# Voter ID cards... help me understand this



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

It seems to me that the 2000 election exposed a problem with our elections. No, I don't regard the outcome as a problem. I regard our arguing about the result 6 years later to be an embarassing problem...

My assumption at the time was that we'd see the following changes in voting in America.

A. A certified photo ID voter registration card.
B. Uniform voting standards in National elections.

I am amazed that neither happened.

Since the 'motor/voter' drives have made it very easy to get a license and a voter reg card for those who are not allowed to vote I am more concerned on that one. Here in Texas there has been a loud outcry over immigration and threats by non-citizens in this country illegally to ensure that anyone who supports enforcing existing laws or creating new ones will be voted out. Seems... wrong.

So here's my question: A few states have proposed a voter ID card and all hell broke loose. It's a poll tax, it is designed to suppress the minority vote. It's racist.
Huh?

The proposal I read said that anyone who could not afford the $5 or $8 (I forget which) would get it for free. No problem for the poor or non-mobile... the state would pay for someone to come to you with the proper forms and get it done at no cost.

So... I think a federally issued ID is a great idea, something tamper proof and verifiable. This should be free and issued with certain criteria to alleviate any fears, rational or otherwise, about discrimination. It should discriminate only against those who are not entitled to one.

I'd like a combination SS card and voter registration card with a photograph and thumbprint. Someone tell me why this is bad if:
A. No cost to the citizen
B. Those who can't get to wherever they are issued get free transportation to get it done.
C. I don't love this one but it ends a lot of paranoid conspiracy theories. If a wanted criminal or illegal alien applies the verification fails and it just says 'do not issue ID' - you can't be arrested while applying for one. Convicted felons would get one that will not work at voting booths. They can still work.

One, standardized, tamper proof ID card. You need one to vote. To vote you have to swipe your card and put your thumb on a thumbpad so we know that it is you voting. Have everyone vote on the same machine, require every licensed FCC station play public service announcements explaining it and have it print out a completed ballot where the voter has to clearly mark that they approve it before placing it in a secure ballot box in the event of technical glitches requiring a certain hand recount.

The same ID becomes the default ID for employee verification. Got employees without one? You get fined $20K per infraction.

With the caveat that every person legally entitled to one can get one without cost or undue burden of getting to the DMV or whomever distributes them, what is a valid objection to this? The technology is there and the voter did not have to pay for it - the credit card companies already developed this technology.

IMHO there is no reasonable objection that could be raised unless you are in favor of voter fraud and/or are in favor of not enforcing our laws.

Anyone care to take the opposing view?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> IMHO there is no reasonable objection that could be raised unless you are in favor of voter fraud and/or are in favor of not enforcing our laws.
> 
> Anyone care to take the opposing view?


I think you can be against voter fraud and in favor of enforcing our laws and still be against the ID card. It just reminds me a little too much of those old movies where the German officials were demanding "Papers please".


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I am in favor of producing ID when voting (how can you not be?). I am not in favor of a national ID card, although my understanding is that driver's licenses are being upgraded to a national standard as a backdoor way of establishing a national ID card without actually calling it that.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Having the federal government issue identification cards is probably unconstitutional - especially in relation to voting in elections. Since the right to vote is a fundamental right, they would have to show that id cards serve a compelling state interest, and that the id card law is narrowly tailored (and I think having it linked to employment and all the other stuff you mentioned would defeat narrow tailoring) to that compelling state interest - historically a standard that is almost impossible to overcome.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

OK, 
Mpcsb doesn't like it because it gives him the willies. Honest answer but WHY?

Alanc - against it but no explanation

Odoreater... Hmm....
Ok, one at a time. 
Is the right to vote a fundamental right and if so for whom? Your right to vote can be taken away if you are convicted of a felony so (and you are the lawyer, not me) is it a fundamental right or is it a conditional right? Do illegal immigrants using a stolen SSN to get a driver's license and thus a voter registration card have a fundamental right to vote? They are doing so and very clearly disenfranchises an equal number of registered legal voters.

As to the compelling interest I think that's pretty easy. If we do not do everything we can to ensure an honest vote and an honest count then the credibility of our government is suspect. There is a compelling interest in ensuring that every citizen who is entitled to vote can be assured that not only will their vote count but it can't be negated by the fraudulent vote of someone who votes twice or votes when they are not a citizen of this country. A dirty little secret nobody likes to discuss is that there are a lot of folks out there voting who are not legal citizens and have no right, fundamental or otherwise, to vote for my government. As a citizen, my rights are violated when someone votes illegally just as surely as if I am prevented from casting my vote. If that is not a compelling interest when discussing voting rights, what is?

To the narrow tailoring argument you may have me, that is an area of ignorance for me so let's make that a seperate discussion for another time and focus on voting rights.

I would argue, and I think most people would agree, that if the electoral process is suspect then our government is suspect and our nation is severely weakened. I can think of few public interests more compelling than public confidence in the electoral process. Our government draws it's power and authority from the common belief that our representatives are honestly chosen.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> OK,
> Mpcsb doesn't like it because it gives him the willies. Honest answer but WHY?


I think it would be very easy to 'require' that this card be used for other things. Remember when the SSN number was required for many things, to get a drivers license, college admission forms - all kinds of things. Just as I don't like the government telling me when and where I could smoke, the trans-fat or froi gras I am or am not allowed to eat, whether I can or can't burn a flag (soon to be I think) - it's all related...too much government regulation. What's the quote...something like: That government governs best which governs least.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

OK, so the objection is that it might be used for other nefarious purposes as yet undefined.

What about the need to ensure an honest vote? The ID card aside, would you be in favor of some means that would ensure that everyone who casts a vote IS the person they purport to be, that they only vote once and that they are legally entitled to vote?

I'd be fine with an alternative way to ensure the latter, my exasperation is with what seems like a refusal in this country to address a very large gaping problem because if the potential for as yet undefined ways in which knowing who you are might be abused.

I think that line of reasoning has been addressed in the courts - the police can ask you to identify yourself and can hold you until your identity is established if you fail to comply with their request, right?

So what new constraint is being imposed on us if we all have to add a standardized form of id to our wallet? We all get a driver's license or state issued ID card in order to drive, open a bank account or get a job. What changes if we simply replace the need to show one form of ID with another ID that has more integrity? With identity theft such a hot topic in this day and age having a means to prove that you are you and the guy claiming to be you when writing checks is not would seem important as well????

