Voting requires ID in almost every other western democracy, including Canada. The rest of the world see it as very reasonable to identify yourself at a polling station. It's odd that this is so contentious in the US.
IDs are not issued automatically in the US; they take money and effort to acquire. Therefore as implemented in the US, voter IDs are a poll tax.
Unsurprisingly, this makes voter ID a political issue: those who benefit from poll taxes support them, and those whose voters are suppressed by poll taxes oppose them.
I think it would be reasonable to create a national ID card system and fund it through taxes. It could replace driver licenses and social security cards. I do not know why it would be unreasonable to require such a card for voting. It could also serve as a PKI system with the govt acting as a CA (i.e. manage issuance and revocation). There are non zero benefits. And this doesn't have to operate like a poll tax. I don't understand why this isn't already a thing. Seems obvious.
> I don't understand why this isn't already a thing. Seems obvious.
Because people don't want yet another mandatory way to be tracked by the government. It is especially opposed by those here illegally, their supporters, and others historically disenfranchised by more and more centralized requirements. Not everyone has driver's licenses or ssn cards. There are non-zero problems so what should be obvious is why some oppose even if you don't.
> Because people don't want yet another mandatory way to be tracked by the government.
I constantly hear that (the majority of) people don't care about NSA spying, Facebook and Google spying, ad tracking, etc, etc, etc.
But somehow when it comes to being issued a number and a piece of plastic it would never work because people would oppose it based on privacy? I find that very hard to believe.
I've heard, mostly from libertarian small government types, that I should fear government tracking. I'm not sure exactly why. I'm already tracked by IP and cell towers and using my credit card. And I'm not sure what the government is going to nail me with.
I'm not even making an argument about "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why should I fear the machine?" I have assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition purchased with my credit card. There's a non zero risk that the disarmament Inquisition might use my credit card to seize my property or worse. But the risk is... Quite vanishingly small. And I think it's not unreasonable to suggest the risk is vanishingly smaller for ID cards.
Additionally, I'm completely uninterested in warping our legal code around illegal immigrants. They are irrelevant to the conversation. We make laws for the benefit of citizens. Not the other 95% of the globe that aren't American citizens.
I'm additionally not sure how giving, let's say black trans women, a free national ID card and requiring her to show it for purchasing cigs, alcohol, driving and voting is a problem. It's non-onerous.
The reason this hasn't been done is that historically it was taken as a given that the Federal Government were the last people you wanted to do something like that.
The U.S. is a union of States each with different cultures, attitudes, histories, and needs. It was recognized early on that A STRONG Federal government given responsibility to do ANYTHING at a nationwide scale would quickly rustle jimmies as people would begin to feel more and moredisenfranchised by having institutions forced upon them by people who didn't live there.
Common sense thus dictated the country be run from the bottom up. Delegating only certain unquestionable authority to the Federal Government so as to provide a framework for settling disputes between States, and leaving States to handle their own affairs.
It seems to have become more in vogue for issues to end up bubbling straight to the National Congress without passing through a State first.
Nowadays with mainstream media gushing to its various audiences the National Congress seems to have taken center stage, but there is also increased unrest by those uninterested in having their State's ability to run itself as it will usurped by the Federal.
Right. If I had a tenth the hubris that 20th century authoritarian leaders of the USA had when they decided article 1 section 8 and the 14th amendmemt granted the federal government unlimited power (in spite of the 10th amendment), I would ignore this point.
But it's always a valid one.
Pragmatically I'm not suggesting an expansion of federal power, since it already de facto has national identification power for both criminal purposes and entitlements in addition to statues regulating elections. This being said, I would support an amendment to make a tiny expansion to the census provision to support a federal indentification system because I believe the benefits far out weigh the costs.
I federal id card is a political non-starter in the US because of a a bunch of reasons.
