What did Democrats do wrong?

[Thermal]

Probably been said already, but for initial voter registration, you need either your gov't issued photo ID, or if you don't have one, your social security number followed by a signature verification, which has to be verified before registration completes. Illegal immigrants generally can't get a SS#, and of the ones that can, it fails during the verification process for not being a US citizen.

So basically, illegals can't get their foot in that particular door in any numbers that effect anything. It does screw with the poor and transient much more.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seriously, have you ever registered to vote? It has been pointed out over and over to you in this very thread that citizenship is verified during the registration process, and that election officials cross reference that information with Social Security and DMV databases to verify eligibility before you ever get on the voter rolls.

To use your analogy: the "murder" is already illegal, and we already have investigators (the registration process) ensuring people aren't committing it. You are arguing that because we don't have a specific type of high-tech camera on every single street corner, we must want murder to be legal. It is a total non-sequitur. We aren't saying proof of citizenship shouldn't be required; we are saying it is already required and verified, and that adding a redundant, expensive, and discriminatory photo ID barrier at the finish line solves a problem that doesn't exist.

Let's walk this through, because I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. Let's use Minnesota as a starting point.

The requirements to register say that you have to be a US citizen. Perfect. Now, what documentation is actually required in order to register?

Minnesota

Minnesota not require ID to vote. You must verify your identity when you register to vote. You are asked to provide specific ID numbers when you request an absentee ballot.

www.voteriders.org

Minnesota Voter Registration ID Requirements​

To register to vote:

• You must provide your driver’s license number or state ID card number if you have one.
• If you do not have either of these IDs, you can use the last 4 digits of your Social Security number (SSN).
• If you do not have a Social Security number, then leave that space blank on your registration form.

If you don’t provide any of these numbers or the state can’t match the number you provide to official records, you will have to show an accepted form of ID the first time you vote.

You can use one of the following:

• Unexpired photo ID (driver’s license, state ID card, passport, etc.)
• Current utility bill, bank statement, or government document

Let's look at what's required to get a driver's license or state ID:

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/dvs/license-and-id/dl-and-id-card-information/id-id-card/id-card-forms-and-documents

Link for Standard license and ID requirements (English) opens a web pdf.

Requires at least one primary and one secondary form of identification... which can include foreign birth certificate and a school transcript.

So... in order to vote, you need a driver's license, and to get a driver's license, you do NOT need to provide proof of citizenship. If you don't have a DL, you can still register to vote, if you provide a utility bill with your name on it. You do NOT need to provide proof of citizenship in order to get utilities.

Where are the safeguards in this? Or are you just assuming that someone who has already broken US law would never break US law?

 

[Emily's Cat]

As a general comment... There seem to be several Canadians, Brits, and other non-Americans in this thread, taking a very strong position that the US should not require proof of citizenship and identity in order to vote for US elections.

How about you focus on making your OWN country's voting laws more lenient than they currently are, instead of demanding that the US be prohibited from having laws as strict as yours?

 

[d4m10n]

So it doesn't matter if we say things that would not be good politically.

Does it matter whether we say anything remotely on topic?

The republicans will not outwardly say "its about race", but that still seems to be the underlying rule in many cases.

Happy to address this line of thought if you can show that it somehow relates to Democratic Party mistakes in 2024, otherwise I'm not going to waste keystrokes for the sake of populating AAH.

There seem to be several Canadians, Brits, and other non-Americans in this thread, taking a very strong position that the US should not require proof of citizenship and identity in order to vote for US elections.

Which also has ◊◊◊◊ all to do with Democratic Party mistakes, AFAICT.

Perhaps their policy mistake was failing to create free statewide i.d. programs wherever they had enough political clout to do so?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You claim it is "entirely reasonable" to accept expired IDs, but you are ignoring the fact that the people pushing these laws are specifically passing legislation to reject them. Your "reasonable" standard is not what is actually being implemented, and you know that. This is your Motte and Bailey.

In Ohio, a 2023 law restricted voters to only four forms of ID, and they must be unexpired. In Texas, you can vote with a handgun license, but a student ID from a state university is explicitly banned. There is a very clear reason for that. These laws are not designed to "close loopholes" for security, they are designed to be partisan filters. They reject the documents most commonly held by students, low income workers, and seniors because those demographics are less likely to vote for the party writing the rules.

