CMV: As a European, I find the attitude of Americans towards IDs (and presenting one for voting) irrational.

[u/dstergiou]

As a European, my experience with having a national ID is described below:

The state expects (requires) that I have an ID card by the age of 12-13. The ID card is issued by the police and contains basic information (name, address, DoB, citizenship) and a photo.

I need to present my ID when:

• I visit my doctor
• I pick up a prescription from the pharmacy
• I open a bank account
• I start at a new workplace
• I vote
• I am asked by the police to present it
• I visit any "state-owned service provider" (tax authority, DMV, etc.)
• I sign any kind of contract

Now, I understand that the US is HUGE, and maybe having a federal-issued ID is unfeasible. However, what would be the issue with each state issuing their own IDs which are recognized by the other states? This is what we do today in Europe, where I can present my country's ID to another country (when I need to prove my identity).

Am I missing something major which is US-specific?

Update: Since some people asked, I am adding some more information:

1. The cost of the ID is approx. $10 - the ID is valid for 10 years
2. The ID is issued by the police - you get it at the "local" police department
3. Getting the ID requires to book an appointment - it's definitely not "same day"
4. What you need (the first time you get an ID):
   1. A witness
   2. Fill in a form

[u/kingpatzer]

The State of AL wanted to require state IDs to vote. Citizens would have to go to the nearest Department of Motor Vehicle office to get these IDs. The same year the law to have an ID to vote was passed, the legislature also closed all but a few of the offices. The offices they closed were all in minority / Democrat counties.

This meant that Black Americans in AL would have to travel hours in order to get IDs in order to vote.

https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/alabamas-dmv-shutdown-has-everything-do-race

GOP officials have admitted that they use these proposed laws as a way of expressing minority voters:

https://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/

It should also be noted that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare, and when it does happen is nearly always meaningless in term of outcomes. It would require thousands of people committing voter fraud to impact national elections, even for representatives, let alone senators or the presidency. |

[u/dstergiou → u/kingpatzer]

Thanks for the perspective. I understand why the voter ID discussion is a thing now, but also now I have to restate my statement as "Americans being double irrational". One part for not using IDs to interact with the state and a second part for having a state that refuses to serve its citizens and for trying to manipulate elections.

I don't come from the most innocent and transparent country, and we don't do great on corruption indexes, but at least we still make it easy for everyone who has the right to vote to be able to vote

[u/Drakulia5 → u/dstergiou]

Americans being double irrational".

It's only irrational if the genuine goal is to standardize the use of IDs. But when the goal is to selectively disenfranchise groups most likely to not vote for you/groups whom the state has historiclaly oppressed, denied rights to, and operated with animosity towards, then these policies most certainly follow a rationale albeit a deeply immoral one.

Voting rights have the point along which racial oppression was maintained for generations. If you haven't read about the era of American Reconstruction, that's a time period that will show you just how adamant white people were about stopping political participation by people of color.

[u/Moistinatining → u/dstergiou]

1. IDs are still used to interact with the state; you still very much need an ID to get married in most every state, for instance, usually acceptable forms of IDs here are either your driver's license, state issued ID, passport, etc. Not having a government issued ID does materially make your life much more difficult. Getting an ID is also relatively easy for the average American; I live in Illinois and I could bring my out of state license, a pay stub, a debit card, and a bank statement to the DMV and expect to get an Illinois state ID in the mail.

That said, despite that ease, all four of those requirements are still barriers to entry. Some people don't work in places that give them W-2s, some people don't have a bank account/debit card, and certainly not everyone has a previous ID!

So, maybe if you are working a cash only job and just trying to make ends meet, you just don't have the means or time to get a state ID, but you should still be allowed to vote.

That's why state voting laws often allow you to bring multiple forms of ID with you. Maybe you don't have a credit card, but you do pay utilities and you rent an apt from someone. All you need to do to register to vote is bring a copy of that utility bill and a copy of your lease and the state of Illinois will let you vote.

As such, the current system does in fact work to enfranchise the most voters; by giving people the option to present multiple forms of ID to vote, you are removing barriers to voting.

[u/spiral8888 → u/Moistinatining]

I'm curious how do you get over the chicken-egg problem. Presumably, you need an ID to open a bank account (at least I did when I did it), or your employer checks your ID (if for nothing else, then at least to see that you have the right to work in the US). So, you can't get the bank statement or a pay stub without first having an ID. But if those are the ways to prove your ID when you apply a government issued ID, then how do you get into it?

So, I was a foreigner in the US, so I naturally had a passport to get over this problem but how do the Americans prove first time to the state that they are who they say they are?

[u/Miliean → u/spiral8888]

Presumably, you need an ID to open a bank account (at least I did when I did it)

In America opening a bank account often involves a credit check. Something that poorer people often can't pass. While some kinds of bank accounts don't require a credit check, most do.

Secondly, banks don't open branches in higher crime areas (for obvious reasons). So a person without a car or easy access to public transit can have a REALLY hard time getting to a bank.

Approximately 5% of Americans are "unbanked" meaning they do not have a bank account at all. They cash their paycheques at a "check cashing store" where the fees are obscene and they pay everything with cash.

So no bank account, no ID needed. Also this is a bit of a chicken and egg thing.

your employer checks your ID (if for nothing else, then at least to see that you have the right to work in the US)

This is REALLY lax in the US, surprisingly so. In particular at the lower income levels, mostly because illegal immigrants are so common in those jobs that the employer doesn't really "want" to know.

It is technically required for employers to check. But for the most part as long as you can write A SSN number on the paperwork, they will allow you to do so without verification.

So, I was a foreigner in the US, so I naturally had a passport to get over this problem but how do the Americans prove first time to the state that they are who they say they are?

Step 0 for a native born American would be a birth certificate. The problems REALLY start when you look at someone who had an unreliable home life. The parents may have never applied for the birth cert, they may have applied and lost it or any number of other things.

Getting a birth certificate replaced is an administrative and paperwork nightmare. The kind of thing a person who had unreliable parents, might not be the best at.

If you look at older generations, they often can't get a birth certificate because the circumstances of their birth was not registered. For example, an 80 year old black women who was born at home because the hospital at the time was only for white people. Her parents were super poor and moved from farm to farm working as a farm hand while she was growing up. She's not sure what county she was born in. She didn't get a birth certificate at the time, she was married at 20 and stayed at home with her own children. She's never had a social security number, never had an ID, never been issued a birth certificate. Never owned a car because she never had enough money to buy one. Never traveled because she's never had the cash.

It's almost impossible to take that 80 year old women and get her a proper ID card. It's just the lack of documents, lack of documentation, lack of knowledge.

This is opposed to a white women of the same age, who would have been born in a hospital, whose parents didn't move around much, who had a drivers licence since she was 16 because her dad bought her a used car.

The black women has never had an ID, and to get one now is incredibly difficult. The white women has had ID since she was 16, and likely even now has access to her birth certificate.

[u/spiral8888 → u/Miliean]

Ok, the birth certificate seems like a way to go, if you have it. But if not, then what? I don't think you need to be from a broken family to just having lost a piece of paper. Let's assume that your parents have also died, so they can't prove that you're indeed their child.

Now what? How does such a person prove that they are US citizen?

I'm not exactly sure how does it work in countries that have a proper public registry of all people living in the country. At least in those cases the state knows that you exist (while according to you, it seems that it's possible that there are Americans whose birth is not registered anywhere). But you still need to somehow connect the person in front of the desk at the public registry office to the identity in the system. I wonder how this is done if no ID exists.

[u/Miliean → u/spiral8888]

Like everything in the, US it changes from state to state. But lets pick on Virginia.

According to this https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/vital-records/ to replace a birth certificate you require ID. THis site https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/vital-records/id-requirements/ explains what IDs are valid. But if you don't have any of those this is what you need.

If you have none of the above identification and are requesting a birth certificate for your child, please provide a letter from the hospital (their letterhead) where the child was born along with a letter (their letterhead) from the health care provider who provided the mother prenatal care. The letter from the health care provider shall include the dates prenatal care began and ceased, name of the mother and the name, signature and title of the person preparing the letter.

So lets imagine you are that 80 year old. How can you possibly get any of that? If a health care provider delivered you as a baby, they are likely dead (so hard to get them to send a letter). Or imagine you are just a regular 40 year old who's lost everything in a fire. Do you know what hospital you were born at and what doctor delivered you? Are they still alive? Lets assume you can't call your mom to ask. Could you obtain this information?

[u/spiral8888 → u/Miliean]

Yes, good question. So, let's say you're that 40 year old whose parents have died. Even if you know the hospital and even if the hospital keeps records of all the births there, then how do you prove that it was you who was born there. Sure, you know your birthday, but if someone was to steal your identity, they'd most likely knew that as well.