First the federal government currently lacks infrastructure to issue IDs effectively. The states handle drivers licenses at DMV which handle a lot of stuff besides just issuing IDs, building separate federal systems would be a large undertaking.
The REAL ID act which was an attempt to create a federal ID managed by the states was passed in 2005 by is still not implemented because many states simply refuse to comply with the law some have even passed laws that prevent the state from complying with the law. The federal government lacks a way to force a majority of the sates to comply with it's will (see marijuana laws). And states don't want a federal id.
I'd like to understand why, but "infrastructure doesn't exist" isn't a reason to not create it. Maybe the argument is that Congress can't do it because people wouldn't reelect representatives that make it harder to pretend they're "off the grid", as if they already were, which they're not.
In any case, I'd like to hear arguments against it besides monetary cost, but so far all I've been exposed to is fringe right wingers whining about the gubment and lefties feeling like reminding us that Jim Crow et al was a thing and they totally promise that's not a red herring.
If such a card existed, it would be reasonable to require it for voting, however, there is no such card, so that is irrelevant until such time as one is created and rolled out to the entire country.
In Germany, I too have to go to some citizens registration office to request an ID card (Personalausweis) and later go there again to retrieve it. It's about 30 EUR, and I have to bring a suitable photo myself, with additional cost and time for that. The thing is then valid for 10 years, tho when I move, I have to go there again to have them change my address on it (free, as of now).
Unless the costs and efforts in the US are unduly high - hundreds of dollars and taking off half a week from work or travel half the country - the claim voter ID laws are an actual poll tax designed to keep people away seems suspicious. Sure there is some hassle and a tiny bit of money required, but I don't see anybody claim that drivers licenses are a scheme to keep poor people off the streets in the same regard.
You also need to wear clothes and shoes into the polling station. Are those expenses considered poll taxes as well? Straw man, but requiring ID is not really a direct poll tax. I certainly don't feel like I'm being unreasonably taxed when I vote with my ID.
You've conflated your feelings with the government's propensity to provide protection for all Americans. Voting is a right, unlike driving an automobile, which is a privilege. Rights have no prerequisites to enjoy them, unlike privileges. We all agree that many people do have the means to acquire government IDs. Just like all goods and services, the amount of money required to purchase an ID might be a pittance to you, but a significant expense to someone else. This, coupled with what I assume is a track record of not being disenfranchised, might explain why you have no frame of reference from which to appreciate why its a poll tax.
Let me rephrase: the majority of people in my society would _agree_ that requiring an ID card to vote is reasonable. That is true based on an observation of the status quo. Voting is also a right in Canada. In the US, being an imprisoned felon erases your right to vote. Hence, voting is not a God given grant as you claim.
You're also making an ignorant generalization about my background. I was brought up by a single, disabled mother. We lived below the poverty line for the majority of my childhood. You'd do well to discard your arrogant approach.
> the majority of people in my society would _agree_ that requiring an ID card to vote is reasonable
On the surface it seems like a reasonable requirement, but it disenfranchises people for little to no return. In-person voter fraud is difficult to do in any meaningful amounts. Estimates show the amount is negligible compared to the kind of disenfranchisement voting restrictions cause.
Additionally there have been a lot of bullshit practices put up to block people from voting: literary test + grandfather clause, poll tax, corporate thugs watching you vote, white supremacists keeping black people out of polling stations, limiting the quantities of polling stations, resisting early voting, using horribly insecure (Windows XP SP1) voting machines, voter records getting purged. Voting is a right, and it's supposed to be the foundation of our democratic republic.
ID costs money, has to be renewed, and is harder to get than it used to be. (Thanks, DHS.) What if you're older, and the building that kept your birth certificate burned down? Or just lost it? This is not uncommon. Do you just not get to vote?
Australia does it, you can use your driver's licence, your passport, or your birth certificate and a recent bill. Or Medicare card.
