The US Justice Department has chosen to reject state requirements for identification before voting. Their argument are that voting fraud is not a significant problem and imposing such a requirement disproportionately impacts young and minority voters (the traditional Democrat base) who are less likely to have identification. A government ID is offered at zero or nominal cost in all 50 states. It is required for virtually every facet of life, yet the Justice Department does not think voting is sufficiently important reason to identify the voter? In fact, Attorney General Eric Holder has been unwavering in his attack of states that attempt to impose ID requirements, despite a recent expose in which a documentary showed someone easily gaining access to HOLDER’s ballot without an ID.
The Obama administration is at odds with 73% of the American people who disagree with their position on Voter ID. Especially because this is a Euro-Left site, I’m curious how this issue is handled outside the US.
Is voter identification required in your country? Do you believe it unfairly targets, discourages, or disenfranchises poor and minority voters? Why or why not?
No ID is required to vote in
No ID is required to vote in the England.
You can just go in, tell them who you are and then they tick you off their list. (You do get sent a card with your info on it in the days leading up to the election. You're supposed to take it with you when you vote, but I never remember mine). I've no idea what would happen if if someone had already claimed to be me though.
As for unfairly impacting some parts of society... anything that raises the cost of voting is going to disadvantage those with the least money to spare.
If ID can be obtained for free then the issue becomes more what's required to get it - I'm assuming you don't just walk in, claim that you're John Smith and get handed some ID.
That is all true, although I
That is all true, although I am not sure that taking the polling card with you is a legal requirement. I think the presiding officer can ask for proof of identity.
Unfortunately voter registration has become a problem, and there is undoubtedly a problem with postal votes as has been pointed out at a couple of Election Courts in the last couple of years. I personally think it would be wise to abolish postal voting unless and untill a more secure system is invented. The current one is wide open to fraud.
I think you're right about
I think you're right about the polling card - they don't require it, but in my experience they prefer it if you've brought it along, as it probably makes life a little easier for them.
And I agree with you about postal voting.. It's a shame, as I think it's quite a decent idea in theory.
In the UK voter registration
In the UK voter registration rests on trust. Postal Vote fraud is a major problem and no amount of whitewash is going to cover that up. It is a particular problem within some ethnic communities, a comment you wont like, but it happens to be true. Personally I think I would abolish postal voting on demand and make it mandatory that any application must be validated by a visit from a returning officer. That would nip the fraud in the bud.
Apparently, the 2005 local
Apparently, the 2005 local elections in Birmingham had to be completely redone due to widespread fraud.
There do appear to have been some advances in making postal voting more secure since then, however. There was a lot of concern surrounding bogus applications within the British-Bangladeshi community in 2010 - but I'm not sure how many of the allegations were upheld. (Five minutes of googling turns up lots of stories about potential fraud, but little about any convictions).
Even just requring proof of address (bank statement, etc) would be a step in the right direction. It seems that all you need to do at the moment is provide a date of birth and signature.
The system is a joke. I have
The system is a joke. I have just got a postal vote for an elderly and frail friend. It was a very simple form and there were no checks other than the returning officer checking that the name was on the electroal role at that address. And every year when you get the Registration of Electors Form you could give your cat the vote if you wanted. Who would know ?
So am I correct in concluding
So am I correct in concluding that if fraud is an issue, that you find an ID requirement (of some sort) reasonable and prudent?
Obviously, a more secure
Obviously, a more secure system is better.
There are plans in England to make voter registration more secure. That seems like a step in the right direction. Though I don't know the exact details of it.
When it comes to voting day... I think the practicalities of ID requirements might outweigh the benefits.
Here in the UK, we have no national ID scheme, and there's little chance one will be introduced - people regard them as both too expensive and too authoritarian.
Not everyone has a passport or driving license, and given the cost involved it seems unreasonable to demand people have one in order to vote.
That does leave non-photographic ID, such as proof of address - but given how easy it is to fake, and the fact it would slow down the voting process (causing problems in densly populated areas), I think a lot of people (including myself) would oppose it.
You mentioned earlier that (some?) US states offer free/cheap photographic ID. That would make such a requirement less onerous. It's still raises a number of questions though, such as - how secure is it, and how easy it to obtain for those who have little time or money to spare?
Ultimately, it's about making a trade-off: The more secure you make a voting system the more difficult you make it for people to vote. How you balance that out largely depends on how much of a problem you think voter fraud is.