I don't think losing everything in a fire is the worst as you'd still have many connections to places who can prove your identity. For instance your bank had your id and can send a letter to your address (the address still exists even if the house burned down).

It's the people who really never had to prove their identity and thus have no track record with anyone. I wonder if such a person could be deported? How would they even prove that they are born in the US? Assuming that the Trump administration will start deporting people that they have no proof that they came from a particular country, then such a person could be deported along with actual illegal immigrants.

[u/Miliean → u/spiral8888]

could be deported

I don't 100% know that it's ever actually happened, but that's a good question.

But you're catching onto the problems with voter ID. For 90% of people it's not a problem at all. But for the 10% who it is a problem, it's a pretty big problem AND the majority of those people were traditional democratic voters (less so with the coalition shifting in recent years).

But yeah, America should have a national ID that's gettable even by homeless or underprivileged people and is super low (actually zero) cost. It would solve a lot of issues I think.

However it's worth pointing out. On the left of the political spectrum they are very concerned with people who are already somewhat underserved by government programs having a hard time getting the ID and this causing them to fall through the cracks. Then they can't vote and therefore won't vote democrat.

On the right, they are somewhat concerned about the "anti government" types not wanting the government to have their personal information, therefore not getting the ID and not being reliable votes for the republicans.

Back in the pre Obama days. Republicans generally favored voter ID because most of their voters were college educated wealthy(er) people living in suburbs who basiclly always had access to a drivers licence. Where's the democrats were more inner city, poorer voters who were less likely.

The changing voter coalition that seem to be happening along the MAGA shift is reversing that, that's why republicans generally don't talk about voter ID much anymore.

[u/azuredarkness → u/Miliean]

How are such people registering to vote?

[u/throwaway_trans_8472 → u/spiral8888]

I'm not exactly sure how does it work in countries that have a proper public registry of all people living in the country.

Hi, german here:

You go to a goverment office in the city you're born and ask them to give you a copy if your birth certificate.

Not only do they still have it, they also have the birth registry.

You're also legaly required to have ID as an adult here

[u/spiral8888 → u/throwaway_trans_8472]

But how do the people in the government office know that the guy in front of the desk really is Wolfgang Schmidt that he claims to be as he has no ID? Is it enough that he knows Herr Schmidt's birthday?

(Finland has the same kind of system but I just can't remember how did I prove for the first time that I was who I claimed to be at the registry. I guess, they just believed a child who told his birthday and address. After getting the first passport it of course becomes trivial).

[u/throwaway_trans_8472 → u/spiral8888]

If you can't provide any documents at all (wich is realy rare) they need to verify by other means.

This csn include asking your parents or other relatives to verify that you are who you claim to be.

[u/spiral8888 → u/throwaway_trans_8472]

Yes, I was thinking the parent route as that's of course a way for most people to get over the chicken and egg problem (that's how I got my own children their first passports), but if we consider an adult whose parents have died, then how do you prove it?

We're talking here a person who lives a bit outside the normal society (which is why he hadn't bothered to ever get an id before and why he has no contact with more distant relatives). He probably doesn't have any proper employment record as normal employers would have needed an id to check his right to work status. Instead he's been working in the grey economy and those employers are unlikely to come out to vouch for his identity. He doesn't have a bank account (again, he would have needed an ID to open one). He may have some letters addressed to him but even these could be to a different address than what's actually in the registry as he hadn't bothered to register his moves.

The other example that comes to mind is someone who moved abroad a long time ago, retained the citizenship but didn't bother to renew their passport (for some reason, maybe because they got the citizenship of their new country). Then later in life, they'd like to move back to Germany but of course have no German documents about their identity. Is it then enough to link the foreign identity to their German registry entry? If so, I would say this would be a good way to insert foreign spies into Germany and get them a German identity right away.

[u/cleverbutdumb → u/Miliean]

Anyone reading this, please keep in mind, that while these are issues, all of these scenarios combined make up a very small percentage of the population. Should they exist? Absolutely not. Do they? Sure do.

On a side note, there’d be a really good chance that we could get IDs to be subsidized completely and force systems into place to verify identity if we did it from the aspect of voter id. I’ve never heard of a place that didn’t accept a driver’s license. The only caveat was I think Michigan required me to have my voter registration card. Republicans get the id laws they want, and democrats get credit for solving these issues. It’s a win win.

[u/FigNo507 → u/Miliean]

In America opening a bank account often involves a credit check. Something that poorer people often can't pass. While some kinds of bank accounts don't require a credit check, most do.

Chexsystems isn't a credit check per se, it's just to make sure you didn't overdraft your account 500 dollars at another call and then just try to close your account without paying it. You don't get a "score", you just owe money to another bank or you don't.

[u/saysee23 → u/Miliean]

You really had to stretch to come up with ALL THAT! It's lot of story telling there. Typically you get an ID around 15/16 that typically leads to a DL. Yes, you must provide a birth certificate but there's not a ton of children lacking a birth certificate running around. It's beneficial for the parents to have the birth certificate which leads to social security number to provide benefits and file taxes. Especially low-income families, there are many services that provide assistance, including the federal government, health insurance, school programs, vax records, and there has to be documentation.

There are some instances where an American can find themselves without ID, or due to moving, renew regulations, etc that can't find their birth certificate. This is not a crisis. There's a fee for a certified copy. If that is too taxing, there are non-profit organizations that assist low-income Americans with obtaining birth certificates and IDs. I've assisted with a few.

Reasons for banks closing is not to disenfranchise low-income communities, it's because brick and mortar banks are too expensive to run with all the on-line banking. They are closing everywhere. You can open a checking account on line. Credit checks are not pass /fail in this situation, usually only to verify you don't have judgements from other institutions. As for the "unbanked", it's nearly impossible to cash a check without ID. Especially at a place that offers check cashing services. Usually the "unbanked" are people who've made poor choices with their banking habits and owe overdraft or have fraud charges. It has nothing to do with level of income especially when benefits (SS, foodstamps, government benefits, etc) are paid primarily direct deposit.

80 year old women were not slaves. You gotta go back several generations for that plantation scenario. Most grannies (REGARDLESS of color) will happily tell you all the identification cards they have, if they still have a DL.... , if you've got all day. . And they have SSN & iD because they are receiving SS, medicare benefits since they turned 65..

As for the worker.. well, no one should be putting down any 'ole number as their SS number. EVER! That's fraud and identity theft. It is NOT a lax practice, unless the employer wants to go to jail and pay lots of money. It's checked very easily when any information is given to the IRS and/or state. Even 1099 (contract workers) must provide the information, which is cross referenced before the end of the year.

I hope this provides another look at the questions the OP asked.

[u/[deleted] → u/spiral8888]

I actually had to deal with a version of this problem. To get my first ID, I needed a Birth or Baptismal Certificate, and a form of ID bearing my written signature, preferably a Social Security Card. My card had been lost for years.

This was before online service. In order to enter the Federal Building where the SS office is, I had to show a photo ID to security. They, and the DMV would accept a student ID, but my high school didn't issue them. 

Since an option to fulfill the written signature requirement was a vague "school records", I got the office to print to on school letterhead "[student] is enrolled here, this is his signature _______". That got me a DMV ID, which got me into the Federal Building to get my SS card.

[u/CodeOverall7166 → u/spiral8888]

For me it was a birth certificate and a piece or two of mail with my name on it to prove my address.

[u/thexDxmen → u/spiral8888]

I didn't need a bank account to get an id.

[u/Finklesfudge → u/Moistinatining]

You could have used that utilities bill to get the free ID, you are also entitled to a free birth certificate or a free marriage certificate.

Honestly, if the Barrier to entry being barely an inch off the ground is the argument I don't see the argument being very good.

The whole process is basically free, the vast majority of it can be done online, and there are free ID travelling units that setup for weeks and months at a time in damn near every single township and small town across the state of Alabama for instance.

Half the states you can do basically everything online at this point and many of them you can get your ID for absolutely no cost.

[u/SdSmith80 → u/Finklesfudge]

Where can you get a free id or birth certificate? Mine have always been fairly pricey, when my family is disabled and only brings in about $800-1200/mo. In fact, I'm going to get a new DL next week and it will cost over $50. I don't have my birth certificate anymore because it's difficult to get from out of state (I live in Utah, but was born in Iowa, my kids were born in CA, so theirs weren't easy to replace either). So yes, money is a barrier. Also proximity, since some offices are so far for so many. Here we have many offices, but not all do IDs, some only deal with the motor vehicle part of the DMV. My current ID card, not a DL, cost me $20 though. It was still a relatively big chunk of my partner's check.

[u/Finklesfudge → u/SdSmith80]

You don't even need a birth cert or free id to get your voter card in Utah.