Anyone want to take the position that ensuring voter identity is not good or propose a different way of stopping fraud?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Chuck - the right to vote is a fundamental right of _citizens_ of the United States. Therefore, non-citizens (be they legal or illegal) do not have a fundamental right to vote. Inmates do not have a right to vote because the Supreme Court has held that the law taking this right away from them serves a compelling governmental interest.

I agree with you that there is a compelling interest for the government to protect the legitimacy of the voting process, but the narrow tailoring is where you will run into problems with the national ID card program. I mean, we don't even have the card yet and you're already tacking additional uses on to the card - can you imagine what they'll tack on after we get it?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I'm pretty radical when it comes to Constitutional questions. I don't think that government has the legitimate authority to do anything other than what people agree to voluntarily, which means that I basically do not believe in the idea of the modern State, democracy, etc. (It would take a long time to explain.)

But, _*if*_ you accept the idea of the legitimacy of a democratic State, then I don't see how you could deny that such a government has the power to confirm the identity of voters.

I am licensed in several states, and so I have taken a few bar exams. Each time, I had to produce multiple forms of positive ID, including photos and fingerprints. I consider the practice of my livelihood to be a right that is as "fundamental" as voting. But, before I could do so, the State said I had to certify my competence. (I think they should have to certify _their_ competence, but that's another story.) As part of that process, they had to verify that the person whose competence they were certifying was actually me. If you accept the idea that these people have the power to certify my competence, then it seems like you also agree that they have the power to confirm the identity of those they are certifying.

So, with voting, if you accept the idea that the State has the power to declare that only certain people are authorized to vote, then you also accept the idea that the State can confirm the identity of those voters. The distinction between photo ID versus non-photo-ID seems pretty trivial to me.

Will the State use that photo ID for other purposes? Of course it will. We lost the battle for limited government a _long_ time ago.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> OK,
> Mpcsb doesn't like it because it gives him the willies. Honest answer but WHY?
> 
> Alanc - against it but no explanation
> ...


Hmmm...
Conditional rights - Free speech, voting, keeping and bearing arms, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, right to a speedy trial, protection against self-incrimination... All the foregoing can be limited or eliminated for legal reasons.

Fundamental rights - Life, liberty.

I don't have a problem with a voter ID card, provided it is only used on election day.

I do have a problem with the way that the U.S. Government is so heavy handed when it comes to elections. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that calls for *any* national elections. Every representative and senator is elected by the several states. The elections for President are really only elections for *state* electors. I also believe that the two senators from each state should be appointed by the respective legislatures. The founding fathers had it correct in the first place. The Feds should butt out, unless someone's U.S. rights are violated.

In no election do the citizens of the U.S. vote for any national office or issue. I want everyone who is eligible, to be registered; but frankly, I don't care if they vote or not.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I also believe that the two senators from each state should be appointed by the respective legislatures.


1913 was a dark year -- the income tax, the Federal Reserve and direct election of senators.

When fellow AAAC forum member JLPWCXIII says that 1910 was the height of civilization, I am inclined to agree with him.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Phinn said:


> 1913 was a dark year -- the income tax, the Federal Reserve and direct election of senators.
> 
> When fellow AAAC forum member JLPWCXIII says that 1910 was the height of civilization, I am inclined to agree with him.


Thank you, good Sir.

I tend to agree with Mr Franke, that if a government is determined to have a national ID card, it should at least go about it with intelligence and purpose and do it right, and not permit it to be done half-baked and _ad hoc_. The same advantage would seem to apply to standardising and streamlining America's healthcare system as well.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> The same advantage would seem to apply to standardising and streamlining America's healthcare system as well.


I'm afraid I would have to disagree on this point.

There is a market for medical services. A very large one. It is an economic good. Consumers buy it, and so producers work very hard to provide it. For that reason, decentralization improves efficiency. A monolithic system would prevent local variation and adaptability among producers. It limits choice and flexibility. Uniformity imposed by a central authority does not improve the quality of goods or services. Try using a Soviet washing machine, if you doubt.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

The objections here are different than the ones I hear from the politicians and activists against such a policy. They were pulling out the good old race card and saying that requiring someone to produce a valid form of positive ID for an election was the equivalent of a poll tax designed to keep away minorities.

Now that's insulting - to minorities IMHO.

Multiple standards and procedures just lends itself to multiple opportunities to cheat. 

Back to the whole argument over rights in the first place. It's always been my view that inherent to every right is an inextricable and equally important responsibility. I have a right to vote, I have a responsibility to make sure I am registered and I have a responsibility to go vote - that ensures that someone else doesn't go vote in my name without me knowing it.

Why providing definitive identification in order to vote is even a question just boggles my mind and instantly makes me wonder what the guy objecting is plotting.

Oh well, incredible as it may seem, they didn't ask my advice prior to setting the policies.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> The objections here are different than the ones I hear from the politicians and activists against such a policy.


That's because they are professional liars and propagandists.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2006)

This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but why worry about ID'ing the voters (to prevent fraud), when no one is worrying about the voting machines?

Reading about Diebold and other voting machines, they have horrible to non-existent security, with no audit trail. The code is private, so no one can even audit it to see if there are security risks. How can you trust what they even say, when you can't prove they are correct? ATM's and gambling machines (slots and the like) have way higher standards to prove non-tampering and accuracy, why don't we have that for our votes?

Protecting only one link of the voting process will not help if you don't protect every link.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Phinn said:


> 1913 was a dark year -- the income tax, the Federal Reserve and direct election of senators.
> 
> When fellow AAAC forum member JLPWCXIII says that 1910 was the height of civilization, I am inclined to agree with him.


You read my mind.

When I explain why I'm against direct election of Senators, a lot of people actually agree with me! The Senate selection process was broken, but by "fixing" it with popular election, they broke the whole check-and-balance system. But I digress...

I'm against them because it smirks of "show me your papers, please!" We all know how the Commerce Clause has been stretched and interpretted. If there were National ID voter cards, later you wouldn't be able to board an airplane, drive on highways, purchase pharacueticals or spray paint or fertilizer, get insurance, apply for a job, march in a protest, publish a pamphlet, buy a gun, etc without presenting your papers. Oh wait, you already have to present your papers to buy a new gun and some (socialist-Democrats) are pushing for free speech permits...

