What did Democrats do wrong?

[wareyin]

Yes, but don't forget, according to a reliable source you need it to buy bread.....

It's so weird watching people make these completely off base claims. It is either sheer brazenness because they think they can lie so badly and not be called on it, or it is sheer ignorance because they have never actually navigated these systems themselves. They just assume that's how it works because they heard a politician say it in a soundbite. If someone truly thinks you need a photo ID to buy a loaf of bread or file your taxes, they clearly live a life of having other people do that stuff for them.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's so weird watching people make these completely off base claims. It is either sheer brazenness because they think they can lie so badly and not be called on it, or it is sheer ignorance because they have never actually navigated these systems themselves. They just assume that's how it works because they heard a politician say it in a soundbite. If someone truly thinks you need a photo ID to buy a loaf of bread or file your taxes, they clearly live a life of having other people do that stuff for them.

Yeah, and fwiw, we got on fine voting without ID until the Tories decided to introduce it and bias the acceptable ID to favour their majority elderly voters (Jacob Rees-Mogg literally admitted it on TV).

 

[Emily's Cat]

All of you people pretending that proof of identity and citizenship is some outlandish burden never before heard of are... well... living in a weird fantasy realm.

 

[wareyin]

The general stance in this thread seems to be... Oh tnoes, there's less than 1% of voting aged people in the US who don't have a non-expired state issued ID, even though that's not the only form of ID being discussed, so we totally can't require verification of identity and citizenship for voting in the US, even though the vast majority of other democratic countries require identity and citizenship verification in order to vote, and even though this provides a loophole for non-citizens or for multiple votes and weakens trust in US democracy... but the US should be expected to just let anyone vote because reasons.

The idea that there is a "loophole" for non-citizens or for people to vote multiple times is just complete fabrication. You cannot just walk into a precinct and vote. You have to be on the voter rolls. Every single state requires you to swear you are a citizen under penalty of perjury, which is a federal felony that leads to prison and automatic deportation. No non-citizen is going to risk a felony and permanent exile just to cast a single vote.

Furthermore, the claim about "multiple votes" ignores how elections actually work. When you check in at a polling place, you are marked off a centralized list. If you tried to go to another precinct, you wouldn't be on their list. If you tried to vote by mail and in person, the system flags the duplicate; only one is counted while the second triggers an investigation. You are making bold claims that demonstrate a complete unfamiliarity with the subject you are posing as an expert on.

This "1%" figure is a falsehood too. While most people have some form of ID, millions of voting-age U.S. citizens do not have the specific, non-expired photo ID required by strict state laws. Depending on the specific state requirements, anywhere from 9% to over 30% of certain demographics lack the properly formatted, non-expired IDs legally allowed for voting.

Comparing the U.S. to other countries is also a false equivalence. Those countries often have national ID systems where the government proactively ensures every citizen has an ID for free. Here, we leave it to a patchwork of state agencies that can be shut down or made intentionally difficult to navigate, as I’ve already illustrated.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

All of you people pretending that proof of identity and citizenship is some outlandish burden never before heard of are... well... living in a weird fantasy realm.

You and others are pretending you live in a weird fantasy realm when you insist everyone has to show photo ID when purchasing a loaf of bread, a carton of eggs, a six-pack of beer, or when filing a tax return or traveling by bus or taxi or limousine.

Those of us who live in the real world know better.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Every single state requires you to swear you are a citizen under penalty of perjury, which is a federal felony that leads to prison and automatic deportation. No non-citizen is going to risk a felony and permanent exile just to cast a single vote.

No person actively breaking laws would ever break laws...

 

[Emily's Cat]

I always find it... interesting... when people get so far into their own arguments that they lose sight of what the overwhelming majority of people actually want and support. This is one of those topics. Those of you arguing that the US shouldn't require voter identification and proof of citizenship are in the small minority - only about 18% of US citizens agree with you. Even when you split it by lean right/left, 69% of people who lean left support voter ID.

Bipartisan Support for Early In-Person Voting, Voter ID, Election Day National Holiday

But partisan divides grow wider on other proposals such as voting by mail, automatic voter registration and registering on Election Day.

www.pewresearch.org

It's an entirely reasonable and pragmatic thing to do. It's something that most democratic countries do. Falling back on "oh some people don't have IDs" is short-sighted and poor logic. Get them IDs, support making state IDs free, and set up advocacy groups to facilitate getting IDs for those who need help getting hold of birth certificates or social security cards or other necessary documents.

Arguing against ensuring that we have fair and trustworthy election practices just blows my mind.