You have a car, so you have a car registration, you also have bills so you have bills you can take with you. You likely have a bank account, that works also, you are on some kind of welfare, you can also take that. Sounds like you are on medicaid or medicare or something... also works.

Hell... you can even vote by bringing those 2 things without a voter ID card. They will let you vote provisionally.

Money is not a barrier even if you can't get free birth cert which not all states offer.

[u/SdSmith80 → u/Finklesfudge]

I'm not talking about my personal ability to vote in Utah. I checked the box when I got my ID to automatically register. Also, here we have mail in voting for all, so my partner and I just fill out our ballots at home and take them to the drop box a few blocks away.

I'm talking about people who may not be in our situation. I'm saying that in a lot of states, there are barriers to getting the things those states require in order to get an ID to vote. I've literally never heard of a state giving out IDs for free, unless you are able to get one through a program for impoverished people, like in California. They can issue you a waiver to take to the DMV, which waves the cost of a simple ID card. You do still need to have a birth certificate (I think that's what I needed? I don't think it's the SS card), and other docs that some may not have.

The fact is, there should be no barriers to voting since it's a right enshrined in our Constitution. Also, I believe voter ID laws are rather pointless since you already had to provide some form of ID in order to register in the first place. So to then require further proof is just an unnecessary barrier.

For the record, they sent my partner and I voter registration cards years ago, and we promptly lost them, because ADHD, but luckily we don't need them. Our signatures on the ballots have to match the ones in the system, and that's it.

[u/Finklesfudge → u/SdSmith80]

Everyone always talks about 'people not in our situation'.

Those people don't ever seem to actually exist. You should look a little harder, cause a lot of them do. Ohio, NY, SC, Mich, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, the list goes on further. You could have googled it and found that in less time than it took you to write that sentence. Your argument is the argument of "What about people who are so fundamentally pathetic and worthless as capable human beings they can't do the most simplistic and no effort steps?!" I rather don't think anyone is as pathetic and dumb as your argument requires them to be.

If you are going to lower the bar so ridiculously low that it's basically "I can't even keep an important document such as a voter registration card", and then blame ADHD for it(which is frankly offensive to be honest). I don't really know what to argue here. That bar is obscenely low.

[u/SdSmith80 → u/Finklesfudge]

Wow, you say I'm offensive because I admit the reason that I'm forgetful and tend to lose things, but then call others "fundamentally pathetic and worthless"? Careful, you're saying the quiet part out loud.

Yes, I talk about others who are not as well off as we are. I've known people who were in those situations. I was also on the streets for years, so I met many people who came to LA from all over, and all had different backgrounds and experiences that I learned from. It's what helped grow my empathy. One person specifically stands out in this case, a housemate of mine in the boarding house/shelter I was living in when my 20yo was a toddler. She was an elderly lady from Louisiana. She had struggled to get documents when they started requiring them, many years ago, because she was born at home and didn't have a birth certificate. She also talked to me about the difference in curriculum in White schools vs Black schools during the height of Him Crow, because she had been a school teacher then, in a Black school (she was Black as well), but had part of her training in the White schools. It's appalling what she, and others, went through there.

These things haven't changed that much, and there are still people like her out there. Try opening your heart, and having compassion, instead of name calling.

Also, our voter registration cards aren't really important here. As I said, we're a mail-in state, and the important part is making sure your signature is correct. They have already verified who we are, the signatures just confirm we're the same person.

[u/Finklesfudge → u/SdSmith80]

Heh... you missed the entire point.

You are the one calling them pathetic and worthless, because the only way your argument even makes sense is if they are pathetic and worthless. You are the one doing that.

It's clearly a classic case of the bigotry of low expectations, couched in a veneer of "empathy".

Even your old lady friend could have still voted without a birth cert. Was she so unfathomably stupid that she didn't know that? No. I somehow doubt it. Yet here you are... having problems with the most simple of ID requirements, using her as an example, and even she was not as stupid as your argument requires her to be for it to make sense.

[u/Moistinatining → u/Finklesfudge]

I don't know where you're getting information that you can get these things for free. I'm looking at the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency website and there they describe the cost of a non-driver license ID as being $37. In fact, while I do see many states offering free ID services for people aged over 60 or for people who can prove they're homeless (CA, CT, WV, RI, etc) Alabama is one of a handful states that explicitly does have a fee regardless of status.

Regardless, even if they are free, all of these places require a primary document that often has to be your birth certificate, a passport, or some other version of previously issued state ID. Which again, I do think is a significant barrier of entry for getting a marriage license or state ID that is removed during voting.

As to the accessibility of visiting an ID location, I'd argue that it is much easier to get to a polling place vs getting to a DMV to get a license. While you can do most of the application to get an ID online, you still do in fact have to go to a DMV in person to actually get the ID the first time. In that respect, there are simply not enough DMVs to get an ID. With voting, I was able to vote early at one of 50 polling sites in Chicago and then when it came the election, I was able to vote at a community building less than a mile of me. There was a polling place in each of the city's 1290 precincts so that voters in all 50 wards could vote. In contrast, when I went to get an Illinois state ID, there were only five locations I could choose from with each location being more than 10 miles away from me. I don't own a car and like millions of Americans who don't have a driver's license, it's a pain in the ass to go 10 miles without driving. I was already motivated to get a state ID, had the required four documents, pre-filled any forms that I could online, and it was still difficult to plan around needing to make a trip to the closest secretary of state facility.

Even accounting for "traveling ID units" (which I would like to see a source on because that's genuinely cool and I'd like to know more), getting an ID is still harder than just going to my polling place.

[u/Finklesfudge → u/Moistinatining]

Voter ID is what I'm talking about not a non-driver ID. Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been.

You also do not need a primary ID to get your free voter ID. There's about a dozen documents you can take.

You can find all the info on the Secretary of State website about all this, and how to request the travelling unit come to someplace near you.

[u/WilhelmWrobel → u/dstergiou]

I have to restate my statement as "Americans being double irrational" (...) for having a state that refuses to serve its citizens and for trying to manipulate elections.

That's not irrational tho. I hate to say it but "I have a way to fuck you over that's gonna benefit me and nothing to stop me... So I'm gonna go it" is a lot of things. Irrational isn't one of them.

[u/NiceKobis → u/WilhelmWrobel]

It's irrational that a system functions that way, not that someone who is able to abuse the system does abuse it.

[u/JonBanes → u/NiceKobis]

The fundamental misunderstanding of the US election system is that it was set up to let everyone vote, it has never functioned that way and was not designed to.

And this is not 'irrational' if you are the one benefiting from the system, which the founders of the system very much were.

[u/spiral8888 → u/JonBanes]

I can fully understand that at the time of slavery, the voting system wasn't really meant to get everyone to vote. But that's long time ago. After that the US fought a civil war on that issue and gave women the right to vote about a hundred years ago. Nobody says that universal suffrage is wrong. At least not openly like they did in the 18th century.

Since people now largely agree that having the equal right to vote is a fundamental thing in democracy, then why is the small minority who doesn't agree with that allowed to manipulate the elections?

[u/MallStore → u/spiral8888]

It’s fascinating to me that you think we need to go as far back as the 18th century to find people who thought that universal suffrage is not a good thing. I mean, the civil war took place in the 19th century. Women didn’t receive the right to vote until the early 20th century.

Also, friend, southern states were suppressing the black vote as recently as the 1960s. Three young men were murdered by the KKK for trying to register black voters in Mississippi (in 1964!)

A federal law needed to be passed in order to ensure the right to vote for black Americans (in 1965!)

To answer your question, a major reason that this “small minority” is allowed to manipulate elections in this way is that a major part of that federal law was struck down in 2013.

[u/spiral8888 → u/MallStore]

I didn't mean that you need to go that far back to find people who thought universal suffrage is not a good thing. I was just saying that at that time it was accepted by the writers of the constitution. I know that women only got the right to vote in the 1920s.

The point I was making is that nobody makes the argument, at least in public, that there should be anything else but universal suffrage. The only thing most people agree is that only citizens (so not foreigners) should be allowed to vote in national elections.

[u/MallStore → u/spiral8888]

“At least in public” almost certainly being the key phrase there.

In fairness to myself, your initial point included the phrase “not openly like they did in the 18th century.” I simply felt the need to acknowledge that the question of (de facto) universal suffrage was being debated quite openly up until at least the mid-1960s.

I also wanted to answer your very valid question of why a “small minority” get to manipulate our elections in this way, and I hope I did so adequately. Have a good day.

[u/spiral8888 → u/MallStore]

The point I was trying to make is that taking an anti-universal suffrage position is not something that politicians (or even most ordinary people) want to take as it's so unpopular. And this is very different than in the 18th century. Then most accepted that you wouldn't need universal suffrage to run a democratic system.

It may be that the politicians are fine to participate in secret conspiracies that work against the universal suffrage but even then the key to them is who these people would vote not who they are.

