Ray Jay wrote:

JimHackerMP wrote:Have they really done that, though? Reduced democracy? I honestly cannot speak for Wisconsin, but in MD what I said is true: it takes minimal effort to get a non-driver state ID.

Always good to have the experience of someone who actually lives and votes in this country. Here in Mass. it would be so easy to commit voter fraud. There's no id requirement. All you have to do is declare your address and your name. There are big books in front of you with large enough print (perhaps because the age of the average poll worker is 70 -- and I thank them for their service) that I can see the Party of my neighbors. For local elections since there is such low turnout, you can just go to all sorts of polling stations to vote. Find a name and an address, and take it. They put a pencil mark next to the name. That's it. Even if the real person shows up later, what can they do? Tell them they cannot vote because they already have? It's insane.

The other insane part of this is that Ricky keeps telling us that the U.S. should look to the experience of other western countries on voter id. And then when we do he talks about American exceptionalism.

But is it actually a problem? Are we devising solutions on the assumption of solving for a non-issue? We should at least start trying to measure the problem first.

Then evaluate the solutions in a cost/benefit analysis. The costs are both financial and in terms of whether it results in genuine voters missing. The benefits being a reduction in fraud.

Also, the way the Mass system works looks exactly the same as ours, except that we don't have party registration. There are codes for nationality groups as we allow certain non-UK citizens to vote in certain elections.

Where we appear to have seen real voter fraud is in postal ballots, and not so much with "personation"

danivon wrote:Also, the way the Mass system works looks exactly the same as ours, except that we don't have party registration. There are codes for nationality groups as we allow certain non-UK citizens to vote in certain elections.

Where we appear to have seen real voter fraud is in postal ballots, and not so much with "personation"

Isn't your country moving to voter id with photos? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-25641801

You cannot measure fraud ... people don't self report when they commit felonies. It's not ok, particularly as the country fractures. It's a broken window thing.

Part of the country fracturing is a mostly white Republican Party. seeking to reduce minority votes with voter ID laws. The modern poll tax. it may be a small impediment--though for some who are poor, disabled, without access to transportation, it's burdensome-but it's designed to reduce votes by minorities.

Voting fraud is not easy. I am curious--how would one go about doing it? When a person votes the polling person asks you your name. You only get to vote if you're at the correct polling place for your name. So for someone to commit voting fraud they would have to know the name of a registered voter who is supposed to vote at the polling place. So where would they get that information? They would also need to guess that the person they are going to vote for is not going to vote. Obviously, if the actual person already voted then the second person might be in a lot of trouble. If the actual voter shows up later to vote then presumably voter fraud would be reported. But this doesn't happen.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Particularly not for political advantage to screw minorities.

freeman3 wrote:Part of the country fracturing is a mostly white Republican Party. seeking to reduce minority votes with voter ID laws. The modern poll tax. it may be a small impediment--though for some who are poor, disabled, without access to transportation, it's burdensome-but it's designed to reduce votes by minorities.

Voting fraud is not easy. I am curious--how would one go about doing it? When a person votes the polling person asks you your name. You only get to vote if you're at the correct polling place for your name. So for someone to commit voting fraud they would have to know the name of a registered voter who is supposed to vote at the polling place. So where would they get that information? They would also need to guess that the person they are going to vote for is not going to vote. Obviously, if the actual person already voted then the second person might be in a lot of trouble. If the actual voter shows up later to vote then presumably voter fraud would be reported. But this doesn't happen.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Particularly not for political advantage to screw minorities.

Right, I understand; I want everyone to vote.

But all you have to do is look at a phone book to find a name, address. It's public record where every person votes. (We have only 1 voting spot in my town.) So you call your pal from the next town over and tell him his name and address and where to vote. in a local election you may only have 15% of the voters show up. You may know who votes or who doesn't. But there are big stakes these days, whether you have an oil interest or belong to a union.

People steal; people lie; people cheat -- you know that, right? given the importance of elections, why wouldn't you take a minimal step to prevent voter fraud?

ok. So let's fix this with a non-partisan commission that will come up with ideas on how to balance the interests involved here instead of a partisan solution. Probably if you allow non-photo government ID (social security card, medicare) you take care of most of the potential problem while still allowing people to vote. It doesn't sit well--though a reasonable argument could be made for voter ID--that Republicans are doing this primarily for political advantage at the expense of minorities.

freeman3 wrote:ok. So let's fix this with a non-partisan commission that will come up with ideas on how to balance the interests involved here instead of a partisan solution. Probably if you allow non-photo government ID (social security card, medicare) you take care of most of the potential problem while still allowing people to vote. It doesn't sit well--though a reasonable argument could be made for voter ID--that Republicans are doing this primarily for political advantage at the expense of minorities.