 

[ahhell]

Still not convinced it's all that hard. Since we are trading anecdotes. I managed to get my father and mothers birth certificates 80 years after they were born in different states from where I am now. Sure, it cost money, $10-20 and postage. Getting mine was easier but about the same price.

I will assume the 7 million number is correct, that's about 4% of eligible voters who according to cited source are less likely to vote in the first place. It appears to be about 6% for people of color.

Sure, change your name and it will be more difficult, that will affect most married women, another reason why they shouldn't change their names, and probably up to the triple digits for men, and most transfolks. It is also only going to affect those folks that weren't wise enough to keep the paperwork. Not sure what we can do about them but as noted, it can still be done. There will also be some folks that have lost paper work due to fire, flood and what not. That will suck but suspect it's a lot easier to get if you do so in short order and while you still have photo ID.

If this is actually a thing, how about we work on getting those folks IDs? Sure, you can live in the US without one, no doubt it's a lot harder than not. I'd start with a DMV office at prisons and jails, if you don't have one when you come in, they can get to work on it while you serve your term. Sell to the cops and prison guards by letting them do there DMV business in their office.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The arguments against voter id are invented barriers that can all be solved. I just don't really understand *why* so many people feel the need to lean in to a fixable problem. It's like perfect being the enemy of the good, but on steroids.

 

[Segnosaur]

Couple of comments here.

First off... You're canadian, so why do you give a crap what laws the US uses for voting?

First of all, I think empathy/concern is warranted for people caught in unfair/unjust systems, even if they are in a foreign country, and getting denied voting rights is something that would be unjust. (I don't live in North Korea either, but I have no problem saying Kim Jeun Un abuses his people", or that "Iranian citizens are brutalized by their leaders")

Secondly, given the geographic proximity between the US and Canada, the past alliances and treaties between the 2 nations, Canadians should be concerned about what goes on south of the border.

Do you also stick your nose into Norway, France, and Germany to give them grief about how awful it is that they require IDs for their citizens to vote? Or is this a requirement that you reserve solely for the US?

Once again, before I condemn those other countries for restrictive voter ID laws, their situation needs to be put into context.

Many of those states may require photo ID, but are more liberal in what they consider "valid".... for example, student ID cards and/or expired licenses might be accepted as photo ID in many european jurisdictions, whereas they would not be acceptable in many states in the US. Then their is the question of infrastructure.... social services available to help people get proper ID, etc. (Compare that to the US, where the primary point of contact seems to be the DMV, a government department known for long delays.)

Second... Canada requires verification of identity, and prefers a state issued ID, but allows for other means of verification in the rare event that a citizen doesn't have an ID. Which is pretty much the same thing that is being proposed for the US.

Ummm, no. Just no.

Many of the states with restrictive voting laws explicitly require photo ID. (And that is the plan that Stubby McBonespurs and his Klan want to implement nationwide.) They also often put restrictions on what they will allow (for example, one state allowed identification from the NRA to be used as valid photo ID, but not student cards.)

So if you think it's somehow morally abhorrent for the US to require verification of identity and citizenship in order to vote, perhaps you ought to tackle your own government first, eh?

Umm, how about no?

Canada does not require photo ID. A potential voter does not have to head down to the local government services office and stand in line for half a day to get a photo ID who's ONLY use for the person will be to vote.

This is a different situation than states in the US with restrictive voting laws (and the plan that republicans want to implement nationwide, with mandatory photo ID.)

 

[wareyin]

No person actively breaking laws would ever break laws...

You, and everyone making the same stupid claim as you, have yet to demonstrate that non-citizens are voting.

 

[wareyin]

I always find it... interesting... when people get so far into their own arguments that they lose sight of what the overwhelming majority of people actually want and support. This is one of those topics. Those of you arguing that the US shouldn't require voter identification and proof of citizenship are in the small minority - only about 18% of US citizens agree with you. Even when you split it by lean right/left, 69% of people who lean left support voter ID.

Bipartisan Support for Early In-Person Voting, Voter ID, Election Day National Holiday

But partisan divides grow wider on other proposals such as voting by mail, automatic voter registration and registering on Election Day.

www.pewresearch.org

It's an entirely reasonable and pragmatic thing to do. It's something that most democratic countries do. Falling back on "oh some people don't have IDs" is short-sighted and poor logic. Get them IDs, support making state IDs free, and set up advocacy groups to facilitate getting IDs for those who need help getting hold of birth certificates or social security cards or other necessary documents.

Arguing against ensuring that we have fair and trustworthy election practices just blows my mind.

First of all, photo IDs do not ensure that we have a fair and trustworthy election.

It's easy to point to a high percentage of support for the general idea of voter ID. Most people, including myself, agree that elections should be secure. However, those polls rarely ask if people support the specific, high-friction implementation we have in the U.S. There is a massive difference between a universal, automatic national ID system used in other countries and the restrictive, patchwork state system we have here.

If the U.S. moved to a free, universal national ID where the government assumed the burden of ensuring every citizen had one without requiring people to spend weeks and money chasing down decades-old birth certificates, then I suspect that 81% support would be even higher. But I suspect that is not what you want, and that is also not what is happening. Instead, we see states like Alabama making it harder to get IDs by closing DMVs in black counties or North Carolina passing laws that courts explicitly ruled were designed to disenfranchise specific voters.

When you look at the actual data, roughly 21 million citizens lack a current, non-expired photo ID. When you add those whose IDs do not match their current legal name or address, that number climbs toward 34.5 million. For those people, "pragmatic" ID laws are not about trust or security; they are a modern-day hurdle that makes it harder for them to exercise their most basic right. Supporting "fair" elections means ensuring that every eligible citizen can actually get to the ballot box, not just those with the easiest paperwork trail.

 

[wareyin]

Still not convinced it's all that hard. Since we are trading anecdotes. I managed to get my father and mothers birth certificates 80 years after they were born in different states from where I am now. Sure, it cost money, $10-20 and postage. Getting mine was easier but about the same price.

I will assume the 7 million number is correct, that's about 4% of eligible voters who according to cited source are less likely to vote in the first place. It appears to be about 6% for people of color.

Sure, change your name and it will be more difficult, that will affect most married women, another reason why they shouldn't change their names, and probably up to the triple digits for men, and most transfolks. It is also only going to affect those folks that weren't wise enough to keep the paperwork. Not sure what we can do about them but as noted, it can still be done. There will also be some folks that have lost paper work due to fire, flood and what not. That will suck but suspect it's a lot easier to get if you do so in short order and while you still have photo ID.

If this is actually a thing, how about we work on getting those folks IDs? Sure, you can live in the US without one, no doubt it's a lot harder than not. I'd start with a DMV office at prisons and jails, if you don't have one when you come in, they can get to work on it while you serve your term. Sell to the cops and prison guards by letting them do there DMV business in their office.

While you managed to navigate the system for your parents, your personal experience is not the universal standard. You mentioned a cost of $10 to $20, but that is objectively incorrect for many states. In Georgia, a birth certificate is $25. If a woman has been married and divorced, she may need multiple marriage and divorce decrees at $10 to $25 each just to prove her name change. By the time you add in processing fees, money order costs, and postage, a "free" ID can easily cost a citizen $50 to $100 and take 8 to 10 weeks. For a person living in poverty, that isn't a "small fee", it is a week’s worth of groceries. Many states cut off voter registration weeks ahead of the election, meaning you need a financial plan to secure documents months in advance.

Furthermore, your comment about people being "wise enough" to keep paperwork is incredibly dismissive. People lose documents in house fires, floods, or during the chaos of a move. Suggesting that a victim of a natural disaster or a senior citizen who lost a hand-written document 60 years ago should lose their right to vote because they weren't "wise enough" is elitist. It turns a fundamental constitutional right into a reward for having a filing cabinet and a stable life.

The 21.3 million figure I cited is real. Dismissing those citizens as people who are "less likely to vote anyway" is a circular argument. They are less likely to vote because the state has built a bureaucratic maze specifically designed to keep them out. A Harvard Law report from the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute found that the actual cost of obtaining a "free" voter ID typically ranges from $75 to $175 when you factor in documentation, travel, and waiting time. If the goal were truly about "trust," the government would provide a free and universal ID. Instead, we have a system that relies on the exact hurdles you are currently hand-waving away while limiting access for specific demographics.

 

[wareyin]

The arguments against voter id are invented barriers that can all be solved. I just don't really understand *why* so many people feel the need to lean in to a fixable problem. It's like perfect being the enemy of the good, but on steroids.

You have it inverted. Requiring a photo ID doesn't improve voting security because the "problems" it claims to solve, like non-citizen voting or double voting, are already prevented by the registration and polling process. It does not "solve" anything. It is an additional, unnecessary hurdle that is actively being used to make it harder for eligible people to vote. Calling these "invented barriers" ignores the reality for millions of citizens. It is not a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good; it is a case of a useless policy being the enemy of a fundamental right.