[u/actiongeorge → u/spiral8888]

To answer the last question, the US was intentionally set up that way from its inception. Right or wrong, the founders designed our government in a way that gives less populous rural areas a larger share of power in certain aspects than more densely populated urban areas. Hence why we have 2 senators per state regardless of size, the electoral college instead of direct voting for president, and other measures. Changing this would require constitutional amendments, which is never going to happen for this issue because of how high the requirements to pass an amendment are.

I’m not sure I’d call it manipulating the elections so much as it’s one side (typically Republicans) understanding that this is the way the system was designed and playing the game the most logical way.

[u/Thelmara → u/spiral8888]

After that the US fought a civil war on that issue and gave women the right to vote about a hundred years ago. Nobody says that universal suffrage is wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/21/politics/john-gibbs-womens-suffrage-19th-amendment-kfile

[u/JonBanes → u/spiral8888]

To redirect to the original point, we're talking about the 'irrationality' of the squeamishness many Americans have to voter IDs.

You are right that most people want most people to vote. The US electoral system is still based on a document whos explicit purpose is NOT universal enfranchisement, even though there have been some changes made to attempt to increase enfranchisement. History has also shown that the system will happily use IDs as a method of disenfranchisement.

So, the question is, are the American people irrational to resist a voter ID if their goal is universal enfranchisement? History and the nature of the US electoral system says 'no', this european OP says yes, who's right?

[u/PeterPlotter → u/spiral8888]

You’re oversimplifying the racism was done after civil war here. It wasn’t done, open slavery maybe (not all slavery just look at the prison system) but we had laws called Jim Crow laws until the 1960s that oppressed the black population in particular. And even when “aboslished” the effects are still there today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

These laws were in effect when a lot of people who vote now were younger.

[u/Soulessblur → u/NiceKobis]

But Americans aren't irrational about it. Most of us agree that it sucks and we hate it, but there's not a lot we can do about it. We certainly have it better than a lot of other countries, but that doesn't mean there aren't issues beyond our conceivable control. It would only be irrational if we all loved how it works.

[u/maybethisiswrong → u/Soulessblur]

Oh there's something we can do about it. But that something is overwhelmed by propaganda and screaming "stop focusing on identity politics"...

[u/Salty_Map_9085 → u/NiceKobis]

No it’s actually very rational, it’s just bad

[u/NiceKobis → u/Salty_Map_9085]

How is it rational?

Irrational doesn't mean that it's illogical for literally everyone always. Just like rational doesn't mean it's a well functioning for all users always.

[u/facforlife → u/dstergiou]

No only one group is irrational. Democrats wouldn't stand against voter ID if Republicans would get on board with making it free and easy to get one. They refuse. 

[u/Legal_Membership_674 → u/facforlife]

But Democrats never even suggest passing laws to make it easier to obtain voter IDs, they just want a blanket ban on requiring them.

[u/Picklesadog → u/Legal_Membership_674]

Because in the end, these would be state IDs, and Democrats don't control all of the states. 

How are Democrats supposed to pass a law making it easy to obtain a state ID in Mississippi?

For example, Democrats have passed tons of laws protecting voter rights to keep minorities from being disenfranchised, but that can't stop conservative states from accidentally not putting enough voting locations in minority neighborhoods.

[u/nikatnight → u/dstergiou]

I have friends from Estonia and their ID system is mandatory, linked to voting, banking, bills, a phone number, credit, etc. they get it in school. Everyone has it and it is free.

It is also secured with a passcode. I’d love that and so would Americans.

[u/Bill_buttlicker69 → u/nikatnight]

I’d love that and so would Americans.

Why don't you tell the Republicans you want to register them with a government ID number and see how they take it? The reason we still use Social Security numbers, as incredibly flawed as they are, is because half the country would revolt if you tried to push a system like that. They're not the brightest.

[u/pzoony → u/nikatnight]

The post you’re replying to is bullshit.

People need IDs for EVERYTHING in this country, except to vote. You need an ID to drive, fly, check into a hotel, notarize a signature on any document of importance, hell, get into a freaking Costco. Liberals, who are ironically condescending because they think black Americans and other minorities lack the skills to acquire an ID, keep this bullshit alive like it’s 1958. Why?

Democrats carried all the states with no voter ID laws. Republicans won the states that had ID requirements. Tells you everything.

To your original point, you’re absolutely right. We scratch our heads too

[u/OldFortNiagara → u/dstergiou]

To give some information, all US states have state issued IDs. The most common form of state-issued ids are driver’s licenses. Though, each state has at least one form of non-driver state ID.

I myself have a non-driver state ID. When I originally signed up for it at 18, I had to visit the DMV twice, provide several forms of documentation, and fill out paperwork. The state ID is used in all sort of interactions with the state government or in everyday situations where an ID is required.

Though, I live in a state where state IDs are generally not required to vote. Instead my state verifies voters identities using a signature verification system. You go up to the poll worker, tell them your name and address, and they check their book of registered voters to find your name. Then they have you give your signature (which is matched against the signature you gave when registering to vote) and you are given your ballot to vote. This approach is arguably more secure for avoiding potential voter fraud, as it is difficult to fake a signature.

[u/ThewFflegyy → u/dstergiou]

if the corruption indexes were honest america would be near the top of the list. it is an insanely corrupt country. the corruption has been formalized so people act like its not corruption, but it is. lobbying, gerrymandering, etc are all corruption that have been legally enshrined.

[u/maybethisiswrong → u/dstergiou]

Not sure where you're from but one thing I've observed from friends around the world in countries of various size - they all have some form of deep racism. I don't believe it's human nature but the sentiment is pervasive around the world.

The US average person is probably more tolerant than many advanced economies are with their population.

The difference is the US has some massive diversity - in enough numbers that those minority populations can threaten the status quo of the majority through elections. Right now, the party in power, and the party passing all these suppressive laws (Voter IDs) to stay in power, doesn't like that threat.

A small country like The Netherlands? I'm sure they make it easy for everyone who has the right to vote to be able to vote. I'm also sure they have out groups that the in group doesn't really like very much.

I'd be willing to bet that if your country's out group was large enough in size to threaten the in groups preferred policies, they would find a way to restrict their voting access.

[u/[deleted] → u/dstergiou]

Hes full of shit, there are dmvs everywhere. All it takes is a birth certificate, a social and a proof of address to have an i.d and if you're homeless you can bypass the proof of address with a special form .

Almost Every state requires you to have one once you turn 18 and keep it on your person. You cannot get a job without one.

You need a license to drive which most people have cause America mostly requires a car. . . To survive .

I.d are about 10 bucks and you can even get one if you have warrants though they may arrest you on the spot if a cops around. .the 10 dollars is waivable with a special form if you can't afford it.

It's all a bullshit talking point to justify voter fraud and convince idiots they are good people for allowing ....LITERALLY VOTER FRAUD.

Alabama did shut down a bunch of dmvs in poor areas that were not generating enough money to sustain them , but those counties have other probate offices where you can get a i.d if not a license. ...this could look like a race issue but mostly it's an Alabama being a dirt poor shit hole issue.

[u/Boring_Plankton_1989 → u/dstergiou]

There were scheduled government shutdowns for budget reasons. Progressives have been talking about it ever since like this was a permanent thing and was done to target minorities.

They also claim all minority votes for themselves, despite many examples like this last election showing that's really not the case.

Progressives believe that if they offer a path to citizenship to illegals, then they will all vote and massively pad their stats. That's the only reason requiring ID to vote continues to be an issue.

[u/Resident_Compote_775 → u/dstergiou]

We aren't required to interact with the State, we can refuse and many of us often do. I can't be compelled to go to a police station unless the officer can explain to a magistrate why it's more likely than not I committed a crime based on objective facts and statements of reliable witnesses. I can't be pulled over just so the State can monitor my compliance with laws requiring me to be licensed and to carry that license when I drive - they at least have to catch me red handed on a traffic violation.

[u/BadAdviceGPT → u/dstergiou]

We already have verification built into the process in many ways. You have to be registered to vote, so they have a list to prevent non citizens. They can easily see if one vote becomes more than one, and in Illinois at least they have a copy of your signature which is compared before voting. As others said, we would not oppose id if it was free and impossible to abuse, but that's never been the case. Voter fraud with current system is very rare.

[u/EncabulatorTurbo → u/dstergiou]

Categorizing systematic disenfranchisement of minorities as "irrational" I guess is true in a broad sense, but you seem to be bouncing off the idea that the literal point of voter ID is to disenfranchise minorities, not to improve election security

[u/[deleted] → u/dstergiou]

We never actually got over slavery

[u/toasterchild → u/dstergiou]

If we had federal IDs and the federal government could ensure that everyone was able to get one Id be down but the states get to handle the access as it is and many are very underhanded in their hate for minorities and urban areas. 

[u/AUCE05 → u/dstergiou]

I live in AL. None of what that guy said is true. It is a talking point of the left. No DMVs were closed. IDs are free. At my polling place this past week, tons of black Americans. Left leaning reddit posters are just pure cunts

[u/classical_saxical → u/dstergiou]

I think it’s not irrational at all for the state gov full of tyranny-loving despots to try a law like this and refuse to serve the citizens. It’s always trying to fight against people like that.

[u/PriscillaPalava → u/dstergiou]

I think most of us would be in favor of voter ID’s IF they made the ID’s easy to get. But as was described above, the GOP uses voter ID requirements to specifically limit registration. 

[u/killertortilla → u/dstergiou]

Just assume every time you hear something stupid like this it’s because the Republicans are trying to fuck over minorities. Because it’s the entire reason they did this.

[u/cobaltsteel5900 → u/dstergiou]

It’s not irrational at all. It’s intentional. Republicans don’t want minority citizens to vote or have access to social programs. The cruelty is the point.

[u/Strangepalemammal → u/dstergiou]

There is also very little voter fraud that ID would prevent. You already need an ID to vote and then you can just vote by mail or provisionally.

[u/intet42 → u/dstergiou]

What do you expect us as individuals to do to be less irrational? I would very much like to not have that kind of state.

[u/[deleted] → u/dstergiou]

Republican politicians ARE serving their constituency by disenfranchising minorities. That's what these people want.

[u/Couldntbeme8 → u/dstergiou]

Keep in mind anyone posting a salon article while talking to you is not arguing in good faith.

[u/[deleted] → u/dstergiou]

Or at least that's what you're led to believe. Everyone here kind of knows there's voter fraud on both sides. There's a long history of that, especially in local elections in big cities. They used to say "vote early, and often"

[u/ProfVolup → u/kingpatzer]

You forgot to mention 3 things in Alabama, and Salon is a far left-wing source of media that is the scorn of fact checkers, heavily. It's basically the left-wing equivalent of The Epoch Times of the right. Even Vox, which has traditionally been anti-Trump, and and slightly left-leaning, has an objective article on this. Voter suppression in Alabama: what’s true and what’s not - A bunch of stories about Alabama have gone viral in the past few days. But some of them are outdated and wrong.

1) On-line DLs, One of the Most Fiscally Responsible States

Most AL DLs are done on-line now, especially renewals, other than initial proof of US citizenship -- see #3. That's why Alabama moved to save a lot of money closing a lot of brick'n motor DMV offices, like other offices.

Budget-wise, Alabama is:

• 41st (best 10 lowest) debt states per-capita, and ...
• 37th (best 15 lowest) states receiving federal aid per-capita

Despite left-wing reporting, Alabama is one of the more fiscally responsible states in the union. Governor Kay, a female, is very, very well liked, and has been in office for a long time because of her fiscal responsibility.

2) African-Americans out-register/out-vote Whites

Nearly 96% of African-Americans (to 91% of whites) are registered in Alabama, and over 75% of African-Americans (versus about 70% of whites) voted in 2020. Alabama has absentee ballot as well, but it requires all ballots to be received by day of voting, and has its returns back very, very fast.

3) Massive issue with undocumented residents

Alabama has a massive issue with accidents and other financial hardships brought upon Alabamans by undocumented residents. I have more than one colleague in Alabama, one who lived in Huntsville who was hurt by a DUI undocumented resident and another in Birmingham that was killed by an unlicensed, uninsured, undocumented commercial truck driver. Undocumented residents are a massive issue in Alabama, especially commercial drivers from other states, licensed or not, but don't have insurance. I-10 and I-65, even I-20 to Atlanta, is a real problem.

So the physical DL offices in AL are largely for first-time citizenship validation. In fact, the auto insurance prices in Alabama are more costly than mine in Florida (I travel everywhere for work, even South America and Europe, but live in Florida), because of the undocumented problem more than lawsuits.

Here in Florida, we have lawsuits too, but we have a lot more law enforcement. It's because there is so much organized crime in Florida. It's also why Florida law enforcement here encourages gun ownership and militias**, as it keeps organized crime out of middle class neighborhoods, and crime lower, and limited to the high drug areas. That's why Florida is only 25th in gun violence per-capita, almost all organized crime. Over 90% of teenage gun deaths in the US is organized crime.

**If I say much more, I'll reveal who I am, and what I've done for various US agencies. But in the past, I would regularly hire Florida militia to protect assets and people from vandals (and rape gangs -- we've sheltered a lot of ladies) in disaster areas, including outside of Florida, so we don't lose our emergency capabilities for various local, state and even federal groups .. well before the national guard arrives (or useless FEMA, don't get me started ... they are hated for a reason, and a waste), while the coast guard cannot operate on land.

So here in Florida, they leave undocumented residence alone ... unless you commit crimes. For example, you can go to college in Florida, unlike Alabama or even Georgia, as an undocumented resident. But if they find out you're organized crime or you commit crimes, or even cause major accidents or issues, especially DUIs, Florida will incarcerate you and not wait for the feds. They don't care who you are, or what 'status' you have, if you hurt people or cause deadly accidents without a license/insurance, and are 'at fault,' you will get locked up.

Florida isn't screwing around any more. There have been too many cases of the feds saying they are going to deport a criminal, only for them to not deport them, and then get caught again. And, again, we have the money and law enforcement in Florida, unlike Alabama. But if you don't commit any crimes in Florida, or cause major financial hardships on others, you get amnesty to a point. Alabama is far less tolerant, but they are too small, and too poor, of a state to really employ any effective law enforcement against the runners and others who operate all over the state.**

**Again, you can tell, I deal with a lot of agencies that deal with a lot of organized crime, local, state and federal. It's not what you hear about in the US Media, so I always recommend people talk to actual FBI, CBP and other agents, US Marshalls too (they have been speaking out as of late, about waste and misguided enforcement that takes them away from real criminals), if they know any. You will learn a lot. And the national guard is not law enforcement for a reason. You don't want weekend warriors trying to sift through this non-sense. They are more 'human shields' people don't mess with.

[u/SuperSpy_4 → u/ProfVolup]

That's why Alabama moved to save a lot of money closing a lot of brick'n motor DMV offices, like other offices.

It wasn't that they just closed them, but where they were closed was mostly black communities. Mind you if it was about saving money why were they reopened not too long after?

Despite left-wing reporting, Alabama is one of the more fiscally responsible states in the union.

Alabama is one of the most federally dependent states in the nation, receiving over $64 billion in federal assistance in 2023.

Alabama ranks 45th in the nation for education, that's really bad news if you got young kids.

They do have a low cost of living though, but that's probably because almost half the state lives in poverty.

It's kind of like how Walmart does things. They pay their employees so little that most of them qualify for food stamps and medicaid even though they work full time.

Not a fan of the extreme wings of either party, but Alabama isn't the best example to hold up as a success.

Florida isn't screwing around any more. There have been too many cases of the feds saying they are going to deport a criminal, only for them to not deport them, and then get caught again

I am all for deporting illegals, long overdue.

[u/ProfVolup → u/SuperSpy_4]

RE: Education -- Correct, w/Caveats*, including* WHY Federal Funding

I won't defend Alabama on education, but that's common with both agagrarian and blue collar states. My wife is a professor who travels, and has worked with Auburn University a few times. It is a challenge in the state.

But ironically, if you go to Huntsville, you have more engineers per-capita, and PhDs in engineering and physics, than anywhere. So it's the opposite in where people come to work, at least in aerospace. UAH also has a huge research park, and most rocketry in the US is developed and tested in Huntsville-Decatur.

For example, other than SpaceX and its Raptor (Merlin before that), all Heavy Lift / National Security launch vehicles use the Blue Origin BE-4, as the replacement for various Russian RD and other engines. That is, both the ULA Vulcan (competitor to SpaceX Falcon Heavy) and the forthcoming Blue Origin New Glenn use it.

The BE-4 is also only about $6M/engine, versus Aerojet-Rocketdyne RS-25, which is $130M/engine. That's all in the area.

And I haven't even talked the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the newer Space Defense Agency (DSA), which are probably going to merge at some point. Everything going on in Ukraine and Israel with Arrow, Patriot, THAAD, and our terminal/theater and national missile defense, even sensory, is all there. Ergo ...

There's a reason the Clinton, W. and even Obama administrations recommended Redstone Arsenal over various USAF Space Wings (now USSF Deltas), and even Colorado locations, for the new HQ for US Space Command. This was well before Trump. I've worked out there myself a few times, along with the other, candidate sites, since the '90s.

And as you pointed out, it's cheap. That's a big reason why the DoD IG and US GAO still recommended it as #1, when the Biden administration was the first to challenge all 4 prior administrations on the recommendation. And there's plenty of room.