There is no cost to requiring ID... It is you conflating the cost of acquiring an id with the cost of requiring one. As Australia shows, it can be done with a zero cost (birth certificates and Medicare cards are free)
Australia acheives a 90+% voter turn out. (Compulsory voting through fines) even our poorest are able to vote, that remaining 8% who don't vote are overseas, or missing.
US is lucky if it gets to 60%
The US system has serious problems that completely undermine a democracy... But hey, let's forget the forest and focus on this one tree right here.
You are thinking of this as a person who already has a government issued ID. If you don't drive and don't travel internationally there isn't much in life that would require you go acquire a government issued ID. If the only reason you need the ID is to vote, many people who don't already have an ID won't vote.
This argument seems like grasping me to. How would one function in society at all without an ID? Opening a bank account, cashing a check, driving a car, visiting a doctor, taking a train or plane, going to court. These are all activities which require ID. Sure, there is a tiny fraction of people who can't engage in those activities. But how likely is it that those folks are going to be voting, anyhow?
7% of US households don't have a bank account.[1] Many people live in walkable areas, carpool, or rely on transit. Visiting a doctor doesn't require ID. Taking a train or plane (or a bus) is easier with ID but possible without.
That's surprisingly high! Although I'd assume the total number of people have IDs is greater than the count of those who have bank accounts since there are multiple activities which require IDs (only one being opening a bank account).
Visiting a doctor does take ID if you have insurance. Also, by federal law, picking up any prescriptions that a doctor writes requires ID, certainly at least for narcotic prescriptions.
Doctors' offices generally make some effort to verify the identity of anyone not paying up front. Some insist on scanning a government-issued photo ID. Others are more flexible.
Regulations for dispensing controlled substances vary from state to state. As of 2013, only 24 states required pharmacists to verify identity.[1] Many of those regulations apply only in certain circumstances, don't specifically require government-issued photo ID, have fallback procedures, or allow the pharmacist to dispense the medication without ID if withholding it would harm the patient. Florida recently passed a law that says it's good enough if the pharmacist recognizes the patient.[2]
An ID certainly makes those things easier, but a government issued photo ID is not actually required for any of them. Like I said in my original comment, the only things that absolutely require an ID are international travel and driving. If you do neither of those, then you might not have an ID.
Employers are required to verify documents which shows legal status, some of which are IDs. However there combinations of documents on form I-9 which are not IDs.
But as to your idea about life without an ID... I routinely refuse to show my ID to bank tellers, doctor offices, trains, planes, etc. I avoid most activities the require ID. There is one obvious exception--I drive every day.
I carry my ID with me at all times. But I refuse to show to somebody who is not writing me a traffic ticket. That refusal has not impeded my ability to conduct a normal life.
FWIW, I am not opposed to voter ID. I am opposed to universal ID. My voter ID should not be required to open a bank account, or rent an apartment. It should be for one purpose. I recently tried to open a bank account. They asked for my SSN. I gave it to them so they could report taxable income to the IRS. They asked for my drivers license. I refused. They asked for my employment history. I refused. If they asked for my shoe size, I would refuse.
Over-collection of personal data is a big problem right now. Most people facilitate it. I try to resist it.
So, the premise is that all Liberals think this way, right?
It seems odd that Fox News keep returning to college campuses over and over and over to get quotes that are intended to represent the views of Liberals writ large.
I mean, they're in New York City, wouldn't it be simpler to go outside their office and interview some adults with jobs?
Trying to wrack my brain to figure out why they would keep talking to 18 year olds over and over again, hmm...
I’d love for you to explain how living life as an adult in the US without an ID is remotely close to possible for any reasonable length of time. Want a job? You need ID. Banks are obviosuly out, but so are prepaid reloadable cards. Live on cash only from an under-the-table job where you weren’t asked for ID? Fine, but where do you plan to live without ID? Even weekly motels require ID.
The idea that a legal, eligible-to-vote US citizen is running around living life in 2018 without any form of ID is preposterous.