Give every citizen a photo ID that must be used. Simple... Also it could be used for SSI payments...

freeman3 wrote:ok. So let's fix this with a non-partisan commission that will come up with ideas on how to balance the interests involved here instead of a partisan solution. Probably if you allow non-photo government ID (social security card, medicare) you take care of most of the potential problem while still allowing people to vote. It doesn't sit well--though a reasonable argument could be made for voter ID--that Republicans are doing this primarily for political advantage at the expense of minorities.

Agree on fixing it with a non-partisan commission and that a non-photo id is better than nothing.

I do think you sell poor people and minorities short when you assume that a significant number are not capable of getting photo ids, especially on the assumption that unions and other Democrats will mobilize to help them.

(cross posted with Brad's next post which is also fine by me.)

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:Also, the way the Mass system works looks exactly the same as ours, except that we don't have party registration. There are codes for nationality groups as we allow certain non-UK citizens to vote in certain elections.

Where we appear to have seen real voter fraud is in postal ballots, and not so much with "personation"

Isn't your country moving to voter id with photos? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-25641801

You cannot measure fraud ... people don't self report when they commit felonies. It's not ok, particularly as the country fractures. It's a broken window thing.

Apparently. Not seen anything since then about how the Electoral Commission plans to implement the scheme, whether law needs to be changed. I imagine if we do not soon, there will be complaints at short notice. And so far. Apart from a few stories two years ago and brief mentions for last year's election that add no more detail, and so I expect most people missed it. I have to say I did. And I have reservations until I see more detail.

As the report outlines, the fraud has previously been at registration and postal voting. Which has been proven and observed and so measures are being taken to address them.

In Northern Ireland, where ID is required, people who don't have other forms can get it for free. I hope the rest-of-UK model matches it.

But you can measure personation. There are some simple ways - sample some voters and check if they actually voted. Monitor for anyone finding they had "already voted".

Besides which, if you can't measure it, how do you know you have eliminated it? Sure you could assume photo ID fixes it, but that does not account for fake ID, collusion with poll workers, etc.

A lot of countries use an indelible ink to stop duplicate voting, which seems easy to implement as an alternative to ID

freeman3 wrote:ok. So let's fix this with a non-partisan commission that will come up with ideas on how to balance the interests involved here instead of a partisan solution. Probably if you allow non-photo government ID (social security card, medicare) you take care of most of the potential problem while still allowing people to vote. It doesn't sit well--though a reasonable argument could be made for voter ID--that Republicans are doing this primarily for political advantage at the expense of minorities.

Very non-partisan.

How about this for "non-partisan": Democrats want to make it as easy as possible for those ineligible to vote to do so anyway.

Brad and RJ are right: the problem is easily resolved. However, Democrats want the issue, not a resolution.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:ok. So let's fix this with a non-partisan commission that will come up with ideas on how to balance the interests involved here instead of a partisan solution. Probably if you allow non-photo government ID (social security card, medicare) you take care of most of the potential problem while still allowing people to vote. It doesn't sit well--though a reasonable argument could be made for voter ID--that Republicans are doing this primarily for political advantage at the expense of minorities.

Very non-partisan.

How about this for "non-partisan": Democrats want to make it as easy as possible for those ineligible to vote to do so anyway.

Brad and RJ are right: the problem is easily resolved. However, Democrats want the issue, not a resolution.

I know. Indelible ink is so elegant.

Is there a 100% effective plan to implement photo ID voting requirements?

Is there a 100% effective plan to ensure there are no fraud issues?

No on either instance. What is the problem with a government issued photo ID REQUIRED for voting and receiving benefits or buying a weapon? If someone uses this ID fraudulently, then try, convict and incarcerate the individual.

This is what I mean by simple. If there is a better plan, I would love to hear it.

This is not some made up issue for Democrats; we would be quite fine with the way things were--Republicans do quite enough to alienate minority voters without voter ID laws. If a state put in a voter ID law and combined it with substantial efforts to identify those who would be disenfranchised, made serious efforts to make sure those folks would get ID, provided a transition period where other types of ID were allowed, helped to pay for costs for getting an ID, and publicized the new laws through public ads then I think Democrats would be more receptive. If Republicans were really concerned about fraud then that's how the laws would be done. But, no, they do almost nothing to make sure people can get IDs or help the poor pay for any costs associated for paying for the IDs.

You guys are well-intentioned about this issue; the Republican Party most assuredly is not. Though it would be pretty funny if minority turn-out was higher because minority voters who have ID turned out in higher numbers because they are upset about the voter ID laws...

Speaking of irony..it's more than a little ironic that Hillary if she wins the Democratic nomination will owe a large debt to the black community...who Bill Clinton's Republican-lite strategy of welfare reform and passing the crime bill arguably negatively affected. And of course Bernie would do more for the black community than Hillary, at least if any of his policies get passed. Relationships can matter more than policy sometimes, I guess. I am not sure that Bill Clinton's "hopped up on crack" remark is going down too well in the black community, however.

Freeman, would you agree that my plan is better than the current?

Don't we already have that--a US passport?