Sure, democracies need a way to limit fraud. Maybe voters need to identify themselves, but a National ID is not the way to do it.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Ok, but you already do that...
*board an airplane*, -_ Government photo ID required_
*drive on highways*, - _Government issued Photo ID and permit required_
*purchase pharmacueticals* - _Even non-prescription Bronkaid or other over the counter methamphetamine precursors require photo and signature, can only imagine what morphine derivs require_
*or spray paint or fertilizer* - _Not sure spraypaint requires more than a check of your age but if you want to purchase a truckload of ammonium nitrate you best have a farm and you will be showing ID - thank God! The junior Jihadist who blew himself all over the quad during a football game in Norman last year had tried to purchase fertilizer. Had he succeeded the difference might have been my family being dead instead of shaken up by the blast 200 yards away.. little ***** won't try that twice._
*get insurance*, _Assuming motor vehicle, they copy your license and run a check on it. I think they do background checks on other types too with all the insurance fraud out there._
*apply for a job*, _Your employer sure as heck was supposed to verify your SS card and 2 forms of ID_
*march in a protest*, _If you apply for a permit I think you have to show ID. I don't know - Republicans don't really march, we kinda just wander around the golf course grumbling about those who do . _
*publish a pamphlet*, - _Hard to see this one happening, I have an $800 printer on my desk, only needs plugging in, no ID. You want a matte or glossy finish?_
*buy a gun*, - _Already requires ID and an FBI background check, right? If you want to carry it concealed in Texas you also need a carry permit. Picture on mine is scarier than the gun. _
*etc* _Not sure about etcetera. While I share the general disdain for busybody government beuracracies I generally don't worry so much about alleged invasions of my privacy._

I call overseas all the time, have my conversations bored any NSA guys? Is there a CRAY in the basement trying to decode "No No No NO damnit, that's the warp color, not the weft color!" ...could be, not worried, not plotting anything nasty. I frankly don't give a flip what the government knows about me so long as how they can use it is strictly limited by statute. Want to listen to my call while looking for terrorists? Cool.

I have yet to hear one example of how a single, tamperproof, reliable alternative to the social security card, voter registration card and state mandated driver's license or state issued ID would change anything beyond simplifying things. Social Security card, passport, drivers license, voter registration card, SSN, EIN, carry permit... man would I like all of that encrypted on one magnetic strip. Maybe the passport would still be needed.

I don't get it. You can't go use the StairMaster or rent a movie about the Gestapo at Blockbuster without a photo ID. What is the real concern? We already do it, the difference, if done properly is that we would have a card that was not easily faked.

We are already legally obligated to identify ourselves to a peace officer.

We've established that requirements can be put on some rights. Voting was never a fundamental right, last I checked it was originally intended for landowning men (No, I won't go there, tempting, but no) and since has been extended but is still limited. My daughter can't vote (which infuriates her no end) due to age. Other's can't vote due to their criminal status. I don't think the insane are supposed to vote (no comment).

What in the world is the objection to ensuring that when Alanc votes, the guy at the door looks at his mug on an ID, compares it to him, crosses his name off and lets him vote?

As to the rest (fallible machines) I agree, If we do a machine vote I want a paper receipt validated by the voter dropped into a box just in case.

LOL, OK, I know - there is no Constitutional right to understand or even know what the hell Congress is thinking.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> The objections here are different than the ones I hear from the politicians and activists against such a policy. They were pulling out the good old race card and saying that requiring someone to produce a valid form of positive ID for an election was the equivalent of a poll tax designed to keep away minorities.
> 
> Now that's insulting - to minorities IMHO.
> 
> ...


OK, I haven't followed this one especially closely, but there is no question that costs to obtain this ID card will necessarily be different for different segments of the population. For mine, no biggie. Round up the passport, the driver's license, run to the bank vault for the birth certificate, and then it's just a matter of taking the afternoon off from work and hopping in the car to get it done. I'm told that there are a whole bunch of people in other parts of the country who can't just roll out of bed and do that.

Which is not a deal-killer in my view. But when this proposal comes on the heels of the purging of "felons" from the Florida rolls in 2000 (or was that "black people"?), and is pushed hardest by the interests that would benefit from a de-democratizing of the vote, it's easy to see why suspicions would be raised.

I'm with some of the other posters, though. If we're really worried about fraud at the polls, what's this push to eliminate the audit trail by installing Diebold terminals in voting booths? That's scary.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Vote? Who does that anymore? Kidding aside I only recently began voting. Twice to be exact and the 2nd time I was not asked to provide any kind of ID after I gave my name and address. I guess I have an honest face lol! Many people say that the whole effort to provide illegal immigrants with driver licences is to enable them to vote (in particular for the Democrats who seem to favor this more then the Republicans) rather then the lame "Then they will get insurance" excuse. The idea of a thumb print verification system or retina scan if you really want to get sci-fi is about the only way to make any kind of ID card tamper proof.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Concordia said:


> OK, I haven't followed this one especially closely, but there is no question that costs to obtain this ID card will necessarily be different for different segments of the population..


Actually no - the most recent one that perked my interest had provisions for that - can't afford it or can't get to wherever you go to get one? No prob - state pays and comes to you. If I stretch I can see saying that it might be more inconvenient for some than for others but that is true of every responsibility in life - let's face it. Watching the elections in countries where people shoot at voters and bomb polling stations makes it pretty hard to sympathize with anyone who says filling out a form and getting their picture taken is an insurmountable impediment.

Dems say the Republicans suppress the vote and rig the count, Republicans say that Dems cheat and vote for dead people and bus illegals to the polls. How much of either theory is paranoia and how much is fact is a good question... so let's answer it. Standardize voter ids, standardize the equipment and make it tamper proof.

We live in an age when someone scans your ticket at a football game and makes it invalid at any other gate thereafter - it is not a difficult technical problem.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I think what you're missing Chuck is an understanding of how federalism works. This is probably because the federal government has already overstepped it's boundaries so far that nobody seems to even care anymore. Nobody seems to care that none of these things we are talking about are within the constitutional authority of the federal government. What I hear you saying is this: "you already took so many of my rights, here, you might as well have them all in one neat easy package." I don't know about the rest of you, but I like to make it difficult for the government to get any kind of information on me. Making them have to look 50 different places to get the whole picture makes it prohibitively expensive for them to have a file on each of us - having it all in one little card would make it very simple.

To quote Ben Franklin (again), "he who is willing to give up his liberty for some temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."


Here's how the printout from my weekly "national ID card" summary looks:
On Monday: Mr. Odoreater applied for a protest permit.
On Tuesday: Mr. Odoreater purchased a hand gun.
On Wednesday: Mr. Odoreater boarded a flight to Washington D.C.
On Thursday: Mr. Odoreater renewed his prescription for Prozac.
On Friday: Mr. Odoreater checked the Koran out of the library.

"Maybe we ought to pay Mr. Odoreater a visit just to see what he's up to - he seems to have some pretty suspicious behavior this week. Maybe we should knock his door down and search his house (where they discover a collection of latex outfits, handcuffs, 4 boxes of condoms, a copy of the Kama Sutra, 4 pictures of himself posing naked in the mirror, and a Santa Clause suit). Gee, Mr. Odoreater wasn't doing anything illegal after all, but look how funny he looks in this picture - laugh laugh laugh, snicker snicker snicker."


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

odoreater said:


> To quote Ben Franklin (again), "he who is willing to give up his liberty for some temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."


Why does someone who is sensibly willing to trade a bit of liberty for some security invalidate their right to both? Doesn't that adage contradict the very notion of liberty? It sounds a bit like 'he who is willing to give up his money for some fine suits deserves neither money nor suits'.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Why does someone who is sensibly willing to trade a bit of liberty for some security invalidate their right to both? Doesn't that adage contradict the very notion of liberty? It sounds a bit like 'he who is willing to give up his money for some fine suits deserves neither money nor suits'.


If people don't understand this quote and the differnce between the relationship between liberty/security and money/suits - then it's a sad state of affairs after all.

You see, the security is temporary - you will only feel safe for a little while until people figure out a new way to make you unsecure. The loss of liberty that you exchanged for that security is permanent and will never come back.

We've been giving up liberty in exchange for security since the beginning of our republic and we are not more secure than we were then - but we have suffered an immeasurable loss of liberty.

Exchanging liberty for security is not like exchanging money for a suit - it's like renting a tux.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Why does someone who is sensibly willing to trade a bit of liberty for some security invalidate their right to both? Doesn't that adage contradict the very notion of liberty? It sounds a bit like 'he who is willing to give up his money for some fine suits deserves neither money nor suits'.


Very nice. Just because Ben Franklin said it doesn't mean it's correct.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> Very nice. Just because Ben Franklin said it doesn't mean it's correct.


Sad..


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

odoreater said:


> Sad..


Your take requires every sacrifice of liberty be permanant, and every gain of security temporary. I'll grant you that there are probably more examples where these two exchanges flow in these directions, but it is not always required that it happen in that way.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Phinn said:


> I'm afraid I would have to disagree on this point.
> 
> There is a market for medical services. A very large one. It is an economic good. Consumers buy it, and so producers work very hard to provide it. For that reason, decentralization improves efficiency. A monolithic system would prevent local variation and adaptability among producers. It limits choice and flexibility. Uniformity imposed by a central authority does not improve the quality of goods or services. Try using a Soviet washing machine, if you doubt.


Without, hopefully, expanding this to a full thread topic in its own right, I would simply point out that both decentralised ID cards and decentralised medical care are far from the efficient, self-correcting systems we would wish to suppose. Would a 'monolithic' system be any better? Well it does certainly put all the eggs into one basket, so it would seem that the quality of the change would be vastly dependent on the people at the helm. But at least there would be tangible figures for credit and blame, with the 'strings of the puppet' more visible to all. In a highly decentralised system, things can be so chaotic that all attempts at intelligent guidance and mission-calibrating intervention are repelled. So perhaps the tipping point ought to be that, all other things being equal, which system would be, on average, most beneficial to the greatest number? I think typically this would be the centralised system, though this system does not rule out all forms of local variation, nor strictly mandates that one size must fit all.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Without, hopefully, expanding this to a full thread topic in its own right, I would simply point out that both decentralised ID cards and decentralised medical care are far from the efficient, self-correcting systems we would wish to suppose. Would a 'monolithic' system be any better? Well it does certainly put all the eggs into one basket, so it would seem that the quality of the change would be vastly dependent on the people at the helm. But at least there would be tangible figures for credit and blame, with the 'strings of the puppet' more visible to all. In a highly decentralised system, things can be so chaotic that all attempts at intelligent guidance and mission-calibrating intervention are repelled. So perhaps the tipping point ought to be that, all other things being equal, which system would be, on average, most beneficial to the greatest number? I think typically this would be the centralised system.


History seems to disagree with this point of view.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

odoreater said:


> History seems to disagree with this point of view.


History generally doesn't take sides, even if sometimes historians do. Any system worthy of creation will need some good checks and balances, and as Mr Franke points out, sometimes these slowly evolving _ad hoc_ situations call for a centralised revamp in light of changing circumstances, and especially during crises (whether of immigration or healthcare, for instance). In that sense, history can be a good guide so that one will avoid the mistakes of the past, but as an historian, I cannot say that I have ever seen the evidence fall very solidly in favour of a single system over all the others. Ultimately context and human ingenuity are even more crucial factors in the equation than history.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck, it sounds good to say you have nothing to hide. But I oppose a de facto national ID because there are people engaged in lawful activities who have a real interest in not making it easier for government officials to monitor their activities. Investigative reporters, for example, need to work under the radar until they have gathered enough facts to get the goods on crooked politicians. Political activists who oppose those in power. People who are business rivals of those in power or those close to the politically powerful. Private investigators. People engaged in the first-hand academic research of controversial subjects. Lawyers working on high-profile, controversial cases.


----------



## Hanseat (Nov 20, 2004)

I don't really understand the whole concern about national ID.
We're issued an ID card at age 16, which we carry around with us all the time (not that I've ever been asked to show it to a police officer) and it strikes me as a lot less stupid than showing my driver's license or even power bill (like in the UK) to verify my identity. Sure, it's an issue of state's rights vs. federal government in the US but as long as they can't use it to track my actions I think it's a far more convenient and harder to fake form of ID (think fake ID's for college students in the US...) than anything else. Wehn you vote, you get a piece of paper that states you're eligbe to vote with a location on it. YOu go there, you show the paper and your ID, they check it on the list and issue you a ballot (I wouldn't trust the thumb solution as the votr could possibly be tracked back to you...) and you're set. YOu want to buy cigarettes or alcohol? ID, please!


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

In order to register to vote in Texas, I requested an application online and submitted it by mail. The only thing required, other than my name and address, was my signature underneath a statement that I was eligible to vote. That's it. Since I have registered to vote, I have received a paper voter registration card in the mail every two years. That's all that I need to produce in order to be allowed to vote. I don't see how anyone could argue with a straight face that such a system is not vulnerable to abuse, mistake, and fraud. Concluding that something is wrong with the way that voters are authenticated in Texas or the United States in general, however, is not the same as concluding that a national ID scheme is necessary or desireable. I would encourage everybody, both pro and con, to read some of what Bruce Schneier has written about national IDs. It might be useful in moving this discussion forward.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Good points there John.

...but it leaves me with the same nagging question. 

Your description of voting in Texas makes it pretty obvious that anyone can collect voter registration cards and easily vote in 30 different polling places with relative ease on a given election day.
30 votes isn't significant. Now let's say a national election was going to swing on Texas (hypothetical, not trying to terrify you folks in fly-to country).

100 people around Texas getting hold of 30 voter registration cards is 3000 votes. 3000 votes could be a big deal. 

If the system is such that a handful of clever people in one or two states can swing a NATIONAL election then the system is quite broken.

...A state issued photo ID might not FIX the problem entirely but it would make it tougher.

Anyone have an idea? What would make for a meaningful voter registration card? Seems like if you really and truly wanted to make it certain you'd need a thumbpad. Right thumbs are tricky to fake and people are not as likely to part with one for 10 bucks or a bottle. That is speculative - haven't really got much knowledge of the thumb market these days.

I have heard no objection to the statement that ensuring the integrity of the voting is a must. Anyone hear of or think of some way to pull it off?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> I have heard no objection to the statement that ensuring the integrity of the voting is a must.


Geez, the Republicans steal one lousy presidential election and it sends you folks into a tizzy about fixing the election system!

I think it would be nice to fix it, not a must. Not on the top-10 to-do list. Not if it means giving Big Brother some steroids.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

crs said:


> Geez, the Republicans steal one lousy presidential election and it sends you folks into a tizzy about fixing the election system!
> 
> I think it would be nice to fix it, not a must. Not on the top-10 to-do list. Not if it means giving Big Brother some steroids.


Man, a couple of guys from Jersey arguing in favor of personal autonomy and smaller less intrusive government with guys from Texas and the southwest. What's the world coming to? Next thing you know, the best golfer in the world will be black and the top selling rapper will be white...oh wait...


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Man, a couple of guys from Jersey arguing in favor of personal autonomy and smaller less intrusive government with guys from Texas and the southwest. What's the world coming to? Next thing you know, the best golfer in the world will be black and the top selling rapper will be white...oh wait...


* If buttercups buzz'd after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.

*


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

The only legitimate (?) arguments I've heard so far are: "It's a states' rights issue" (coming from a liberal, ironically)... 

So, have the state issue and monitor them. It's not perfect, since after all, one could cross state lines and vote. But there could be in place a central processing unit (non-government) to collect all data and audit for duplicates.


and... "but what ELSE might they try to use them for?"... Ahhh. The ol' "slippery slope" argument. Then I get to use it for gun control. It's silly in BOTH applications.

We could argue all day long about whether or not the electoral process is "good" or "right". But as long as this is the system we have, why should we NOT ensure its integrity?

Something like a thumbprint at the polls would not prevent illegal voters, but it would at least prevent multiple votes from the same person. If you don't like the concept of having ONE centralized portal through which one must pass, then create a series of hoops.

Any idea how difficult it is to get a passport? How is that any different? Why is legitimizing the voting process any less important?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Jill said:


> and... "but what ELSE might they try to use them for?"... Ahhh. The ol' "slippery slope" argument. Then I get to use it for gun control. It's silly in BOTH applications.


This is not hypothetical. I see the current administration trampling privacy left and right already, and it has earned my distrust a thousand times over. I'm certainly not in favor of giving this or any similar future administration even more tools to do so.

Fine, you don't need your privacy. But then the government is unlikely to target neckwear sellers. Some of us in other occupations have a lot more reason to worry than you do. Lest you think this excessively paranoid, we had the news this week that Hewlett-Packard had considered planting spies in newsrooms and we've seen reports in the past two years of the current administration secretly paying conservative commentators to pimp certain agendas in their columns. So the specter of spying and infiltration is real, and I do not favor a card that will allow easier tracking of people's comings and goings.

I don't expect you to understand it, but at least you could spare us the haughty dismissiveness that opinions contrary to yours aren't "legitimate." Thankfully you are not the final word on the matter.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

CRS - I can understand people in your line of work being paranoid. Given the current battle over whether it is OK for a disgruntled government employee to leak classified information with direct implications to National Security I am sure that newsies should be concerned by the potential for blowback. (that's an affirmation, not a sideswipe)

Since I am generally a "If I want my government to tell me how to live I will ask them" type of guy I had to sit and think about why the idea of a secure form of identification - with all of it's inherent risks - does not bother me very much.

One reason I am dismissive of the concerns that you and Odor raise (i.e. they don't bother me, not i.e. I don't put any weight on your opinion) about how this would give the government the power to know too much about us and use that information for nefarious purposes is due to my own background.

Simply put - I have absolutely no question in my mind that the data that could be compiled on ANYONE who lives in a relatively normal fashion is so vastly more comprehensive than what Odor put down in his summary of what they could know about him.

Your first job out of grad school was with a newspaper, an institution built upon the ideal that someone must watch the watchers. We can argue over how well and honestly the media does this on another thread but I would imagine you started with that ideal and given the pride you've shown in your profession I'm surmising you haven't gotten so jaded as to have dismissed it.

My first job out of grad school? I was an engineer in the R&D portion of a supercomputing company, the industry that built the supercomputers, operating systems and massively parallel algorithms that are the backbone of fields like datamining.

It would be illegal for say, the FBI, to hack into all of the important databases out there. To say that it is not legal should not in any way lead anyone to think it is difficult. All the data flows over the same lines, the good encryption algorithms came out of our own security agencies. Do ya think the NSA would let an encryption algorithm they can't break out of the building? 

Data security is math, period. In military history the rule has always been easier to build bigger bullet than a stronger shield. In the history of data security it is always possible to build a bigger, nastier, faster box to beat a new code. We don't want to get into combinatorial mathematics, parallel processing and truly random number generation but hopefully you will trust me if I tell you there is no such thing as a secure database that has a data link outside the building.

So why do I not care about a 'super ID'... simple, why lock the barn door a decade after the horse died.

Given the right access, what could someone learn about us CRS? Forget travel and gun purchases, that is child's play. I'm going to assume you have a few of the following: Cell phone, credit card, Driver's license, health insurance, homeowner's or renters insurance, a computer, toll tag?

Stop and think for a moment. There is a record of every credit card swipe you have ever made. Every time you use your cell phone it hits off the nearest tower. Every time you drive through a tollbooth with a toll tag there's a date stamp, every time you use your computer there is a record of every site you visit, there is a record of your medical history, prescription drug use history, gas station you have filled up at, every time you IM a congressional page.. no wait, wrong profession. Your credit files, tax records, college transcripts... 

See where I am going? Odor's list is an outline, putting together a 500 page book tracking where you were and what you were doing for the last 20 years would not even make a good hacker with the proper access sweat. The last decade or so would be so detailed it's ridiculous. The only way a person could get around that would be if they lived a cash only existence and hid from technology and took one of the spare rooms in Osama's remaining caves. Obviously those you called, those who swiped a card in the same place you did on the same day more than once... figuring out who you know is easy too. 

Long explanation for why I don't care what the government knows - I figure they can find out everything down to my conception in a week anyway.

So in terms of privacy I think the data battle was won a long time ago. How it can be legally used against you then becomes the question and in that I'm probably as fiercely against abuses as you are, I just don't have any confidence in the idea that the data isn't already available.

OK, so back to the matter at hand... I submit that we do have the technology available to ensure that only those who should get a voter registration card get one. Ensuring that the card identifies them uniquely is also doable, ensuring that it can't be used twice in one election is child's play and we CAN have a secure vote and yet we choose to ignore it.

Can anyone think up a reason why we don't address it? I can't. I'd submit that the possibility of mass fraud in voting is vastly more insidious and dangerous than any other form of voter suppression/disenfranchisement I've ever heard of. ...especially since it goes undetected. When someone who should vote isn't allowed they talk. When someone who should not does they do not.

LOL... bespoke tinfoil hat time.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

crs said:


> ...Some of us in other occupations have a lot more reason to worry than you do. Lest you think this excessively paranoid, we had the news this week that Hewlett-Packard had considered planting spies in newsrooms and we've seen reports in the past two years of the current administration secretly paying conservative commentators to pimp certain agendas in their columns. So the specter of spying and infiltration is real, and I do not favor a card that will allow easier tracking of people's comings and goings.


... as it was in the 30s, 40s and 50s, but THEN, the press absolutely vilified McCarthy as a witchhunter. They thot, I presume, that it was OK to have other countries' spies infiltrating us, just not our own?! Huh??

And if newsrooms are regulary printing things which are known to be classified, regardless of the possible implication on national security and security of our forces, then I think they SHOULD be watched. You can't have it both ways. An entire industry can't be self-appointed watchdog, without expecting to be watched just as closely. I'm sure that you, CRS, would never print anything that was illegally leaked to you. But just because you're conscientious and responsible doesn't exempt the entire industry from accountability, does it?



> I don't expect you to understand it, but at least you could spare us the haughty dismissiveness that opinions contrary to yours aren't "legitimate." Thankfully you are not the final word on the matter.


 Wow. I think I struck a nerve. No offense intended, I assure you CRS. I certainly was not dismissing anyone's options as illegitimate, nor was I being haughty. I'm sorry you took it as such. What I was attempting to do (apparently unsuccessfully, though) was to brush aside for a moment only the objections to verification _method,_ and try instead to address the concept of identifying eligible voters. Even though I DO subscribe to the concept of the "boiling frog", I have never liked the use of the "slippery slope" argument in debate, because it assumes a hypothetical.

So back on topic, is there anyone out there who will argue that *a voter has no obligation to prove that he is eligible*, according to election law as it stands today? Because that is the heart of the issue. Once we can all agree on that point, then we can discuss the most effective method by which to prove it.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> Simply put - I have absolutely no question in my mind that the data that could be compiled on ANYONE who lives in a relatively normal fashion is so vastly more comprehensive than what Odor put down in his summary of what they could know about him.


Well, theoretically the government could just go and shoot people. They have the technology, they have the manpower, they know where we live. But, you know, it's against the law.

Presumeably the government would need a subpoena to acquire certain information about me. I'd rather not eliminate that little step. I'd rather have the pieces of my life in a hundred places than on one card to be scanned everywhere I go.

You mention a toll tag. In New Jersey I can remove mine any time I want and pay cash, my option. It's not really a tag, but a little box velcroed to the windshield. I take it off and put it in my pocket when I have the car washed, etc. That's how I'd prefer my country to work. I have the option, a less convenient option, to not be scanned into the computer that day as I travel.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Jill;414732An entire industry can't be self-appointed watchdog[/QUOTE said:


> Constitutionally-appointed watchdog.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

crs said:


> Presumeably the government would need a subpoena to acquire certain information about me. I'd rather not eliminate that little step. I'd rather have the pieces of my life in a hundred places than on one card to be scanned everywhere I go...


LOL... Ok, one at a time.

Set aside everywhere you go, I'd happily settle for the voting booth for now.

Second, I think you agreed with me, much to your chagrin.

Step by step:
1. You and I agree that the data is already out there in 100 databases.
2. You and I agree that the government is prohibited from going out and getting it without a subpoena or some other statutory authority.
3. You and I would both object to the government being allowed to use the data for any purpose not specifically authorized by law.

Where I think we might disagree is in regard to whether those 100 little places are meaningfully more difficult to access than if they were in one place. 50 years ago you would be correct, 25 years ago you'd have a point but today technology has pretty much made it a moot point. If someone is going to ILLEGALLY access and use the information then the difference between hitting one database using your SSN as a key and hitting 100 disparate systems around the globe is huge. One might take a tenth of a second and the other could be a full four orders of magnitude greater - 1000 seconds. I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just not sure whether you appreciate what the realtime difference is here. Problems that were too complex to solve in a lifetime with the computers of 25 years ago take a second now. 15 years ago when I was working in the space where we were proud of megaflops as we debated whether we'd see a teraflop over a beer after work (We're somewhere around 500 TF's for the massively parallel setups now), in another 5 years we'll hit a petaflop - a quadrillion calculations per second. Sorry for the geekspeak but people have little to no appreciation of what the word 'hard' means when discussing data security in the digital age. There is no meaningful difference between 1/100th of a second ans a tenth or even an hour in this sort of problem.

I'm with you on the 'how can someone legally access and use your information' question - I want iron clad laws wrapped around that issue for one simple reason. The data compilations you fear in the future are a thing of your past - you just haven't noticed. That's not theory, it's relatively simple math and the only thing slowing it down at this point is the slowest pipe between the server that is looking for the data and the servers that have it. The data itself is not secure, never has been, never will be. Hell, the algorithms for securing it are right there in the patent office for the most part.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I didn't know all that. But it still remains, do we just roll over and say privacy is non-existent, do what you want, Mr. President? Or do we fight it even if it's only a symbolic victory that says we know you CAN do that, but in America you MAY not? I think that's still a fight worth taking on.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

crs said:


> Constitutionally-appointed watchdog.


Missed that chapter... might be worth a new thread but sounds like a good debate if we can have it good naturedly. Where'd they sneak in Montie's points?

I think the Supreme Court has ruled that the government does have authority to prevent the fourth estate from publishing classified information if they can demonstrate grave and irreparable harm, right?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> I think the Supreme Court has ruled that the government does have authority to prevent the fourth estate from publishing classified information if they can demonstrate grave and irreparable harm, right?


The government can't stop the press, the court can. The government must argue for prior restraint before the court, and the court seldom grants it.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

crs said:


> I didn't know all that. But it still remains, do we just roll over and say privacy is non-existent, do what you want, Mr. President? Or do we fight it even if it's only a symbolic victory that says we know you CAN do that, but in America you MAY not? I think that's still a fight worth taking on.


...And thus we find ourselves in complete agreement on this subject. Not being an attorney I am not certain but I believe this is where Odor's "Narrowly tailored purpose" comes into play. I'm less concerned about what the government knows for the reasons cited. I think the battle to be fought is over how the data can be USED. Say Jim gets a call from a suspected terrorist and someone monitor's the call. If Jim discusses no terrorism but openly discusses how he is cheating on his taxes the NSA can't pass a tip to the IRS.

On that point you could probably get a bunch of us uptight conservatives to march around and shout with those 'protest people'. LOL, there's an entertaining mental picture.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

crs said:


> The government can't stop the press, the court can. The government must argue for prior restraint before the court, and the court seldom grants it.


OK, the government can do so but it takes the Judicial branch to agree that the Executive branch is serving the public interest and the press is not.

Careful CRS, this is how it starts. Liberals and conservatives find out that there are things they can agree on, next thing you know they can share a beer without whacking each other with the bottle, dogs and cats start living together in sin... slippery slope.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

This has become one of those famous real-time Interchange threads. Every time I finish reading a new post and hit 'reload', anywhere from between one and three new posts appear. This isn't helping me to budget my AAAC time, gentlemen.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

LOL - Yeah, long week JLP... Ties don't require much care and feeding and don't stretch the brain much. Arguing with CRS helps with that.

LOL.. I love seeing an Interchange thread descend into civility.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> OK, the government can do so but it takes the Judicial branch to agree that the Executive branch is serving the public interest and the press is not.
> 
> Careful CRS, this is how it starts. Liberals and conservatives find out that there are things they can agree on, next thing you know they can share a beer without whacking each other with the bottle, dogs and cats start living together in sin... slippery slope.


Actually, the press can defy a court order while seeking an appeal, but there are risks. As the Mass. Bar explains in its Journalists Handbook:

_Challenging a court order restraining publication 
Reporters should rarely, if ever, be faced with a court order preventing publication. In the event that such an order is issued, the reporter or editor must decide what action to take.

The general rule is that one may not challenge a court order by defying it. Thus, the prudent and generally effective course is to seek emergency relief from a higher court. For example, in a recent case Justice Blackmun, sitting as circuit justice of the Supreme Court, stayed a state-court injunction against CBS's broadcast of a videotape of a meat processing plant's interior and operations, ruling that neither the questionable behavior of CBS in obtaining the tape nor the meat company's interests in maintaining trade secrets could justify indefinite delay in broadcasting the tape. Justice Blackmun issued the stay two days after the state court issued its preliminary injunction.

Indeed, even where the injunction is "transparently invalid," the press must still make a "good faith effort" to obtain emergency relief from an appellate court before violating the injunction. Only if the publisher cannot obtain timely access to the appeals court or if "timely decision is not forthcoming," may the press proceed to publish and then challenge the constitutionality of the order in subsequent contempt proceedings.

The publisher who defies a court order not to publish takes two risks: first, that the court of appeals will not agree with the publisher's assessment that the order is not only invalid, but "transparently invalid"; and second, that the court will not be satisfied that the publisher's pre-publication effort to challenge that order was made in good faith. Accordingly, it is advisable to seek legal counsel before deciding to publish in violation of a court order._


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Hmmmm... I suppose anyone COULD violate a court order and then argue that it was unconstitutional on appeal. The inherent danger in such an approach is that your wardrobe might be very limited to say... orange jumpsuits for a period of time after making that particular call.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> OK,
> Do illegal immigrants using a stolen SSN to get a driver's license and thus a voter registration card have a fundamental right to vote? They are doing so and very clearly disenfranchises an equal number of registered legal voters.


Unlikely. Illegal immigrants tend to avoid things that bring them in contact with government authorities (voting, or going to the police, etc). They're here to make money, not bring down our voting system.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

the point of ID cards at voting is really quite simple. disenfranchise anybody who doesn't have one. essentially, it's another roadblock before someone vote. 

i haven't seen anything that shows large scale vote stealing by immigrants. i'm very aware of attempts to disenfranchise voters, and this looks to be another such attempt. 

also, it comes down to who bears the burden. as far as i'm concerning, the presumption is that someone showing up at a voting booth is eligible to vote. if you want to stop a particle person from voting, you bear the burden of showing why they're not eligible. they don't bear the burden of showing they're not.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Making the incredibly minimal effort to show a government issued photo ID in order to vote is disenfranchisement.

1000 people knowingly, willfully and intentionally voting when they are quite aware that they are not legally entitled to do so does not disenfranchise a like number of legal voters.

WOW! Sorry but I disagree. If producing an ID that is freely issued to every legal voter is asking something insurmountable but having 1000 legal votes effectively torn in half by 1000 illegal ones is just peachy then I give up.


You have not been following Dallas politics if you don't think illegals will vote. Not only will they, they are loudly promising to vote out those who do not agree to what they want.

Experienced teachers are being let go if they don't get certified to teach in Spanish. Evidently this has caused a shortage of teachers because the DISD has just contracted with Mexico to bring in 50 or so teachers from Mexico to replace them. Let's think that one over - experienced, certified teachers are losing their jobs because they do not speak the language. The schools here are not allowed to collect immigration statistics but teachers report as many as 80% of their students are here illegally and do not speak any English whatsoever. I know, I know... hard to believe if you are not in a border state but look it up, it is not a big secret. 

I give up - Either this makes no sense whatsoever or perhaps I've finally lost my mind.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

NoVaguy said:


> the point of ID cards at voting is really quite simple. disenfranchise anybody who doesn't have one. essentially, it's another roadblock before someone vote.