I have an ID. Last time I renewed it I specifically spurned the "Real ID" option. Which supposedly means I can't get on an airplane. I have since been on an airplane. But not one that required a loss of dignity.
I did not provide a driver license to my employer. I have worked legitimately for them every day for many years.
I did not provide a driver license to my ISP.
I can't fathom why my bank would need to know if I am allowed to drive. They do, however, have a legitimate reason for wanting my SSN.
This current year I have traveled across 4 states several times. Nobody asked me for my license. I've spent many thousands of dollars with retailers. I've stayed at multiple hotels. I've been to the airport a few times. And I've lived in the home that I own all year long. In none of these situations have I been asked for a driver license.
I have been asked for my driver license in what seemed odd circumstances. I gave them a puzzled look and declined the requests. Once or twice they persisted and I asked them why they needed to know if I was permitted to drive. They sputter something about their computer screen. I ask them if we can proceed if I don't have a license, and they eventually figure out how to do that. We complete our business; I get in my car and drive home.
Honestly, I wish people like you would put up a little more resistance. But I recognize your right to do whatever you want with your license.
This is completely separate from voting issues, but I tend to avoid settings where I am treated like a suspect. I certainly don't pay people specifically to treat me like a suspect. As you might guess, this means that I don't do business with commercial airlines.
It also means that I avoid sporting events that require pat-downs. Or neighborhood parties that require criminal background checks. Or schools with metal detectors at the entrance.
In general, if an event is so sketchy and risky that it requires those measures, I take it as a signal to avoid that event. When I see somebody dressed in full combat gear I know I am not where I want to be.
> The idea that a legal, eligible-to-vote US citizen is running around living life in 2018 without any form of ID is preposterous
That's possibly true, but also completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, because in most states the voter ID laws only accept a few specific kinds of ID. There are many legal, eligible-to-vote US citizens running around living life in 2018 without any of these specific kinds of ID.
No, what is preposterous is that you cant imagine people with no employment, no bank account, nor vehicle to drive living in the US. Those people have a right to vote even if you aren't impressed with their quality of living.
...living in the US. Those people have a right to vote
Living in the US and having the right to vote are not the same thing. Illegal aliens, temporary and permanent residents, and other people of varying status live in the US but cannot legally vote, at least in federal elections.
There are "people with no employment, no bank account, nor vehicle to drive living in the US" who are U.S. citizens. Disenfranchising them is unamerican.
Right, but I was speaking about citizens. Nice deflection. People on HN are usually great but many seem to argue in bad faith and it makes me want to quit this platform (in addition to the others).
How am I arguing in bad faith when your comment didn't specify citizens, and merely said people? My point was that there aren't many citizens that fall into the category you were talking about, but there are many people that do. Most citizens, at a minimum, have some form of government issued ID.
Well, your average clothes-or-shoes store isn't sited, controlled, and operated by a partisan political party trying to actively sabotage certain groups to prevent them from voting.
If you choose not to vote, you save that money and it effects your life in no direct way. You can't choose not to wear clothes and still expect to live a normal life. The point is if the ID was free, it would be different, because you'd have no incentive to not have one.
If a person doesn't have a car, unless they live in a big city, they are likely to be poor. IF they are poor, they are on government assistance, right? So what ID do they use to get that assistance?
That someone might have to pay $15-30 every 5 years to renew a state ID, and have it be claimed that it is a "poll tax" to vote, is ridiculous.
I live in a small U.S. town. There are not 10K people living within 25 miles of my house. While few here would admit to being rich, people who don't live here might see them as pretty well off. There is probably something close to 1 car per capita. That includes infants. If you throw in motorcycles, four-wheelers, tractors, loaders, golf carts, boats, jet skis, snowmobiles, personal fork-lifts, etc. we have to go well above 1 vehicle per capita.
Still, there are many functioning people here who do not own a single vehicle.