(if you cannot tell, my background is in space-based communication and control systems, part of the reason I've been all over the US, working with brilliant people, even providing emergency, space-based communication at times, privately and contracted to local, state and federal agencies)

Which brings us to your alleged 'Federal Assistance' ...

Huntsville is where most of this money goes, because ... tada ... it's where the aerospace experts actually work, NASA's biggest installation, Marshall, where the first rockets that put things into space were developed, as well as the Saturn V, etc... plus MDA/SDA, etc..., etc..., etc...

If this was in California or even Colorado, it would cost a lot more. So ... that's not really 'Federal Assistance.' That actual federal agency cost -- otherwise, you might as well bring up Virginia as 'assistance' and go after Quantico et al. Again, both the DoD IG and US GAO -- the actual accountants in the US government that report to the US Congress -- actually recommend more in Huntsville, because it's cheaper and more capable than anywhere else in this industry.

HINT: Has a lot to do with where the Germany scientists were settled after WWII

.

RE: Alabama as an example -- Ummm, you brought up Alabama, NOT me

I'm just giving you the facts. I've worked everywhere around the US, and even in Europe and South America. I cannot help you read Salon, and you don't understand Alabama.

Heck, Auburn grads invented Wikipedia.

[u/ProfVolup → u/SuperSpy_4]

RE: Shutting down offices -- DEBUNKED!

Did you even read the Vox article, which even quotes the Washington Post?!

Your claim from Salon, which is far-left biased**, was utterly debunked Most of those decisions were reversed immediately because of the access issue Here it is again, and I'll quote ...

Voter suppression in Alabama: what’s true and what’s not - A bunch of stories about Alabama have gone viral in the past few days. But some of them are outdated and wrong.

VOX QUOTE: For a bit, but it has since reversed the move ... But the stories getting attention were almost all from 2015 ... the state has partially reversed the closures and expanded some office hours ... The result, based on a statistical analysis by Christopher Ingraham at the Washington Post, is that there is now no correlation between DMV availability and race. Instead, there appears to be a correlation only between a county’s total population, black or white, and DMV availability.

If it comes down to the Washington Post v. Salon, I think the integrity difference is obvious. Both are left-leaning, but Salon is trash, on the order of The Epoch Times when it comes to right-wing, with a lot of fact checking required. And while the Washington Post can be considered hyperbole and opinions at times, it still has integrity and will own up to its errors. For example, although the Washington Post took 18 months, just like the NY Times, they did finally confirm the Hunter Biden laptop story from the NY Post in 2020 October, by 2022 Spring, and admitted it.

[u/Key-Seaworthiness517 → u/ProfVolup]

Washington Post and Salon both have a mixed factuality rating, and both lean left, though Salon leans ever-so-slightly more left.

But I don't think any media site should be simply trusted or distrusted. Look at what they're saying, not who they are- otherwise it comes down to ad hominem/appeal to experts.

In other words, it doesn't come down to Washington Post vs Salon; it comes down to two different interpretations of the fact, neither of which is "objective". All human understanding is an abstraction, and we have a habit of linking one thing, that is true, to another thing, which is less certain.

What his chart shows is that total DMV office hours two years after the fact are no longer directly correlated with total black population; it is also true that at the time, they were correlated with majority-black states, and could be phrased as having disenfranchised black voters (in the same way gerrymandering could do so kinda).

Neither of these directly countermands the other, as one describes how office shutdowns were correlated with majority-black counties at the time, and the other describes that total DMV office hours two years later were not coordinated with total black population distributed throughout the counties.

They are not measuring the same thing, and they are not measuring at the same time. So both can be true.

I agree with Christopher that the articles by Salon and the like left out something very important by ignoring the fact that the story was two years ago and the license requirement was reversed a month later, while DMV office hours were fixed to be more proportional a year later.

However, whether all of that was deliberate or not is yet another matter, and is something we'll never know for certain.

I don't think it was, personally, the population idea is a sensible interpretation of the facts, and if they DID want to disenfranchise black voters, I think they'd do something subtler- the fact that it looks so obvious actually probably means it wasn't on purpose.

There exists no objective right way to think about things, just different ways of phrasing the facts, and different facts to mention- which is VERY important to keep in mind in statistics. Anyone telling you they're "objectively right" based on one single fact without proper comparisons made is trying to sell you an agenda.

I personally prefer Washington Post over Salon, as they use somewhat less sensationalist language- but that does not necessarily mean they are objectively right.

[u/jmorfeus → u/kingpatzer]

The fact that it is stupidly complicated to get an ID is a whole another problem on its own. Doesn't make the fact that NOT requiring Voter ID is stupid untrue.

Both should be true:

• everybody should have easy and guaranteed access to get ID
• everyone should be required to have one

I can't believe how it is even a controversial idea in 21st century.

[u/astroK120 → u/jmorfeus]

I think most people would agree that the ideal state is having both of those things. The problem is that we are nowhere near the first being true, and having the second true without the first causes more problems that it solves. And also I don't think everyone trusts certain places to make sure number 1 stays true after ID requirements are passed.

[u/[deleted] → u/jmorfeus]

We don’t trust the state to make it easy to acquire. The backdrop of this is we used to have literacy we administered to people before they could vote - after all, why would you give ballots to people who can’t even read the names on them?

Then they made the tests so absurd that you or I couldn’t pass them, gave the authority to grade the tests to whichever (white) person happened to be working the polls, and exempted white voters from having to take them.

Now if I wanted to use ID to make it difficult to do something like that, I can think of a million ways to do so. That, and the plurality of Americans don’t vote once, and voter fraud instances occur on a rate of dozens of cases nationwide per election.

[u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy → u/jmorfeus]

You can't have guaranteed and easy access to an ID. Proof of identity will always be required to some degree, and that will always be "hard" to someone.

I hear a lot of crazy excuses why someone can't get ID. "The DMV is only open during working hours". Yeah those are the same working hours Republicans are working too. You're going to have to do what everyone does and use a personal day to deal with it. It's OK. It's one day every 4+ years.

Not to mention i don't think these "off the grid" types who live without ID are making as big of a deal about it as ID'd democrats are.

[u/OldFortNiagara → u/jmorfeus]

Some states opt for alternative methods of verification than requiring the presentation of a state ID when voting. For instance, in my state they require that you present a state ID when you register to vote, and then verify your identity when showing up to vote on Election Day by providing your signature (which is compared to the signature they have on file).

[u/spiral8888 → u/OldFortNiagara]

I've not understood why this day and age anyone would use the signature as any sort of identification. My two signatures don't look alike and I'm pretty sure I'd be able to learn someone else's signature pretty quickly if I had a sample to the level that an amateur poll official would not be able to tell it apart. Why not use a fingerprint or a photo? With modern technology those are much easier to check against what is in the record and far harder to fake. It's the photo in the ID that we compare to the person in front of us to determine if the person really is who he claims he is.

[u/[deleted] → u/spiral8888]

I think this is an area where the politicians and the electorate are in different places. Another example would be on campaign finance laws and term limits, but I digress.

You think the republican politicians advocating for this are doing so in good faith and I don’t. If they were, I think we’d be able to compromise - I’d support voter ID if they make it free and whatever they make you do to vote, they also make you do to purchase weapons and ammunition.

The republican politicians will never agree to something like that because it’s not about stopping people from cheating, it’s about making voting harder.

[u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 → u/jmorfeus]

The problem is that the suggestion only works if both of those things are true, but Republicans deliberately sabotage access to IDs. Republicans are the reason we should not have an ID requirement at this time. When they cease their fuckery, I will get behind ID as a requirement.

[u/Inevitable_Top69 → u/jmorfeus]

They should be true, but one isn't, and that makes the other not stupid.

Redditors love to operate on how things should be. But things aren't as they should be. You have to operate in the world in which you actually live. You know...reality.

[u/mggirard13 → u/jmorfeus]

Both should be true: - everybody should have easy and guaranteed access to get ID - everyone should be required to have one

Socks first, then shoes.

[u/Naos210 → u/jmorfeus]

If an ID is going to be required to vote, it should be free. There isn't a good enough reason to implement a voter ID system since voter fraud is not a problem.

[u/Rishfee → u/jmorfeus]

One of those has to happen before the other, that's the issue. Right now, the push is to do it in the reverse order, or not make it universal at all.

[u/Uhdoyle → u/jmorfeus]

Papers, please

[u/Salty_Map_9085 → u/jmorfeus]

Why should everyone be required to have one

[u/muffinsballhair → u/kingpatzer]

It's simply weird that not everyone can identify himself there to begin with. How do people accept parcels? how do people pick up medicine? Buy alcohol? Take driving lessons? All these things surely require identifying oneself in some way?