The National ID Card scheme,
The National ID Card scheme, which the EU badly wanted us to adopt, caused a huge row. It is the English tradition that you are able to walk down the street without being stopped by some offical of the state demanding 'Your Papers please' ! The previous government tried to do it by the backdoor by making it a voluntary scheme, but conservatives like me would never have any truck with that, as well they knew. I strongly object to photographic drivers licenses.
That being said voter fraud is a problem that does need to be addressed. the political class don't really want to know.
So there is no ID requirement
So there is no ID requirement to vote in the UK and yet there appears to be no movement to require it, though Owly points out the potential for fraud. But has that potential become a reality or is this just a fear?
What other interactions between the state and individual do not require ID? Specifically, can a person get welfare or sign up for NHS without proving who they are and their entitlement to a government benefit?
In the US, you must have ID to check out a book in the library, get a welfare check, open a bank account, get a driver's license, etc. etc. It seems that if there is a benefit involved, no one questions or complains about the need to establish personal identity and entitlement. Yet, when it comes to casting a vote on the direction and nature of proportional representation in government, it is primarily the political machinery of the Left which opposes it. Ostensibly this is because they derive the greatest potential political benefit of vast armies of undocumented voters who support the party which controls the faucet of government benefits.
GP's surgeries require proof
GP's surgeries require proof of address (bank statement, utility bill, etc.). Some apparently require photo ID as well. Same with libraries. I’m not too sure about Jobseekers Allowance - but I imagine it would be along the same lines.
The last Labour government wanted to bring in a mandatory ID card. It was pretty roundly opposed, and the current Conservative government scrapped it soon after coming in to power.
In the absence of any national ID, requiring some form of photo identification is obviously problematic. Neither passports nor driving licenses are particularly cheap.
Obviously, this means the system is open to abuse, but I don't know how much of an issue it is. Before the last election there were numerous reports of Labour supporters registering bogus names in marginal seats - it doesn't seem to have come to much though
I think it probably took
I think it probably took longer to format this than find the links.
for anyone curious:
for comparing state voter identification requirements and information about legislation action (existing laws and new laws)
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx
Here is a link to the DOJ letter to Texas on voter id law which clearly states how their law is discriminatory. but I had some trouble copy and pasting text from it. Alot of what I posted after here is also in the letter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/85051426/DOJ-Letter-To-Texas-On-Voter-ID-Law ...
~~~
It looks like the real objection Republicans have is with the The Voting Rights Act of 1965. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php President Obama was born in 1961.
In other words, the law does
You need to learn to distinguish between "evidence" and "editorial". Nor does re-districting have anything to do with establishing the identity of a voter.
Just because the DoJ designates a state as having a "history of descrimination" does not make it so. That is merely an allegation being leveraged by the most politically motivated DoJ in history to advance a political agenda. Nor would alleged history condemn a policy of the present. Either the policy is descriminatory or it is not.
Why is it that a photo ID is so difficult to obtain for voting, but no trouble at all to obtain welfare benefits, Unemployment compensation, and food stamps? Mind addressing that?
Also, since you raised thinly veiled racist inferences by raising the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and President Obama, perhaps you have an opinion why the incoming Obama DoJ political appointees supressed the DoJ investigation into Black Panther intimidation of voting precincts during the 2008 presidential election? Another victory for Liberal democracy. You must be proud. Sure wouldn't want any Cracker to try and exercise their constitutional rights, would you?
Can you imagine the reaction
Can you imagine the reaction if Klansmen dressed in paramility garb and armed with clubs had stood outside of a polling station and shouted at voters? And what if some newly-elected white president had moved imemdiately to dismiss the federal case against them?
All that Googling and you
All that Googling and you didn't bother to actually check the Texas State website?
Wow. That is REALLY tough to comply with! I can see how you might find that descriminatory. After all, showing up with a utility bill and signing an affidavit is just plain unreasonable.
The letter is what I found
The letter is what I found first and when I couldnt copy and paste it I googled parts and found the others. It took about 15 minutes.
What are you talking about? This is not something the Obama administration made up. This is why I mentioned what year he was born. The history of discrimination allegation is the reason for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Its not any photo id, Mike. And why would you assume these groups of people are on welfare or unemployment benefits?
And the objection from the Doj to Texas is not in their current law its how they are trying to change it.
I would appreciate it if you actually read what I posted and attempted to try to understand it before you replied. I'm not perched next to a computer all day long like you, posting time is definitely an extra.
And what's with the cracker comment? Why would I be proud of the black panthers? Did black families on welfare make you say that?
I recomend this for you. You should take a few tests before we continue our conversation. Your racism causes you to jump to some rather simplistic conclusions
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/research/
Its not any photo id, Mike.