That doesn't make them poor or stupid or government-dependent.
Your ignorance and prejudice are undermining your ability to mount a convincing argument. I happen to think that a voter ID is not an unacceptable idea. But I run across so many people who seem to mount the kinds of uninformed arguments that you have here. These arguments scare me. They make me worry about the capacity of our society to enact a reasonable voter ID program. It seems like it should be so simple. Then I read the thinking of people like you and worry that it will be botched.
I, for one, hope that a driver's license in not an acceptable ID for voting. It certainly is not sufficient to prove citizenship.
Perhaps you think we control for that as part of voter registration. We do not. I registered by walking into a post office, filling out a form, and handing the clerk some pocket change for a stamp.
If he drives them, he will rightfully be arrested. If he wants to bail out of jail after his arrest, the bondsman will require ID. No ID, and he sits there in jail until his case is heard several months down the line.
With respect to your other claims, you seem to be of the belief that a Driver's License and an ID are necessarily the same thing. They are not. You can easily acquire an ID card that is not a driver's license.
I was responding specifically to a claim that people without a car must be poor and on government support. That was followed by a question about how many adults don't have Driver's Licenses. To the first claim I responded with experience of people without cars who were not poor. To the second question I provided experience with people that don't have a Driver's License.
To your statement, I will respond by letting you know that he does not drive. I agree that he should be arrested if he is found driving without a license.
I will also point out that you have made some of the same poor assumptions as the first comment. If he wants to bail out of jail after his arrest, he will open his wallet and pay cash for his bail. If he doesn't actually have the cash in his wallet, he may send his driver to retrieve more cash.
People without a Driver's License are not necessarily poor. Or uneducated. Or dim-witted.
Who said anything about being poor? Are you implying that only poor people use bondsman?
In this thread you’ve said that you only fly private and that your father has a personal driver. Congratulations to you/him on your success in life, but something tells me that both of you have ID if this is the case.
What's contentious is the versions used by Republicans: make the required ID a kind of ID you can only obtain in certain locations, and then close most all of those locations in predominately black counties, or make the ID expensive or obscure or difficult to obtain for working folks. And even when it isn't racist, it's very clearly there to preserve GOP majorities:
Almost every other Western democracy also has national ID cards, which the United States does not.
It sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice - specifically in the United States - requiring ID for registered voters at the polling station is used by the Republican Party for the sole purpose of disenfranchising Democratic voters.
Government-issued ID in general has a long history of being contentious in the US, and is consequently a complete goddamn mess. As a country, we really aren't in the habit of setting things up with the assumption that every citizen has an official ID. So not requring ID to vote looks strange compared to other countries, but not compared to how we treat ID generally in the US.
Looking at the description of Canada, it looks similar to how the US has worked.
The general thing people have wanted to avoid is an extra burden that burdens poor voters. Either an ID that costs money (poll taxes are banned in many countries, so this is always a little dubious), or that simply requires going to a distant or understaffed facility to get the ID.
> Voting requires ID in almost every other western democracy
Not in the UK. [1]
> Do I need to take ID to the polling station?
> You do not need to show ID to vote in England, Scotland and Wales. You just need to tell polling staff your name and address. They will then cross your name off the list and give you a ballot paper.
There were trials of a voter id system recently, but it is widely regarded as "a solution in search of a problem" and a way of suppressing the vote of the economically disadvantaged, the natural opponents of the ruling right wing Tory party[2]
> There, I've made my point and provided as much evidence as you have towards your point
The difference between your point and his point is that he could easily provide evidence for his, since there have been numerous lawsuits over these laws by civil rights groups, and the evidence was well publicized in those cases, and there have also been academic studies of these laws. Some links: [1] [2] [3].
There are ineligible people who vote, but almost all of them do so by means that would not be stopped by voter ID laws, most commonly absentee ballots. This makes it very hard to find evidence that supports you points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws