
'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?' - nols
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/if-i-need-id-to-buy-cough-syrup-why-shouldnt-i-need-id-to-vote/282636/
======
spindritf
The outcry in the US over requiring someone to show an ID to vote is one of
the most bizarre things to come out of that country. And, to make it even more
unusual, it's coming from the left, the very people who used to love issuing
IDs, numbers, and whose intellectual and ideological predecessors set up most
of those schemes.

Practically, as much as the anarchist in me doesn't like that, you cannot have
a mass society without strong, trusted IDs so this is a lost cause. Get used
to them.

~~~
djur
The American left is opposed to voter ID because it's a vote suppression
scheme -- not all eligible voters have IDs or have access to obtain them. The
voter ID bills have gone hand-in-hand with restrictions on early voting and
same-day voter registration, which makes the intention clear. On the other
hand, I have yet to see one of these bills accompanied by legislation intended
to help people without IDs get them.

~~~
smsm42
Would it be fair to conclude that any setup that requires ID is a suppression
scheme? I.e., if ID is required for travel - is it a travel rights suppression
scheme? If the ID is required for real estate ownership - that is a real
estate ownership suppression scheme? If the ID is required to own a firearm -
is it a firearm ownership suppression scheme?

Note I'm not asking if IDs were used in the past to suppress votes - I'm sure
there were cases where that happened. What you're claiming is that ID
requirement and voter suppression is the same, which is much stronger claim.
So what I am asking is this ID requirement that makes it suppression or how
one can distinguish suppression ones from non-suppression ones?

~~~
nknighthb
The set of people who do not have and/or will have trouble getting IDs has
little if any overlap with the set of people who travel by air, purchase real
estate, or lawfully purchase firearms.

~~~
smsm42
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?

~~~
MichaelSalib
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 penalties for breaking
the law in this way are very serious. What's more, bypassing the ID
requirement is trivial for criminals, in the same way that bored teenagers can
purchase alcohol whenever they want because forging ID cards is easy.

Note also that IDs are actually not required for flying in the US. Flying
without an ID is annoying and time consuming, but definitely doable (I've done
it).

~~~
smsm42
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?

------
Agathos
If I ever lose the right to buy cough syrup, I might win it back by voting.

If I ever lose the right to vote, can I win it back by buying cough syrup?

~~~
smsm42
Americans lost rights to buy marijuana in 1937. Winning it back by voting
turned out not that easy in next 70 or so years.

And, btw, if you try to still use you right to own marijuana, you become a
felon, which - surprise! - means you lose rights to vote. See how nicely it
works out?

~~~
Jtsummers
> you become a felon, which - surprise! - means you lose rights to vote

Fortunately not in all states. Some allow you to vote, some allow you to vote
after you're released or your sentence (including probation or just
incarceration) is complete. [1]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States)

------
leot
Any electoral fraud that relies on having bunches of people vote multiple
times _necessarily_ relies on there being a conspiracy of >100 people in order
for it to be effective (this is the only kind of fraud that can be prevented
by demanding that voters produce photo ID).

But if a conspiracy is required, then why not address that directly? Offer a
$500,000 reward and immunity to any one who provides information about a
conspiracy that could have changed the result of an election. Voila: no more
"voter fraud".

~~~
zacharytelschow
How does vote fraud necessarily rely on a conspiracy? In many states, knowing
someone's name and address is sufficient to vote as that person as long as
they've previously registered. Any individual can show up at the polling place
multiple times and vote as someone else and it would be very difficult to
prove they'd done so.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Let's say I show up at the polling place and try to vote in someone else's
name. If they've already voted, then I'm in deep trouble. In fact, my polling
place often has a police officer hanging out on election day. If they haven't
voted but come to vote after me, they're in deep trouble. Either way, there's
going to be a big stink and a police report. Moreover, I can't vote more than
once in the same precinct: I need to go elsewhere lest I'm recognized, and in
most of the US, elsewhere is actually quite far away.

It really doesn't make sense spending money to prevent attacks that are
completely economically infeasible.

Besides, let's say we require ID for voting. Now, everyone who illegally voted
before can continue illegally voting: all they have to do is get some fake
IDs, which any bored teenager looking for beer can do.

~~~
Casseres
Every place I've been to vote, the election workers had a printed list of
people who could vote and would highlight their names once they voted. It's in
plain view and it would be easy to read the names and find one to use while
waiting in line to get your ballet.

~~~
MichaelSalib
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 the poll workers noticing are zero.

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

~~~
MichaelSalib
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.

------
mschuster91
I don't know what the fuck makes me more sick:

1) that in the US, an electricity bill is sufficient for voting ID purposes
(WTF)

or 2) that the US don't have mandatory ID cards. Even our new German ID cards
only cost €20 apiece, and if you're too poor you can get benefits. Hello, ID
fraud.

~~~
buckbova
I was given a national ID card, it's call a social security card. That is my
unique identifying number as an American.

~~~
smsm42
SSN weren't designed as unique identifying numbers - in fact, until 1972 the
cards explicitly said it should not be used as such. It is also way too short
to be unique ID within imaginable timeframe. The fact that it is used as such
is because americans have no choice - no other common ID to use. Some use name
+ birthdate instead, but that's even worse.

~~~
buckbova
Add another few digits and we're good, kinda like ipv6.

------
dragonwriter
Citing the War on (selected) Drugs to justify the War on Democracy! Yay!

~~~
zacharytelschow
If that doesn't appease you, how about... Driving a car. Renting a car.
Staying in a hotel room. Flying on a plane. Opening a bank account.

Many, many things in life require photo ID. It's amazing how that's accepted
as normal but somehow outrageous when voting is involved.

~~~
tzs
The ID requirement for renting a car or staying in a hotel is not designed to
prevent people from renting cars or staying in hotels. It is to protect the
rental company or the hotel from actual risks.

The recent ID laws for voting in the US are designed solely to prevent people
from voting. The ID requirement are designed to require procedures and
documentation that is hardest for poor people and minorities--coincidentally
people who tend to not vote for the party that is pushing voter ID laws.

The proponents state it is to reduce voter fraud, but fraud based on
exploiting a lack of ID requirements is close to if not nonexistent in the US.

------
zacharytelschow
In WI, if you can't afford an ID you can get one for free for voting purposes
(heading "FREE Wisconsin ID cards for voting"):
[http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.ht...](http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm)

------
callesgg
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.

~~~
warble
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.

~~~
slurry
Yes, but other countries do voting without the need to pre-register. Some US
states (e.g. Iowa) do voting with same day registration.

I might actually be okay with an ID requirement if we also got rid of the
previous registration requirement.

------
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-...](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367278/report-new-york-
investigators-obtain-fraudulent-ballots-97-percent-time-john-fund)

------
poke111
Why does everyone say that no large scale voter fraud ever happened in the US?
What about the presidential election of 1960?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies)

Even small scale fraud is enough to tip a close election, and I don't think
too many people doubt that it does happen.

------
viggity
i'm just going to put this right here:

[http://imgur.com/78MF5i0](http://imgur.com/78MF5i0)

------
holograham
I think an interesting question is how many of the 21 million without IDs
regularly vote (or have ever voted)?

Hypothesis: Less than 50%

------
bigdogc
you cant make meth out of voting cards. you can out of cough syrup!

------
vampirechicken
Right to vote vs right to Psuedoeffedrine?

