The OK case

[hollodero]

(04-06-2017, 05:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Sure, it makes an almost non-existent fraud a lot harder, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars. There is a reason why that fraud is almost non existent, and it is not because it is "easy."

Let's say you have never had a birth certificate and you were born on a farm. How do you get one? You have to gather and provide haphazard records--affidavits from people who knew your family, familiy Bible, military service records, school records and the like. For the elderly problems arise. The witnesses from the past are all gone. You no longer live in the county or state where you were born. School records might not be there.  The earliest record may actually be the first time you voted 60 years ago. But that alone won't enable you to vote now. Some counties provide legal help pro bono to get all this done--hours of work--some not. And then you have to have it done in time. The laws are usually timed to come into force just before an election. People find out too late.

Worst case scenario--you were adopted. check out some of the frustrating stories here, on this site offering legal advice. http://www.justanswer.com/family-law/68vz7-dont-birth-cerifcate.html

Also, you may be unaware of how these laws vary and are applied variously.In some states, like Tennessee, a gun license will work but not a student id. In some states you have to have an id to register. After that you don't need an id at the polls. For others, you need to show an id when you vote,but it doesn't have to be a photo id; most any id works, including a drivers license or student id. The people who want strict voter id laws want a special voter id like a driver's license, passport, or military id.

OK, I don't want that. Any photo ID would do.

Again, a bit too specific for me.

(04-06-2017, 05:19 AM)Dill Wrote: And finally, you are still having difficulty grasping the primary impetus behind voter id laws. They are not to prevent voter fraud; they are designed to shave percentages of one party's vote totals.

Ah... yeah well, don't get me wrong, but that's your perception, doesn't mean it's true. And I'm sure many republicans take their stance for that very reason you described. But inherently, voter ID laws don't have to be designed to disenfranchise. We have voter ID laws everywhere in Europe, and it's not to inhibit anyone from voting. It's to avoid voter fraud. And because it's the easiest way to organise an election, but that's something else.
Voter ID laws just make some sense beyond the aspect of hindering certain party affiliates from voting. Just in principle. That's all I'm saying.

(04-06-2017, 05:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Why would you go to all the trouble of passing laws to cut down on that party's voting, and then turn around and make it easy for all those voters to vote?

I would prefer to do both things at the same time without turning around, but the reason is to establish basic trust in the process. (And to avoid fraud.) Just from the outside, I really do not trust your system, even though fraud doesn't seem to be common, how ever that could be measured with certainty (because that I also don't know, how to detect distinct fraud percentages in studies after the election). I know Trumps claim is BS, but I kind of get why some people might actually believe him. This whole process is not really firm and air-tight, and I'd prefer my elections to be. Just in principle.

But sure, if it's too complicated to imply such laws, if it would mean too much hinderance, I don't know all about your situation, so be it. I don't kneel into that one. Theoretically, voter ID laws are not a policy directed against certain minorities or against a certain party. In a perfect world.

About the US, well. If I had a say, what I really would change about your election process would be the voting on a workday thing. That really disadvantages the working folk, especially the poorer working folk. What I also would change is that there are too little booths open in so many areas. Half the country doesn't vote, yet at some places - probably not coincidentally in many cases - there are huge lines and hours of waiting. That doesn't look right.

These would be the first logical things I would do. Then I would go into gerrymandering and solve that one. And then I would give that ID thing a try. Can't we give all our citizens IDs - which would be beneficiary for many different purposes - would be my first step. If that really is impossible, ok I agree, let it be then. I don't want to evaluate.