One of the problems for Republicans is that until the last couple of years, they almost totally ignored minority communities except at election time for poll watching. If Republicans only come around to watch the polls, that will breed deep suspicion. Also, Blacks are familiar with the history of poll taxes. That's ancient history, but that history is nevertheless pass down the generations.

I'm fine with photo ids. I would like a corresponding effort, however, to seriosuly investigate charges that it is minority neighborhoods particularly that seem to lack sufficient voting machines. In the past few years, it seems disproportionately to be minority neighborhoods in which voting lines were excessively long.

I'd take this more seriously as a good government effort on the part of the Republicans if:

1. They identified some evidence of actual voter fraud at the polls; and

2. There were some sort of corresponding effort to verify the legitimacy of absentee votes.

Consider that, in passing the bill, the Republicans voted against:

In my view, the biggest problem with photo IDs is that many senior citizens who don't drive don't have them. I think the last election shows very clearly that we can successfully campaign for every vote out there. I say open up the process and bring 'em on!

Good point about senior citizens, Sid. But they already have a better voting participation rate than any other age group, so I'm not too worried that they'll be disenfranchised. I'm sure the AARP will do all they can to ensure non-driving seniors get non-DL photo IDs.

Also, Blacks are familiar with the history of poll taxes.

Um, really? My guess is that if you ask the average person--black or white--about what a poll tax was, they won't be able to tell you. Granted, there's a deep cultural suspicion about "the Man" within the black community, but I think few really know the specifics behind it.

P.S. ILL-INI! Now let's go Michigan State and Wisconsin!

Poll taxes have a fine pedigree in this country. As I recall, there used to be a property requirement as well.

Of course the democrats are being hysterical. How are they going to find a picture id of great great grandpa that died in 1956? I know some people are slow but I think poll watcher might find something wrong with a picture of fluffy the cat. Democrats still may be able to vote multipe times but if you take away the dead and the pet votes how are they supposed to win any elections?

Cleaning up one mess is commendable and it is no objection to point out that there are other ones. There is quite a bit of fraud in absentee ballots. Does anyone know for sure or have a good speculation as to why the R's did not support the provision to clean up that mess as well?

Absentee ballots trend toward Republicans. Duh.

A better summation of the two sides' agendas might be "The Right benefits from lower turnout and the Left benefits from higher turnout. Therefore the Right will, generally, be in favor of actions which depress voter turnout and the Left will, generally, oppose those actions."

There is no doubt that requiring a voter ID will both depress turnout but that it will depress and discourage expressly those voters who, if they weren't discouraged from voting by the ID requirement, would have cast their votes for Democrats. Understanding the positions of the two sides in this matter is as easy as accepting that last sentence.

Between 6 and 10% of the electorate currently has no form of state-issued ID (Task Force on the Federal Election System -- Hansen). Moreover, those who have no ID and, more importantly those who are wary of a government ID in the first place, are comprised overwhelmingly of the urban and/or poor -- one of the Democrat's core constituencies.

The voter ID requirement not only depresses turnout of Democratic voters, but it also provides a wonderful opportunity for at-poll disenfranchisement. "This ID doesn't appear valid" is all a poll-challenger has to say to turn away a voter (don't talk to me about provisional votes, the vast majority of people will simply leave if challenged and not because they're illegitimate).

There's no evidence of any large-scale voter fraud in Indiana but just to be sure, we liberals have an alternate plan that would accomplish the same putative goal as the voter ID plan (i.e. eliminate vote fraud). It's called mandatory voting.

Each and every eligible voter should be required to cast a vote ("none of the above" counts as a vote) on election day. Other first-world countries (i.e. Australia) have such a system and such a requirement eliminates the need for a "state issued ID" and it eliminates any possibility of voter fraud.

It also sends turnout through the roof. Which exactly why Republicans will never accept it, even though it eliminates their causus belli, voter fraud.

As I said above, that's all you need to know to understand the actual war being waged.

greg

Greg,

Obviously, I disagree with many of your assertions above. But to focus on the most interesting, could you explain how mandatory voting eliminates voter fraud?

It may be obvious to you why you disagree, but it's not obvious to me and, I suspect, others. Perhaps you could share what's obvious?

Mandatory voting eliminates fraud for a number of reasons:

1) Dead/moved/etc. voters are almost immediately purged from the rolls. Registering in another area (i.e. moving) would cause one to de-register in the previous area (or face possible legal action). Not very much different from how the jury system works today.

therefore...

2) The official list of eligible voters always matches the set of actually eligible voters very closely.

so...

3) Since voting is mandatory, everyone on the list can be expected to show up on voting day. A fraudulent vote attempt would then be detected as a "collision" when two or more people attempt to vote by representing themselves as one specific individual. In this case you at a minimum can throw away the vote for that "individual" or you can conduct a further investigation to determine who it was that voted fraudulently.

In any case, you have an fairly foolproof way of knowing both how much fraud is occurring (something we don't know now) as well as which of the actual cast votes are valid.

And you can do it without requiring any form of ID at all.

greg

Greg,

I disagree both that requiring ID will significantly reduce turnout and that more Democrats than Republicans would be deterred from voting. IMHO, anyone who can't be bothered to obtain the proper ID in order to cast their vote probably hasn't educated him/herself on the issues, either, and thus isn't the sort of person I want to see deciding the future of this country. Furthermore, those who are highly aware of issues and yet would be suspicious enough of government ID to decline to vote on that basis are probably GOP voters.

As for your explanation, that's pretty much what I guessed you meant. But why would #1 and #2 be easier under a mandatory voting scheme? Seems that that could be done now, except that Democrats have also opposed efforts to purge dead or moved voters from the rolls. As for #3, it seems unlikely to me that much voter fraud occurs by people posing as other eligible voters. Even when turnout is less than 50%, that would pose a significant risk of a "collision."

Finally, I would most certainly oppose a mandatory voting scheme because I think the self-disenfranchising of apathetic citizens is a good thing. I don't want to see the votes of well-informed citizens cancelled out by people voting "eenie-meenie-mynie-moe" or for whomever has the cooler-sounding name, etc.

I disagree both that requiring ID will significantly reduce turnout and that more Democrats than Republicans would be deterred from voting.

Well that's your opinion. It's not the conclusion to which most experts in the field have come. Again, you might want to review Hansen et. al in Task Force on the Federal Election System. I'd be happy to send you the PDF (it's big) if you like.

IMHO, anyone who can't be bothered to obtain the proper ID in order to cast their vote probably hasn't educated him/herself on the issues, either, and thus isn't the sort of person I want to see deciding the future of this country.

That's a rather remarkably elitist statement and an excellent example of the exact mechanism by which this demographic becomes disenfranchised under a "mandatory" ID system. In other words, you want it to be up to you, and the rest of like-thinking people, as to who has credentials sufficient to warrant one person/one vote.

Seems that that could be done now, except that Democrats have also opposed efforts to purge dead or moved voters from the rolls.

No Democrat has ever opposed efforts to purge dead and/or moved voters from the rolls. That's disingenuous. What we've opposed is the removal of legitimate voters from the rolls predicated on a bogus rationale. Thousands of legitimate voters were removed from the Florida rolls in 2000, ostensibly under a cover of "purging felons." We didn't exactly fall off the turnip truck this morning, it's pretty transparent what's going on when the right pulls stunts like that.

As for #3, it seems unlikely to me that much voter fraud occurs by people posing as other eligible voters. Even when turnout is less than 50%, that would pose a significant risk of a "collision."

Yes, and another legitimate explanation is that there is no systematic wide-spread epidemic of voting fraud. As usual, the right has manufactured a crisis that simply does not exist in order to advance a specific strategic agenda: disenfranchisement.

Finally, I would most certainly oppose a mandatory voting scheme because I think the self-disenfranchising of apathetic citizens is a good thing.

This says everything needed to know. "apathetic citizens" is code for "might vote Democrat." If "apathetic citizens" equated to "random votes" (i.e. each apathetic vote cancels out another so the net result from all apathetic votes is no different than if you excluded them in the first place) you wouldn't have a problem, would you? But there's something about your characterization of "apathetic citizen" that makes you think the more apathetic = the more likely to vote Democrat.

Tell me, do you object also to having "apathetic citizens" on juries?

greg

Again, you might want to review Hansen et. al in Task Force on the Federal Election System. I'd be happy to send you the PDF (it's big) if you like.

Frankly, I don't have the time. Feel free to post a link, though. Or at least explain a little more about who the authors are and what this task force is.

That's a rather remarkably elitist statement

If it's elitist to prefer that voters have an idea of why they're voting for Candidate X over Candidate Y, then I'm very proud to be an elitist. Many people have died to secure and protect our democratic system; I simply don't think it's too much to ask that voters obtain proper ID and educate themselves on the issues. (Of course, I don't think the latter should be legally required, only the first.)

What we've opposed is the removal of legitimate voters from the rolls predicated on a bogus rationale.

*Ahem* It's pretty transparent what's going on when the left opposes removing bogus voters from the rolls by claiming that legitimate voters will be removed. Rhetoric is fun!

Yes, and another legitimate explanation is that there is no systematic wide-spread epidemic of voting fraud.

Just as there is no systematic wide-spread epidemic of voter disenfranchisement. But I happen to favor common-sense steps to reduce both as close to zero as possible.

This says everything needed to know. "apathetic citizens" is code for "might vote Democrat."

You are 100% wrong about that, and you just made yourself look silly by claiming it.

If "apathetic citizens" equated to "random votes" ... you wouldn't have a problem, would you?

Yes, I would have a problem. Why should we increase the time and resources spent on elections 2-3 fold in order to count millions of meaningless votes?

I just noticed something interesting here, though. Is Greg actually saying that Democratic voters are ignorant and lazy (or at least moreso than Republican voters)? I, for one, don't think that is true.

Or at least explain a little more about who the authors are and what this task force is.

From http://www.colbycc.edu/?m=8&s=221&l=813

Following the controversial Presidential election in 2000, Dr. Hansen was appointed as the coordinator of the Task Force on the Federal Election System for the National Commission on Election Reform. The task force was cochaired by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. The task force was charged with providing information regarding federal election practices and analyzing the effects of those practices. The final report of that commission, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, served as the model for important measures in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the landmark federal legislation passed in 2002.

Dr. Hansen is the dean of social sciences and the Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago.

The report itself can be downloaded from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/election2000/electionreformrpt0801.pdf

The background material, from which I will now quote, can be had at http://millercenter.virginia.edu/programs/natl_commissions/commission_final_report/task_force_report/task_force_complete.pdf

In particular:

Identification requirements present two problems for voters. First, the costs of proof of identity fall more heavily upon the voters themselves. Even if states do not require it, those that demand identification clearly prefer photo IDs. But photo identification is not universal. In the early 1990s, the United States Department of Transportation estimated that 87 percent of the voting age population held a driver’s license and another 4 percent held an identification card issued by a state driver’s license agency. A Gallup Poll in October 2000 found that 93 percent of Americans over age 16 held a motor vehicle operator’s license, an estimate that comports with the ratio of driver’s licenses issued to the voting age population of the United States, 92 percent. Accordingly, some 6 to 10 percent of the American electorate does not have official state identification, and while other kinds of photo identification are available—student IDs, military IDs, employee IDs, passports—they probably broaden the number of holders of photo identification only slightly.

Consequently, while photo IDs are certainly more secure, to require them for voting would be to impose an additional expense on the exercise of the franchise, a burden that would fall disproportionately on people who are poorer and urban. The expense and trouble of obtaining a photo identification card could be a significant deterrent to their participation in the electoral process, unless states were to issue official identification at state expense and on state initiative.

A second drawback to the requirement that voters present identification is the possibility of selective enforcement in polling places. Poll workers with the best of motives might still dispense with the requirement when voters are known to them. Poll workers with the worst of motives might deliberately use the requirement to confront and intimidate “strangers.” Either way, voters who were asked to show identification when others were not might come to feel that they were singled out.

That's from page 71 of that last link.

I'll address your other points in the next post.

greg

Is Greg actually saying that Democratic voters are ignorant and lazy (or at least moreso than Republican voters)?

I've never said that and you know it. As far as I can tell, you're the only one who has brought the "apathetic" canard to the debate.

But I will say that Democratic voters are more likely than Republican voters to be turned away from the polls by a government ID requirement. I will say that those urban and/or poor voters identified as being likely to be disenfranchised by a voter ID requirement are also more likely to vote Democratic than Republican, if they only get the chance to vote.

And I'll say that's exactly why the right is pushing for voter ID, because they understand that their affluent suburban base has no trouble with a voter ID requirement while substantial amount of the traditional Democratic base (the poor and the urban) do.

greg

The expense and trouble of obtaining a photo identification card

I can't recall what I paid to get my driver's license. It's certainly negligible compared to my annual vehicle registration fee and state inspections. Nevertheless, I would support non-DL photo ID's being free. As for the "trouble," I don't think it's too much to ask someone to spend at most an hour or two every 10 years or so, especially when that ID can be used for all sorts of things in addition to voting.

As far as I can tell, you're the only one who has brought the "apathetic" canard to the debate.