 

[Segnosaur]

Still not convinced it's all that hard. Since we are trading anecdotes. I managed to get my father and mothers birth certificates 80 years after they were born in different states from where I am now. Sure, it cost money, $10-20 and postage. Getting mine was easier but about the same price.

Your experiences may not translate to all other people.

Were they born in a hospital and issued a birth certificate at the time? (Many people were born at home in the middle of the last century, which complicates things since they were never issued a certificate in the first place.)

And your "$10 cost"? This is going to depend on the state. Birth certificates cost $22 in texas, and that is just for the base fee. Add in payment processing fees, shipping, etc. and the cost can easily be over $50 depending on the state. Now YOU might not think $50 is a hardship. But if you are a retiree living on a fixed income, or someone working a minimum wage job, that type of money might be a bit harder to come by.

I will assume the 7 million number is correct, that's about 4% of eligible voters who according to cited source are less likely to vote in the first place. It appears to be about 6% for people of color.

Well, lets put that into context shall we?

The margin of victory between Stubby McBonespurs and Harris was 1.5%. So the number of people who would be disenfranchised by lack of voter ID is more than twice as high as the margin of victory in the last election.

Add to that the fact that this also impacts congressional races. You may have districts where the margin of victory is thin enough that it could easily affect the outcome. For example, in the 2024 election, Iowa's first district had a margin of victory of less than 0.2%. Colorodo's 8th district had a margin of victory of around 0.7%.. Even though "only" 4% of voters would be affected by strict photo ID laws, it could definitely have an impact in those races.)

Sure, change your name and it will be more difficult, that will affect most married women, another reason why they shouldn't change their names, and probably up to the triple digits for men, and most transfolks. It is also only going to affect those folks that weren't wise enough to keep the paperwork. Not sure what we can do about them but as noted, it can still be done. There will also be some folks that have lost paper work due to fire, flood and what not. That will suck but suspect it's a lot easier to get if you do so in short order and while you still have photo ID.

First of all, you keep adding all these marginalized groups (oh, a few people here are affected but its not that many. Oh a few people here are also affected but its not that many.) Add it all up though and you have a pretty big block of people.

Secondly, the big question is... why bother? The type of voter fraud that photo ID would actually prevent is extremely rare (supposedly affecting around 0.00004% of all votes cast), far less than the number of people that would be disenfranchised by strict photo ID laws. So you want to put new burdens on millions of people and drive up government costs (even if those IDs are free to get, the government still has to foot the bill), all to fix something that isn't really a problem. Sounds like a huge waste to me. You know, the type of waste the government should be avoiding.

https://www.lwv.org/blog/whats-so-bad-about-voter-id-laws

If this is actually a thing, how about we work on getting those folks IDs?

Sure, sounds great... "just make it even easier to get".

You see, here is the problem... the republicans don't WANT to make it easier for marginalized groups to get the required IDs. For example, another poster pointed out how one red state closed dozens of DMV offices (the place people would most likely get their photo ID done) in areas that had larger minority populations. Sure, they may make some token effort to "make things easier", but you can be sure that once the republicans want to fund another round of tax cuts for millionaires, they will target whatever efforts that were made to make obtaining ID easier.

Just look at all the idiots here talking "How easy it is to get".... they have no real clue how things work.

Sure, you can live in the US without one, no doubt it's a lot harder than not.

I suspect for most people who don't have ID, they would see no benefit to having one (outside of voting).

Most of the claims made by idiots here seem to be "you need it for renting/taxes/working", etc. But most of those are, well, wrong.

I'd start with a DMV office at prisons and jails, if you don't have one when you come in, they can get to work on it while you serve your term. Sell to the cops and prison guards by letting them do there DMV business in their office.

Yeah, I can see that being one of the first things republicans eliminate when they decide to cut costs again. "Why are we running DMV offices in prison when inmates can't drive. We need to cut costs by centralizing everything in one big office, that will be located 10 miles outside the city limits, and is only open week days from 9 till noon.".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Canada does not require photo ID. A potential voter does not have to head down to the local government services office and stand in line for half a day to get a photo ID who's ONLY use for the person will be to vote.

You're right. If they don't have an ID, all they need to do is make sure that you declare your identity and your address in writing, and bring along another person who can prove their identity and address and is also assigned to the same polling station to vouch for you.

Sounds way easier than just having either a government-issued ID or having two forms of those identification that proves you're who you say you are and that you're a citizen.

Do you not understand that when americans talk about voter ID, they're talking about the bog-standard method of providing either 1) a SINGLE government-issued ID or 2) TWO alternate forms of ID that when taken together can confirm your identity and citizenship? Which, by the way, is also what's needed for any legitimate job, any rental agreement, opening a bank account. Not all of those require citizenship, but the basics of required IDs are the same all around.