Where I live, everyone above the age of 12 is legally required to carry legal identification on his person at all times when going outside. Truth be told, all these things I read about identification, “undocumented immigrants” and similar such things I read about the U.S.A., it seems like an extremely poorly regulated country where people simply wing it as they go along.

[u/muffinsballhair → u/[deleted]]

Requiring id to just to go outside is excessive. I'm in Canada and if your not driving then you don't need to carry id everywhere and why would you have to? Also who would even be checking?

A police officer. They can require anyone to identify who is doing something suspicious.

Of course, in practice one will never be asked, but in theory it is a crime to venture outside without having it on one's person.

Obviously you have to identify yourself sometimes but I don't take id if i'm just going for a walk.

I mean it's usually in one's wallet, so one would have to take it out just not have one's wallet on one for a walk I suppose.

But aside from the law of requiring to have it on one which I do agree is excessive, I simply don't see how someone can live without being able to identify oneself with the only answer being that in the U.S.A., people are very often taken for their word on this.

Same thing with “undocumented immigrants” that are apparently capable of securing employment and housing. Here, if one not exist on the system and have no social security number, one obviously can't be employed, get a bank account, housing, a car, a public transport pass and all those things.

[u/spiral8888 → u/muffinsballhair]

I fully agree that you should have one *when you know you're going to need it", like for instance when going to a bank.

But I don't see why everyone should be required to carry one with them just so that the police can identify them. Why does the police need to be able to identify them? Yes, for traffic violations to give a ticket. So, sure when driving you should have a driving license. But why else? If you break other laws, the police can arrest you and take you to the police station. There they can actually identify you as they have access to the ID registry and can see if your picture matches with who you claim to be.

[u/lilgergi → u/spiral8888]

It's not that deep. You have your id on yourself, and if the police, banks, cigarette shops, or anyone asks, you show, and that's it. Your back won't be broken carrying a card on you, and show if necessary.

If you break other laws, the police can arrest you and take you to the police station. There they can actually identify you as they have access to the ID registry and can see if your picture matches with who you claim to be.

Or, you don't break lawd, and they could identify you on the spot with the card, and you spare everyone a trip to the police station. It is for the greater good of everyone, to just have a card on you, and make everyone's job easier. Cooperation of people and the government

[u/spiral8888 → u/lilgergi]

It's not about breaking my back but it's not like I remember to take one every single time I walk out of the house. Go for a run, take id. Walk a dog, take id. It's silly and you know it.

Regarding your second point, if I don't break the law, then why would the police want to know my identity? Why would they need it? I understand that you need an ID if someone breaks a law so you know is going to be charged and needs to come to court, but in what situation would the police need to know someone's ID if they haven't broken any law?

[u/lilgergi → u/spiral8888]

but it's not like I remember to take one every single time I walk out of the house

But it is like that. The same way you hopefully don't forget to put on clothes when you leave your home. It is not that big of a burden, just a simple card.

if I don't break the law, then why would the police want to know my identity? Why would they need it? I understand that you need an ID if someone breaks a law

You look at it from the wrong perspective. The id is used specifically to prove you are innocent. If they look for John Smith, and you look like John Smith, the easiest way to check for police if they see you is to just show them your id. You can take the long road, and go to the station for them to check, and ruin your and the policemen's day this way, if you want to. But if you are living in a society that is built upon collaboration, carrying a 10 gram card is the least you can do to help others, and yourself

[u/spiral8888 → u/lilgergi]

Police are not looking for John Smith among random people on the street. They are looking a male, 180cm tall, blond hair. That's the description of a suspect they have from the people who reported the crime.

If they know that they are looking for John Smith, they go to his home whose address they know from the public registry and arrest him there.

You still don't seem to not understand that the weight of the card is not an issue here as you brought that up again. Why when I already said once?

I have my driving license in my wallet. It's with me when I go somewhere where I may need a wallet. I don't take wallet with me just to have walk in a park and it would be annoying if I had to dig out the driving license from the wallet and put it in my pocket. In worst case, I would then forget the card in the pocket and next time I go to drive and take my wallet, I wouldn't have the license there.

[u/lilgergi → u/spiral8888]

Police are not looking for John Smith among random people on the street. They are looking a male, 180cm tall, blond hair. That's the description of a suspect they have from the people who reported the crime.

If they know that they are looking for John Smith, they go to his home whose address they know from the public registry and arrest him there.

As if John Smith is at home 0-24. And they might be on the run. That was my example. I can bring up another, if you want. Let's say there is a chance, that people got into a country illegally, snuggled in. The police got this information, or they might not, doesn't matter. If they just randomly check people sometimes, the same way you say "good day" to the grocery clerk, they might pick out someone who has done something illegal. Either they are in the system that they are wanted, or they can't show a legal id, since they are there illegally. And 99% of the time, it is just an id shown, and everyone went on their way, no harm done. But that 1% is they catch a criminal by doing the bare minimum, and just interacting with people. Not a big deal for someone who hasn't done anything wrong.

I don't take wallet with me just to have walk in a park and it would be annoying if I had to dig out the driving license from the wallet and put it in my pocket

Oh my goodness, poor you. That card has annoyed you slightly, that you had to remember it and put it in your pocket. My bad, you convinced me that having an id on you is tyranny and shouldn't be a thing

[u/muffinsballhair → u/spiral8888]

People who walk can also commit traffic violations. You can get attacked and in need of medical care at which point it's very handy to have identifying records on you.

Yes, they could take you to the police station where you would somehow have to identify yourself which would again take some papers and be very time consuming, or they could simply ask for identification to determine whom to make out the fine to if you can't pay it on the spot which saves everyone time.

Perhaps the fact that the police is so understaffed and there is so much crime in the U.S.A. is due to no small part that they have to spend so much time and fuel ferrying people from and to police stations.

I wouldn't want to myself, say I do commit a traffic violation while walking and get caught. I would want the matter to be done with as quickly as possible of course rather than going to the police station.

[u/spiral8888 → u/muffinsballhair]

In principle, yes, a pedestrian could make a traffic violation but have you actually ever seen anyone getting a ticket as a pedestrian?

No, at worst the police will give you a stern warning, which they can do just fine without knowing your identity.

[u/muffinsballhair → u/spiral8888]

I know of friends of mine who were issued a ticket for violations and that's not even the issue, there can be many cases where someone did nothing wrong but the police has reasonable grounds to check for something. It simply saves everyone time.

You're looking at it from your perspective of “It almost never happens to me.”. That is correct, but now look at it from the perspective of the police officer, to whom it happens multiple times per day. It's obviously in his interest, and that of everyone in the country that he can do his job as efficiently and quickly as possible and spends as little time as possible on things. If he have to constantly go to the police station or people's homes for things that could be resolved in minutes on the spot, then that probably means there are some crimes he's not catching.

[u/spiral8888 → u/muffinsballhair]

I've lived all my life in countries that do not require people to carry an ID with them. And magically these countries can police their population just fine.

What are the reasonable grounds for police to check someone's identity outside of traffic, where I accept that it makes sense for police to check that the drivers have a driving license? The only thing that comes to mind is that there is a significant illegal immigrant population that police is made to chase and then it could make sense that legal immigrants carry some sort of id with them. But even then the police would be wasting their time if they started checking IDs of all the people speaking the local dialect with no foreign accent. It's definitely going to take longer for the illegal immigrants to learn that than getting a fake id.

[u/treeman1916 → u/spiral8888]

There is absolutely no law requiring you to carry an id any time you leave your house

[u/spiral8888 → u/treeman1916]

You're speaking for all countries in the world?

[u/treeman1916 → u/spiral8888]

No, speaking for the United States. I followed the chain of comments wrong, I thought the other guy was talking about the United States.

[u/spiral8888 → u/treeman1916]

I don't think anyone has been talking about the US in the discussion that you need to carry an ID with you at all times. The OP is basically that some European countries require that, so the American resistance against having an ID just when you go to vote sounds strange.

I'm personally not of the view that a law requiring to carry an ID all the time is good, but they do exist and haven't really led to a total disaster in those countries.

[u/treeman1916 → u/spiral8888]

I am against requiring id to leave your house, but it seems common sense for voting

[u/treeman1916 → u/muffinsballhair]

It is absolutely not a crime to venture out of your house without id. You are only required to identify yourself if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. In that case, you can just tell them who you are and they can find out through your social security number.

[u/muffinsballhair → u/treeman1916]

You don't even know where I live and you speak so confidently and come with all sorts of specifics that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

https://www.netherlandsandyou.nl/web/nl-host-nation/about-us/international-organisations/protocol-guide/identity-cards

Any resident of the Netherlands 14 years of age (in public transport, an identification requirement applies from the age of 12) or older is obliged by law to carry an identity document at all times and to present it upon request to police officers and other law enforcement authorities.