I said that if someone won't take the time to get themselves a photo ID card and/or inform themselves about the issues and candidates in an upcoming election, I'd rather not see them voting anyway. You said that citizens like that are mostly Democratic voters. That logically implies that lazy and/or ignorant citizens tend to vote Democrat.

I can't recall what I paid to get my driver's license. It's certainly negligible compared to my annual vehicle registration fee and state inspections.

The set comprising the electorate isn't the same as the set of car owners. Nor should it be. A very large portion of the very urban and the small town either choose to go without a car or cannot afford one in the first place. My father and I lived for a decade in Bloomington, in the 1970s, without owning a car. I have a well-to-do friend who's also a New Yorker who not only doesn't have a car, she's never even gotten a driver's license (and she's nearly forty).

The obsession with car = voter is a phenomena of (predominately white) sub- and exurbia. Guess what's also a predominant phenomena of that demographic? Republican voting.

Let's perform an experiment together, shall we? Let's see how long it takes to get from, say, the Miller Drive area to the Bloomington BMV, get an ID, and get back -- all on public transportation. It's a whole lot longer than an hour.

I said that if someone won't take the time to get themselves a photo ID card and/or inform themselves about the issues and candidates in an upcoming election, I'd rather not see them voting anyway.

This reflects fundamentally on your value system, not the fitness of any voter to cast his or her legitimate vote. What constitutes a proper job of "informing themselves about the issues?"

If a person comes from a family with a strong Democratic tradition and generally believes himself or herself to comport more strongly with Democratic values and subsequently votes straight-ticket Democrat (knowing nothing of the individual platforms of the Democratic candidates), you want to throw that vote out as being invalid because they didn't "research the issues" sufficiently to vote Republican?

Because I'm a college-educated affluent white male and that's how I voted for perhaps the first decade and a half of my voting career.

greg

Following up on the above, as the husband of an elected official and a successful campaign manager who's done the research into voting habits, I can tell you that, for 80% of the electorate, "researching the issues" means looking at party label. Another 15% asks their friends who they like and then votes for them.

And the final 5% actually finds out something about the candidates themselves. It appears you think only that 5% casts valid votes.

greg

Greg,

If someone identifies strongly enough with a certain party to vote a straight ticket, I have no problem with that. (For the record, I've never cast a straight ticket vote in my life, though most of my non-GOP votes have been for 3rd party candidates.)

What I have a problem with is encouraging or compelling the politically ignorant or apathetic to vote. I see no benefit in that for this republic, and I see a number of potential problems. (For instance, those who have not looked into issues for themselves are more susceptible to political ads. More political ads = more need for money in politics = more influence by rich people and corporations.)

I have laid out enough rationale here that any reasonable person can see that the motivation behind having photo ID is not partisan. Go ahead and believe otherwise if you wish, but I think that will just go to show that it is you who is viewing everything through a partisan lens.

I have laid out enough rationale here that any reasonable person can see that the motivation behind having photo ID is not partisan. Go ahead and believe otherwise if you wish, but I think that will just go to show that it is you who is viewing everything through a partisan lens.

I agree that it's a non partisan issue and that my partisanship is the exception, not the norm, with regard to voter ID requirements. I didn't think so until all the Democrats who walked out of the Indiana statehouse, because they felt that voter ID would unfairly disenfranchise Democrat voters, told me that I was the only one who viewed it as a partisan issue.

At least according to the Republicans.

Look, you've advanced a thesis: namely that fraudulent voting occurs at sufficient levels that a solution is needed. Your side has advanced one possibly solution, a solution that my side feels does less to address voter fraud (how hard is it, really, to get a fake ID?) than it does to serve to disenfranchise legitimate voters who might make the mistake of casting a Democrat ballot.

My side has advanced an alternate solution to the non-problem crisis: mandatory voting and the total participation of the electorate. This solution would accomplish, with regard to voter fraud, at least as much as the Republican proffer and probably more (see my comment about the ease of getting a fake ID). You have rejected it on the following grounds:

a) The computers may have to spend fourteen milliseconds more counting the extra votes
b) In a Democracy, the last thing you want to do is to encourage turnout because that's tantamount to encouraging voting by the hoi-polloi. A class who are, by definition, ignorant with regard to the real issues and might cast, disproportionately, Democratic ballots as a result.

My response to the former is "it ain't a problem." My response to the latter is, in a Democracy, you leave that to the schools and the parents and take your licks, regarding how good a job you did, at the polls.

greg