you'd need buses full of fraudulent voters going from one station to the next.

Re: 'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?'

#116

Post by smsm42 »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #63
smsm42 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't asking about which sets of people overlap or not. I was asking what makes ID requirement be identical with suppression - is it ID requirement itself or something else? If it is something else - what exactly it is? Is it where set of people is relevant - it is OK to ask some people to show the papers but not the others? Which people should be exempt and which should not be?

We know that voter id requirements are based in voter suppression because those requirements are targeted to preventing an attack that is economically infeasible and they don't even effectively mitigate the attack. Look at my other comments in this thread for the details, but in brief, the cost of using voter impersonation fraud is extremely high, the probability that authorities will detect it is also high, and the…

Most voter ID proposal I've read also make voting without ID annoying and time consuming, but doable. This is taken as a clear evidence the goal is voter suppression. Thus I am asking, why the same thing with flying is not considered movement rights suppression?

I don't see how without ID checks cost and detection probability of voter fraud is high. You just get a list of guys who are dead or in jail or otherwise aren't going to show up (shouldn't be that hard to do), and pay somebody some small sum to show up at the polling place and vote as the name on the list. Where's the high cost in that?

Re: 'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?'

#117

Post by smsm42 »

nknighthb wrote: post #81
smsm42 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence of widespread terror campaign in US airport and yet TSA grabs my balls each time I fly, and NSA collects my phone calls. There's no evidence of widespread harm from drugs like marijuana and yet thousands of people are jailed for mere possession of it. There's no evidence of gun bans be effective measure of crime control and yet cities like Chicago and Washington insist on it. There's no evidence R…

I am and have been an opponent of the TSA, NSA wiretaps, drug prohibition, the DMCA, SOPA, copyright extensions, and the criminalization of everyday life from their inception and/or for my entire adult life. I disagree fundamentally on the lack of evidence for gun bans. You don't get to argue that we're wrong about this being bad just because there are other bad things out there!

That's not my argument. My argument was that saying "there's no evidence of X so nobody could genuinely support measures to combat X" is nonsense - there are plenty of examples of existing laws and regulations purported to combat things that either do not exist or not dangerous or way less dangerous that the laws against them. Still, people support them despite the evidence. So the argument "anybody that supports voter ID must be after voter suppression" makes no sense - there are plenty of people that support voter ID because they think voter fraud is a problem or can be a problem, not because they want to suppress voters.

Re: 'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?'

#118

Post by smsm42 »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #63
smsm42 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't asking about which sets of people overlap or not. I was asking what makes ID requirement be identical with suppression - is it ID requirement itself or something else? If it is something else - what exactly it is? Is it where set of people is relevant - it is OK to ask some people to show the papers but not the others? Which people should be exempt and which should not be?

We know that voter id requirements are based in voter suppression because those requirements are targeted to preventing an attack that is economically infeasible and they don't even effectively mitigate the attack. Look at my other comments in this thread for the details, but in brief, the cost of using voter impersonation fraud is extremely high, the probability that authorities will detect it is also high, and the…

Here's an experiment: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367278/report-new-york-...

I.e. there are zero controls for the ballots, at least in New York. What data your assertion that this is impossible bases on, again?

Post reply on HN