Certainly a photo ID is sufficient to obtain government benefits and yes, that is a fair assumption to make--that these people are on the government dole since the basis of your assertion is that the descrimination is economic---these people are ostensibly "too poor to afford an ID". Yet, if they cannot afford a bus ride to obtain an ID for voting, how is it they are able to afford a bus ride to obtain an ID for Welfare? Still waiting for your answer on that one.
And even if the photo ID is STILL do much of a strain, I guess you find signing an affidavit and providing a utility bill with your name and address just too invasive as well? Gimme a break!
The rest is meaningless chaff and not worth my time.
Certainly a photo ID is
Certainly a photo ID is sufficient to obtain government benefits and yes, that is a fair assumption to make--that these people are on the government dole since the basis of your assertion is that the descrimination is economic- ..
Holy crap, Mike! READ what I posted before you reply!! And its DIScrimination!
Try reading the letter from the Doj explaining why the changes to Texas voter id law were blocked and then explain what you disagree with in that decision. Hint: the decision made was from data the state provided and failed to provide.
"Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights act, the submitting authority has the burden of showing that a submitted change has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect. In light of the considerations discussed above, I cannot conclude that your burden has been sustained in this instance"
Also try to grasp the fact that not everyone poor is on welfare, which also includes minorities. How detached from reality and racist could you possibly be?
I don't want to have to ignore you Mike but I am starting to get the impression that you're flaming me in order to have some sexy unending argument exercise ha ha this will get her. I'm NOT interested in that at all. I never bring up anything here for some kind of creepy argument play! Whatever is motivating you to be such an ass, really I feel stress when I see that you've commented after something I said now. I think the effect of that is probably magnified by how inactive this site is but its there.
I know you need to have the last word which is why I haven't look/commented on the other threads but its not ending on those threads. I guess I have to avoid your election posts or at least probably more likely wait a long enough to where I forget how obnoxious they are.
Have a happy day. I'm sure good Eric, Matt and owly would love to chat with you for awhile.
"Under Section 5 of the
That is not fact. It is a legal opinion of the DoJ with which I (and the state of Texas and 73% of the American people) disagree. I do believe the burden has been met and it will be up to the courts to make a decison, not the DoJ which is motivated more by politics, than law. (A point that I already highlighted with the example in which DoJ supressed prosecution of racist Black Panther voter intimidation).
Sorry that you allow yourself to become stressed over a discussion forum. You really need to gain some perspective. Clearly you perceive way more drama and personal investment than exists in reality. Hence why I labeled it all "chaff" and continue to do so because it's not worth my time and frankly, pretty boring to anyone else reading it. I suggest you stick to the issues under discussion and as they say in the military, "Save the drama for yo' mama." I would add the same to your ad hominem racist allegations. My time is too valuable to respond to such trivia.
Not to stress you further, but just a reminder that all your hyperbole does not mask your lack of a response to simple questions asked now multiple times.
Why would a piece of paper
Why would a piece of paper have more identification powers over the actual human being stood there in the flesh?
people should not have to identify themselves all the time... when i state my name that should be enough... unless the person asking me for it wants to claim that i am acting fraudulently... then i will know who to file charges against.
never carried ID and never will
Why would a piece of paper
Human beings have this tendency to "lie" whether in the flesh or not. Identification proves who they are and validates their entitlement--whether it's to vote, drive a car, apply for welfare, get a job, or cash a check.
If you don't want to do any of those, no one should force you. Who cares whether you carry ID or not? You can live your life out of a shopping cart if that's what you want to do. But you are NOT entitled to the benefits of society in which identification is required. It's your choice.
Except that filing charges requires you to complete an affidavit, which requires you to prove who you are...with identification! LOL! Too funny!
Kind of funny that Eric
Kind of funny that Eric Holder recently gave a speech blasting voter ID requirements. But if you didn't have a picture ID, you never could have gotten in to hear the speech.
Woohoo! Landmark decision
Woohoo! Landmark decision today by a Commonwealth judge in Pennsylvania that upholds voter ID law as constitutional. While the Loser Liberal plaintiffs will appeal, this sends a message that will resound in the White House and Justice Department.
"[Judge] Simpson, a Republican, didn't rule on the full merits of the case, only whether to grant a preliminary injunction stopping it from taking effect. But he rejected the suit's claims that the law is unconstitutional and ruled that the challenge did not meet the stiff requirements to win an injunction.
In the meantime, state elections officials have until the middle of next week to supply information to Obama's Department of Justice, which is looking at Pennsylvania's law and has moved to block voter ID laws in other states. Another lawsuit is pending from the state's second most populous county, Allegheny County."
Post new comment