Finally, calling it "subversive" to oppose a system where citizens must "show their papers" to exercise a fundamental right is a deeply authoritarian take. History shows that requiring citizens to carry and present government-approved identity documents on demand is a hallmark of fascistic and totalistic regimes, not free democracies. The fact that you view the removal of barriers to voting as a threat to "social order" says a lot more about your personal politics than it does about election security.

In ALL states in the US, you must provide proof of citizenship in order to purchase firearms legally. There is no citizenship requirement in order to attend a US university.

 

[Random]

<Snip>

So... in order to vote, you need a driver's license, and to get a driver's license, you do NOT need to provide proof of citizenship. If you don't have a DL, you can still register to vote, if you provide a utility bill with your name on it. You do NOT need to provide proof of citizenship in order to get utilities.

Where are the safeguards in this? Or are you just assuming that someone who has already broken US law would never break US lawlaw

The MN drivers licenses for non-citizens have "Not for Federal Identification" clearly printed on them.

 

[wareyin]

Let's walk this through, because I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. Let's use Minnesota as a starting point.

The requirements to register say that you have to be a US citizen. Perfect. Now, what documentation is actually required in order to register?

Minnesota

Minnesota not require ID to vote. You must verify your identity when you register to vote. You are asked to provide specific ID numbers when you request an absentee ballot.

www.voteriders.org

Let's look at what's required to get a driver's license or state ID:

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/dvs/license-and-id/dl-and-id-card-information/id-id-card/id-card-forms-and-documents

Link for Standard license and ID requirements (English) opens a web pdf.

Requires at least one primary and one secondary form of identification... which can include foreign birth certificate and a school transcript.

So... in order to vote, you need a driver's license, and to get a driver's license, you do NOT need to provide proof of citizenship. If you don't have a DL, you can still register to vote, if you provide a utility bill with your name on it. You do NOT need to provide proof of citizenship in order to get utilities.

Where are the safeguards in this? Or are you just assuming that someone who has already broken US law would never break US law?

Did you even read the link you posted? Your own source explicitly contradicts your claim that a driver's license is required to vote. It states clearly that if you do not have a license or state ID, you can use the last four digits of your Social Security number. If you have neither, you can still register by having a neighbor vouch for you.

Furthermore, you are still failing to grasp the simple point that citizenship is verified when one registers to vote. You are looking at the document requirements for the applicant and assuming that is where the process ends, but that is just the data entry phase.

In Minnesota, every single registration is verified on the back end against the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and Social Security Administration (SSA) databases. When someone provides an SSN or a license number, the state cross-references that data to confirm identity and citizenship. For those who get a "Driver's Licenses for All" without citizenship papers, the state flags those records. The Secretary of State uses that specific list to ensure those individuals are not added to the voter rolls.

In ALL states in the US, you must provide proof of citizenship in order to purchase firearms legally. There is no citizenship requirement in order to attend a US university.

Firearms are a specific regulated purchase, but you are wrong there, too. Green Card holders can and do purchase firearms legally through dealers. Also, no state in the US requires a private citizen to verify the citizenship of another private citizen for a private gun sale.

Universities are educational institutions.

Neither has anything to do with the fact that the state already verifies citizenship through multiple government databases before anyone ever gets on a voter roll.

A simple point which you simply do not seem able to grasp.

 

[ahhell]

Here is the actual mistake, not doing very good job of convincing people that getting an id is all that hard. The majority of democrats think government issued photo ID in order to vote is ok. If you can't convince the majority of democrats of a thing and you are right about the thing, well, figure out some better arguments.

 

[Helen]

As a general comment... There seem to be several Canadians, Brits, and other non-Americans in this thread, taking a very strong position that the US should not require proof of citizenship and identity in order to vote for US elections.

How about you focus on making your OWN country's voting laws more lenient than they currently are, instead of demanding that the US be prohibited from having laws as strict as yours?

Again, the huge impact of US politics on the rest of us means that those of us who care about such things, are deeply concerned about any signs of cracks in your democracy. This has been underlined by the actions of your present administration. It is beyond frustrating to be so dependent on you, while not being able to influence what is going on now.

How do you know that we are not as concerned about the state of our own democracies? I am, and I discuss it in as many places as I can, but the politics of Sweden doesn't really make that much of a difference to the rest of the world. Yours do. And also, this is the USA politics forum, but for your information, you can vote even if you don't have a photo id here (unless you want to vote ahead of time), you get a voting card sent to your registered address, and that is all you need on election day. Non-citizens, who have been registrerad here for three years, can vote in local elections, and so can all citizens of EU countries, Iceland and Norway, as soon as they are registrerad here. Our democracy is fairly healthy, I wish more people voted (we're down from over 90 % in the 70's to 84 % in 2022, sadly. The voter turnout is lower among immigrants, but there are efforts to increase their participation), so I do my best to make that happen.

 

[Thermal]

The MN drivers licenses for non-citizens have "Not for Federal Identification" clearly printed on them.

That's the RealID thing for getting on airplanes. I think even federal elections are state run, so the ID suffices to vote in your county of residence?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Referring to obvious lies as "things that you qualify as lies" is the sort of thing gaslighters do when they want to excuse obvious lies, but cannot address the obvious fact that the obvious lies are obvious lies.

It's fair to bash Trump for making unfiltered BS remarks. I agree the 'eating cats and dogs' mantra is one example of him blurting absolute nonsense among many. But the consensus here seems to be that the media didn't gaslight anyone about Biden's mental incapacitation or for that matter anytjing else. They're different objects of criticism.

What he showed in the debate was just the most visible display of it. That doesn't come out of a vacuum... there were warning signs. But when you have news anchors trying to influence public opinion by saying "he was sharp as a tack and F____ you" to anyone that disagreed... that stuff doesn't age well.

 

[Random]

That's the RealID thing for getting on airplanes. I think even federal elections are state run, so the ID suffices to vote in your county of residence?

It's both. The MN drivers license that does not require citizenship or legal status has "Not for Federal Identification" clearly printed on it. I am not sure if MN needs ID to vote, but apparently it is needed for registration, and I assume they will not register someone to vote if "Not for Federal Identification" is on the card. And if you can't get registered, you can't vote. The problem is already solved and has been for some time.

 

[wareyin]

Here is the actual mistake, not doing very good job of convincing people that getting an id is all that hard. The majority of democrats think government issued photo ID in order to vote is ok. If you can't convince the majority of democrats of a thing and you are right about the thing, well, figure out some better arguments.

First, you need convince me that a photo ID is actually necessary to vote. You have already blithely assumed that everyone is able to store documents safely for their entire lives or fork over the money and time it takes to replace them without hardship. This tells me that convincing you that just because it was easy for you it might be hard for someone else is a lost cause.

The popularity of an idea has no bearing on its factual accuracy or its constitutional impact. The "it is not that hard" argument is a textbook example of survivorship bias. If you have a car, a stable address, a birth certificate, and a job that lets you take a Tuesday morning off to stand in line at the DMV, then no, it is not hard for you.

However, for millions of Americans, the hurdles are real. "Free" IDs are a myth when the underlying documents cost money. You claimed a birth certificate is $10 to $20, but in 2026, Michigan and California both charge $34 for a certified copy. New York charges $30. Once you add in notary fees, shipping, or the cost of travel to a government office that is only open during your work hours, that "free" ID becomes a significant financial barrier.

The point is not that getting an ID is "impossible." The point is that when you add financial and logistical hurdles to a fundamental right, you are effectively creating a poll tax. We already have a system that verifies citizenship and identity through multi-agency database cross-checks on the back end. Adding a redundant "show your papers" requirement does not make elections more secure; it just makes them less accessible to the most vulnerable citizens.

 

[wareyin]

It's fair to bash Trump for making unfiltered BS remarks. I agree the 'eating cats and dogs' mantra is one example of him blurting absolute nonsense among many. But the consensus here seems to be that the media didn't gaslight anyone about Biden's mental incapacitation or for that matter anytjing else. They're different objects of criticism.

What he showed in the debate was just the most visible display of it. That doesn't come out of a vacuum... there were warning signs. But when you have news anchors trying to influence public opinion by saying "he was sharp as a tack and F____ you" to anyone that disagreed... that stuff doesn't age well.

You seem to be holding an opinion host up as a news anchor, and then holding that person’s opinion to a higher standard of gaslighting than the actual lies Trump blurted out. You call his eating pets line unfiltered BS as if that makes it less of a lie, but it was a calculated falsehood debunked by the Republican governor of Ohio and the local police before he ever hit the debate stage.

As for the media, the claim that they hid Biden's age is a total rewrite of history. In early 2024 alone, the New York Times was publishing nearly one story a day on his age. During one single week in February, they ran 26 different articles on it. By 2023, polls showed 77% of Americans already believed he was too old to be effective. They knew because they were reading about his gaffes and his age in the news for years.

The media did not ignore it, they actively chose to downplay Trump's mental incapacitation in order to complain about Biden.

 

[ahhell]

First, you need convince me that a photo ID is actually necessary to vote. You have already blithely assumed that everyone is able to store documents safely for their entire lives or fork over the money and time it takes to replace them without hardship. This tells me that convincing you that just because it was easy for you it might be hard for someone else is a lost cause.

The popularity of an idea has no bearing on its factual accuracy or its constitutional impact. The "it is not that hard" argument is a textbook example of survivorship bias. If you have a car, a stable address, a birth certificate, and a job that lets you take a Tuesday morning off to stand in line at the DMV, then no, it is not hard for you.

However, for millions of Americans, the hurdles are real. "Free" IDs are a myth when the underlying documents cost money. You claimed a birth certificate is $10 to $20, but in 2026, Michigan and California both charge $34 for a certified copy. New York charges $30. Once you add in notary fees, shipping, or the cost of travel to a government office that is only open during your work hours, that "free" ID becomes a significant financial barrier.

The point is not that getting an ID is "impossible." The point is that when you add financial and logistical hurdles to a fundamental right, you are effectively creating a poll tax. We already have a system that verifies citizenship and identity through multi-agency database cross-checks on the back end. Adding a redundant "show your papers" requirement does not make elections more secure; it just makes them less accessible to the most vulnerable citizens.

It has an impact on whether people will vote for you or not.

This is an thing the Dems keep screwing up. Being insufficiently convincing to voters. Now, it's a rare Dem in power that doesn't care about it but I have heard lots less centrist left-wing types that don't seem to care about getting votes. Which I find confusing. My M-I-L was proud of being the Lone dissenter on lots of votes. Ok, I guess but that sounds a lot like a politician that didn't get much done. Integretty in tact but not very effective at advancing policy.

 

[wareyin]

It has an impact on whether people will vote for you or not.

This is an thing the Dems keep screwing up. Being insufficiently convincing to voters. Now, it's a rare Dem in power that doesn't care about it but I have heard lots less centrist left-wing types that don't seem to care about getting votes. Which I find confusing. My M-I-L was proud of being the Lone dissenter on lots of votes. Ok, I guess but that sounds a lot like a politician that didn't get much done. Integretty in tact but not very effective at advancing policy.

You still haven't made a convincing argument in favor of requiring photo IDs to vote. Remember, "it's easy if you're comfortably middle class or higher" isn't a good reason to add an extra step when verification of citizenship happens at registration already.

The reason Democrats are "insufficiently convincing" on this is because explaining a complex, multi-agency backend verification system is harder than shouting about a phantom menace. Scaremongering is easy. Detailing how state and federal databases cross-reference identity and citizenship is a snooze to the average voter. Look at how impervious posters in this very thread are to it.

Republicans have spent years selling a story about a problem that doesn't exist. It's easy to convince people that an extra lock on the door is necessary if you keep telling them the house is about to be robbed, even if the house is already in a patrolled and gated community with a silent alarm. You are asking for a redundant, expensive, and logistically difficult photo ID requirement that doesn't make the election more secure. It just validates the scaremongering at the expense of millions of eligible citizens. And you're using your ability to afford it to say that everyone else has the free time and extra money that you do.

 

[ahhell]

You are doubling done on the mistake I'm trying to get at.

The average person including Democrats have an ID, it wasn't that big deal, they use it on a near daily basis. Some republican comes along and says, doesn't it make sense to require you to show that ID when you vote. They think, yes. Then some anti voter ID person comes along and explains how hard it is to get an ID and they look at you and think, "what, no it isn't" You explain how it is for some folks, and they think "for some folks I guess but how have they been surviving without? How do you even get a job?" And so, the anti-voter ID person says the same things again.

I bet the Venn diagram of folks who think voter fraud isn't that big a deal and think that asking voters for ID isn't that big a deal has a lot of over-lap.

The mistake I'm trying to explain is not that you oppose voter ID it's that you don't know how to convince other people to agree with you. As long as democracy is still a thing, that is a thing you need to do. Your response seems to be Republicans are more convincing that Democrats.

 

[johnny karate]

If you really thought that this many people lacked legal I.D. - something necessary for getting a job, going to the doctor, attending school, flying on a plan, renting, buying a home, driving, etc. - you'd want to find out why these people lack I.D. and figure out ways to help. But it's not about that, is it?

No, it isn't. It's about Republicans disenfranchising voters they don't like under the guise of addressing a problem they manufactured.

Alabama, Where ID Is Required to Vote, Closes DMVs in Most “Black Belt” Counties

 

[wareyin]

You are doubling done on the mistake I'm trying to get at.

The average person including Democrats have an ID, it wasn't that big deal, they use it on a near daily basis. Some republican comes along and says, doesn't it make sense to require you to show that ID when you vote. They think, yes. Then some anti voter ID person comes along and explains how hard it is to get an ID and they look at you and think, "what, no it isn't" You explain how it is for some folks, and they think "for some folks I guess but how have they been surviving without? How do you even get a job?" And so, the anti-voter ID person says the same things again.

I bet the Venn diagram of folks who think voter fraud isn't that big a deal and think that asking voters for ID isn't that big a deal has a lot of over-lap.

The mistake I'm trying to explain is not that you oppose voter ID it's that you don't know how to convince other people to agree with you. As long as democracy is still a thing, that is a thing you need to do. Your response seems to be Republicans are more convincing that Democrats.

Actually, you are still avoiding the central point: you have not made a case that photo IDs are necessary at all.

You are assuming that just because a policy is popular or easy for the majority, it is justified. But good policy is not a vibes check. It is about whether a hurdle actually solves a real problem. Since the system already verifies identity and citizenship through backend database cross-checks at registration, you have yet to explain what a physical piece of plastic adds to security, other than a way to trip up voters.

As for "how they survive," they use the documents they do have. You can get a job, a bank account, and government assistance using a Social Security card, a birth certificate, or a utility bill. Many elderly citizens or people in cities with great transit simply let their photo IDs expire because they do not drive. They have the legal documents to prove who they are, but they do not have the specific, expensive form of ID you want to require.

The mistake is not a failure to be convincing. It is the fact that "it is not that hard for me" is a terrible basis for a law that restricts a constitutional right for 21 million other people. Republicans are only "convincing" because they are selling a simple, fear-based story about a phantom menace. Refusing to validate that scaremongering is not a failure of communication. It is a refusal to trade away people's rights for the sake of your optics.

 

[ahhell]

Actually, you are still avoiding the central point: you have not made a case that photo IDs are necessary at all.

You are assuming that just because a policy is popular or easy for the majority, it is justified. But good policy is not a vibes check. It is about whether a hurdle actually solves a real problem. Since the system already verifies identity and citizenship through backend database cross-checks at registration, you have yet to explain what a physical piece of plastic adds to security, other than a way to trip up voters.

As for "how they survive," they use the documents they do have. You can get a job, a bank account, and government assistance using a Social Security card, a birth certificate, or a utility bill. Many elderly citizens or people in cities with great transit simply let their photo IDs expire because they do not drive. They have the legal documents to prove who they are, but they do not have the specific, expensive form of ID you want to require.

The mistake is not a failure to be convincing. It is the fact that "it is not that hard for me" is a terrible basis for a law that restricts a constitutional right for 21 million other people. Republicans are only "convincing" because they are selling a simple, fear-based story about a phantom menace. Refusing to validate that scaremongering is not a failure of communication. It is a refusal to trade away people's rights for the sake of your optics.

That is not the central point, the central point is "what did dems do wrong". Repeating arguments that don't seem to convince any voters is one of those mistakes.

ETA: By your own admission, you need the same things to get a job(legally) as you need to get a photo ID. Typically, a government issued photo ID or, something from Column A and something from Column B. And you keep calling them expensive as though repeating it makes true and convincing. So, not convincing anyone that doesn't already agree with you. I'm sure the right does this too; I just don't particularly want them to convince anyone to vote for them currently.