It's baffling to me that some people are so deeply invested in obstructing any reasonable step toward pragmatic solutions.

Let me flip this around a bit: Why are you so dedicated to ensuring that no proof of identification and citizenship be required for US voters?

 

[Segnosaur]

You're right. If they don't have an ID, all they need to do is make sure that you declare your identity and your address in writing, and bring along another person who can prove their identity and address and is also assigned to the same polling station to vouch for you.

Sounds way easier than just having either a government-issued ID or having two forms of those identification that proves you're who you say you are and that you're a citizen.

Ummm, no. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Canada allows a wide range of identifying documents... the voting card (sent out automatically to all registered voters), utility bills, bank statements, library cards, social insurance card, etc.. You do not NEED anyone to vouch for you. That is only needed if (for whatever reason) you do not have access to any of that.

Do you not understand that when americans talk about voter ID, they're talking about the bog-standard method of providing either 1) a SINGLE government-issued ID or 2) TWO alternate forms of ID that when taken together can confirm your identity and citizenship?

Ummm, no. Another case of you being wrong.

Once again, multiple states have strict government-issued PHOTO ID laws. They are not allowing "alternatives" the same way they do in Canada.

For example: From: https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state
Alabama: Section 17-9-30 of Alabama law states "each elector shall provide valid photo identification to an appropriate election official prior to voting."
Texas: Section 63.001 of Texas law requires voters to present photo identification when voting.
Nebraska: Section 32-318.01 of Nebraska law states "a qualified voter shall present valid photographic identification before casting a ballot."

See? multiple references to PHOTO ID.

You know what those states DON'T have? Some alternative that doesn't involve photo ID. (They may allow provisional ballots, but you would eventually need the photo ID).

Which, by the way, is also what's needed for any legitimate job, any rental agreement, opening a bank account.

already dealt with that stupidity before. Please go back and re-read my earlier posts.

Repeating bogus claims does not make them any more valid. Sorry.

It's baffling to me that some people are so deeply invested in obstructing any reasonable step toward pragmatic solutions.

It baffles me that some people are complete and utter morons when they start making claims about how people "need" photo ID, when the fact that millions of people currently live perfectly well without having any such ID.

Let me flip this around a bit: Why are you so dedicated to ensuring that no proof of identification and citizenship be required for US voters?

Ummm,, where did I say that a person didn't have to have citizenship verified? Or that no proof if identification was needed?

Sounds like a straw man, built by someone who cannot really justify their claims.

A person's citizenship should be verified when they are registered. It has nothing to do with "photo identification" or what happens at the polling office.

My complaint is specifically about photo ID, based on the fact that it is not as easy to get for some people as various idiots claim.

 

[Donal]

The general stance in this thread seems to be... Oh tnoes, there's less than 1% of voting aged people in the US who don't have a non-expired state issued ID,

That's far larger than the cases of voter impersonation being detected. Why are we shouldering the expense of voter ID? For your little feelings?

even though that's not the only form of ID being discussed,

That is demonstrated to be untrue. But, don't let me interrupt your perfect record of being wrong

so we totally can't require verification of identity and citizenship for voting in the US,

You pay for it. You personally. And you make sure no one is left out.

even though the vast majority of other democratic countries require identity and citizenship verification in order to vote,

They also have univeral healthcare, free college, and a lot of things we aren't allowed.

and even though this provides a loophole for non-citizens or for multiple votes and weakens trust in US democracy...

Ya, that might happen someday. Maybe. I eagerly await when you can prove any of that is happening.

Meanwhile, the other Jim Crow laws you don't seem to understand or be bothered by have actually been eroding trust in US democracy.

but the US should be expected to just let anyone vote because reasons.

Because they meet the standards set in the Constitution.

 

[Donal]

The arguments against voter id are invented barriers that can all be solved. I just don't really understand *why* so many people feel the need to lean in to a fixable problem. It's like perfect being the enemy of the good, but on steroids.

You know what is invented? Whatever problem you think voter ID laws would solve. This isn't "perfect being the enemy of good", this is "stupid being the enemy of discourse".

 

[esquel]

Yet another category of people who can have trouble getting an ID are the homeless. Let's say you are living on the street and either lose or have your ID stolen. Proving who you are adequately to get a replacement, plus having enough cash on hand to do so, is a very high bar for someone living in a tent or broken down car. We see this frequently at the library. No one should be disenfranchised because they can't afford to spend more on an ID than food.