 Do you feel that passports are to disenfranchise travelers? or that driver's licenses are to disenfranchise drivers? or that library cards are to disenfranchise reading? or that Blockbuster cards are to disenfranchise movie watchers?



> i haven't seen anything that shows large scale vote stealing by immigrants.


 I'm guessing you don't live in a border state?



> also, it comes down to who bears the burden. as far as i'm concerning, the presumption is that someone showing up at a voting booth is eligible to vote. if you want to stop a particle person from voting, you bear the burden of showing why they're not eligible. they don't bear the burden of showing they're not.


No, we all bear the burden of proving that we ARE eligible. Just out of curiosity, how would the election volunteers go about doing that? How does one prove a negative? By that logic, I'm assuming that you think the customs officials should have to prove that you're NOT a citizen? Should your doctor have to show his credentials upon request? Or is it your responsibility to prove that he's NOT really a doctor? What's so terribly "disenfranchising" about asking someone to prove that they are who they say they are?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Jill said:


> So, have the state issue and monitor them. It's not perfect, since after all, one could cross state lines and vote. But there could be in place a central processing unit (non-government) to collect all data and audit for duplicates.


Again, having the states "issue and monitor" (read: spend state resources) national ID cards based on a federal law (which it would have to be to apply nationally) raises serious constitutional issues.

I suppose the federal government could use the federal spending power to get the states to come along (kind of like how they got all the states to raise their drinking age to 21) on this, but that would probably be political suicide for any politician attempting to do that. Can you imagine a federal politician saying: "We will cut off all of your federal highway funding if you don't issue and monitor national ID cards."

By the way, I think that assuring the integrity of the voting system is incredibly important, but I don't think the most desirable way to go about this is through a national ID card.

It's actually kind of a tricky issue: you can't use the driver's license because some people don't drive; you can't have them mail you something that you have to bring because some people don't have a mailing address; you can't have them do the thumbprint thing because it would raise a helluva ruckus if the government all of a sudden required us all to give them samples of our thumbprints just to vote. I'm sure there are states out there that have really low rates of incidents like the ones Chuck described, maybe the states that have high rates of incidents can learn from those states.

I think an even bigger problem are the lines at some polling places. In my conservative Republican district, you can walk into a polling place, vote, and be out of there in 5 minutes. In some heavily Democratic inner city areas, you have to wait on line for 4 hours just to vote. I wonder how many people say "screw this, I'm going home." Talk about disenfranchising people. But, that's another issue for another day.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

odoreater said:


> ...I think an even bigger problem are the lines at some polling places. In my conservative Republican district, you can walk into a polling place, vote, and be out of there in 5 minutes. *In some heavily Democratic inner city areas, you have to wait on line for 4 hours just to vote. *I wonder how many people say "screw this, I'm going home." Talk about disenfranchising people. But, that's another issue for another day.


 So why does this happen?


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

Jill said:


> Do you feel that passports are to disenfranchise travelers? or that driver's licenses are to disenfranchise drivers? or that library cards are to disenfranchise reading? or that Blockbuster cards are to disenfranchise movie watchers?


There's a very explicit consitutional right at stake with voting. Nothing really explicit about international travel, driving a car, library cards.

And blockbuster cards are a private contract type action. Not state action. (Although my blockbuster by my parent's place in PA doesn't require a card - a simple credit card will do).



> I'm guessing you don't live in a border state?


Northern Virginia. There's a substantial immigrant population in Virginia, but nothing like Texas.



> No, we all bear the burden of proving that we ARE eligible.


Don't agree. Fundamental constitutional right, burden goes on the person trying to stop the alleged voter.



> Just out of curiosity, how would the election volunteers go about doing that? How does one prove a negative? By that logic, I'm assuming that you think the customs officials should have to prove that you're NOT a citizen? Should your doctor have to show his credentials upon request? Or is it your responsibility to prove that he's NOT really a doctor? What's so terribly "disenfranchising" about asking someone to prove that they are who they say they are?


Where's your explicit evidence of recent massive vote fraud by illegal voters?

The key problem with all of your examples is the fact that each of your examples has an easy remedy in the very likely situation that the government/person questioning is their identity/qualifications.

If a doctors identity is cleared up or confirmed, the doctor can practice the next day. The citizen trying to enter the country can enter 24 hours later. Same with a driver's license or library card, although those might take longer.

If a voter is stopped, the vote is almost guaranteed to be gone and cannot be remedied in the event that the voter is legitimate. A government by the people, for the people is denied. A fundamental constitutional right is effectively destroyed by simply placing a simple unneccesary roadblock that will block large amounts of elderly and minorities.

And the burden is on the person denying fundamental constitutional rights to provide the reasonable evidence. Entry of a name into the voter rolls typically gives a challenging party about 30 days to challenge voters qualifications. If you haven't gotten the evidence by the time the voter is 10 feet from the booth, the rule of reason leads me to seriously doubt there is any evidence.

It's really a matter of default rules. And this is mine.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

*POLITICS*, _n._ A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

-Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Jill said:


> So why does this happen?


Probably a combination of higher population density and less resources.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

odoreater said:


> Probably a combination of higher population density and less resources.


Voting machines in your county, Essex, are provided by the county, not the municipality. Thus the inequity you witnessed is not mere luck of the draw but rather a conscious decision on the allocation of the machines.

Before we leap to the conclusion that it was strictly a GOP plot to influence an election, however, we must consider that other factors are at play in Essex County as to how county services are allocated. Property taxes in Essex County's suburban towns are among the highest in the state, and there is much resentment over local taxes in the wealthy towns going for services in poorer Newark, East Orange and Irvington that some towns, such as Montclair and Millburn and Verona, voted at one point to secede from the county if the situation were not addressed. The in-fighting is not just about voting machines but over every county-produced service.

Whatever the motive, undoubtedly it is Democrats who are most disenfranchised in America's poor urban centers. As The Washington Post reported after the 2004 presidential election about Ohio, "[in Franklin County] 27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry."


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I should add that I am much more interested in seeing the government ensuring that voting machines are allocated strictly on the basis of population or number of registered voters than I am about more stringent voter registration requirements. I think vastly greater numbers of voters are affected by ridiculous lines at the polls in poor neighborhoods than the rather small number of dead people who vote in their place.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crs said:


> I should add that I am much more interested in seeing the government ensuring that voting machines are allocated strictly on the basis of population or number of registered voters than I am about more stringent voter registration requirements. I think vastly greater numbers of voters are affected by ridiculous lines at the polls in poor neighborhoods than the rather small number of dead people who vote in their place.


My grandparents never voted Labour until after they died.


----------