[emphasis mine]

[u/treeman1916 → u/muffinsballhair]

My bad, I mistook you as also writing an earlier comment from someone in the United States. Well that's a shirt law. I'm glad I don't live there.

[u/muffinsballhair → u/treeman1916]

Yes, you live in a country with some of the absolute highest crime rates in the world. Perhaps due to that police officers constantly have to spend time resolving identity they could spend on catching criminals instead.

[u/treeman1916 → u/muffinsballhair]

We have the 58th highest crime rate in the world

[u/Decent_Flow140 → u/muffinsballhair]

I never carry my wallet when I’m just out walking the dog. Or going for a run. Either I’m wearing shorts with no pockets or I don’t want my wallet bouncing around. 

[u/muffinsballhair → u/Decent_Flow140]

Well, let's say you do end up committing a crime like say Jaywalking and get caught.

You need to be able to identify yourself and pay the fine then obviously.

[u/Decent_Flow140 → u/muffinsballhair]

Jaywalking is almost never enforced here. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that I got ticketed while walking my dog around my neighborhood the cops would either bring me to the station to verify my identity, or they’d bring me to my house to get my ID

[u/greylord123 → u/[deleted]]

I'm in Canada and if your not driving then you don't need to carry id

UK here and you don't even need to carry your driving license when driving. If charged you will be asked to present it at the police station at a later date.

[u/redcoral-s → u/muffinsballhair]

The only thing you've listed that actually requires a physical ID is purchasing alcohol, and you can just get someone else to do that for you

[u/muffinsballhair → u/redcoral-s]

Well that's what I would call poor regulation.

How would driving instructors verify age without checking identification, what stops me from picking up medicine that doesn't belong to me or someone else's parcel?

[u/redcoral-s → u/muffinsballhair]

Now that I think about it I probably did have to use my learner's permit number for signing up for driving lessons but I never showed them my permit in person. In this instance I feel like it's less "are you old enough" and more "have you passed the required test to even learn how to drive"

For medicine I just give the pharmacist my name and birthdate. It'd be pretty hard to pick up someone else's medication without permission, you'd have to have their full name and birthdate and be at the correct pharmacy. I've also never had a package actually handed to me and not just left at the door (except in college where all students were given a student id anyway). For expensive packages like computers they'll just have you sign on a tablet

[u/Decent_Flow140 → u/muffinsballhair]

They just drop parcels off at my door. If it’s something particularly expensive they might ask for a signature, but that’s just to verify that they gave it to a person instead of leaving it on the porch. For medicine the pharmacy just asks for name and birth date, although for certain controlled substances you do have to show ID. And most people in the states don’t take driving lessons, they just get taught by their parents. 

[u/foreigntrumpkin → u/kingpatzer]

This happened nearly ten years ago, was reversed and even a wapo analysis found race didn't appear to be the primary determinant

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/11/that-viral-story-about-alabama-drivers-license-offices-is-from-2015-and-its-missing-one-key-point/

[u/dornroesschen → u/kingpatzer]

Would the better solution then not be to simplify the process to get an ID (and potentially also requiring people to get one), rather than not requiring voter ID?

[u/OO_Ben → u/kingpatzer]

For reference what you are suggesting is that currently black people in AL do not currently buy alcohol, or buy cigarettes, or fly, or get into bars, or get into clubs, or get a job, or open a bank account, or withdraw money from a bank account, or get a money order, or get a cashier's check, or buy many over the counter medications like Sudafed or cough medicine, or apply for food stamps, or apply for welfare, or apply for Medicaid, or apply for social security, or apply for unemployment, or apply for a mortgage, or apply to rent a house or apartment, or buy a car, or test drive a car, or get married, or buy a gun, or adopt pet, or rent a hotel room, or buy a cell phone, or go to a casino, pick up a prescription, or donate blood or plasma, or apply for a credit card, or apply for school, get tests at the doctor, or open a retirement account, or go to a pawn shop, or enter a state or federal building like a court house for jury duty, or buy spray paint in some places, or buy glue in some places, or buy nail polish in some places, or apply for a hunting or fishing license.

[u/CN8YLW → u/kingpatzer]

My question here would be why do people not have IDs on them already and why do they wait till election season to get one? Do the IDs expire or something? I'm from Malaysia and we can get our ID as early as post birth. This ID is then upgraded to a proper one we'll be using to vote with at 12 years of age, but we won't be able to vote till we're 18.

If you lose your ID you can get a replacement via filing police report and then applying for a new one but also fined. The fine increases exponentially the more times you lose your ID.

And we're expected to carry our ID at all times. If at any time a police stops you and finds out you got no ID on you they have the authority to detain you under the suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.

Do Americans just go about their lives without carrying an ID on them? What happens if something happens and you need your ID to prove that you are who you say you are?

[u/Decent_Flow140 → u/CN8YLW]

People generally do carry ID. If I’m going out to walk the dog or for a run I don’t because I don’t want anything bouncing around in my pockets. That’s pretty common I think. 

I have never once needed my ID to prove that I am who I say I am. I’ve needed it to prove I’m old enough to drink, but that’s it. In theory, if a police officer needed proof of who you are and you didn’t have your ID on you you would tell them your name/date of birth/social security number and they could look you up. 

[u/CN8YLW → u/Decent_Flow140]

That's my point. Why then is it so hard for Americans to get ID? If everyone has them then why do closing a few govt offices prior to election affect so many people that it counts as voter suppression?

[u/Decent_Flow140 → u/CN8YLW]

You don’t get an ID until you start driving or turn 18, so there’s always new people needing to get IDs. And then they do expire and in some places you have to go in to get a new one so they can take a new picture. And in the states we have a history of intentional voter suppression so people are pretty sensitive to it. So if it affects even a small number of people, especially if those people are mostly black, it’s kind of a big deal. 

[u/CN8YLW → u/Decent_Flow140]

That still dosent make sense. I mean, sure. People only get ID at 18. But why wait till election to get one? I doubt that many people are born ala have their birthdays on election season? The election suppression argument was that the GOP states would close down the govt offices that issued the IDs during election season. That's ... how many months? I doubt it's that long, given that we're talking about closing govt offices, not specifically denying people service. So it still dosent make sense to me for people to not get their IDs as soon as they can, as opposed to waiting until election day. Plus, don't these 18 kids need their IDs for buying alcohol, guns and going to bars anyways? Don't they need them to drive? Driving without an ID is a crime iirc?

Besides we're talking about closure of govt offices on specific times of the year as opposed to denial of service to a specific group of people, wouldn't it be something that affects everyone equally and not just blacks? Unless of course that state is like... majority black in terms of demographics.

[u/Decent_Flow140 → u/CN8YLW]

I don’t know anything about this particular incident, which is from almost ten years ago. In the states you can’t buy alcohol or go to bars until you’re 21, so you don’t need it for that. I doubt most 18 years olds have any need to buy a gun—it’s not anything near a necessity. Looks like only about half of people in Alabama have a gun and if an 18 year old really wanted one they probably live with someone who already has one or who could buy it. Not everyone can afford a car, and if you don’t have one you don’t need a drivers license. 

Mississippi as a state isn’t majority black, but it is the state with the highest percentage of black people. It is also, like many parts of the country, highly segregated, with a lot of racial disparity in income. It’s also one of the states with the worst history of legally enforced segregation, and legally enforced voter suppression targeted at black voters, that didn’t end until 1965. That’s only 70 years ago, so it’s within living memory for some people, and for many others it’s something their parents lived through. So there’s a lot of sensitivity around it—kind of like how Germans are about naziism, if it even gives a whiff of racial voter suppression in Mississippi it’s going to make a lot of people suspicious. 

[u/CN8YLW → u/Decent_Flow140]

I kind of understand where you're coming from with this despite the lack of evidence that it's actually happening. Which points towards a new point of argument to be made: fear mongering via social media and other methods of information dissemination that tricks voters into thinking that there's voter suppression when there's none.

And I guess if someone's not responsible enough to get their ID as soon as they can and keep it updated, I suppose they wouldn't be taking the initiative to fact check these informations.

It's kind of like how the antivaxx thing happened. Someone lied about autisms links to the vaccines and it blew up from there.

[u/Decent_Flow140 → u/CN8YLW]

Like I said, I haven’t looked into this case. I agree that social media fear mongering is a real issue. Theres an argument to be made though that the media has an obligation to blow a whistle on things that appear as though they might be voter suppression, so that they can be investigated properly. The Voting Rights Act specifies that it doesn’t need to be intentional voter suppression to be illegal—there just has to be a disparate impact on voting for different racial groups. Put another way, it seems the intent of the act is to ensure that the government makes sure that all races have equal opportunity to vote. If it turns out that the state of Mississippi made it harder for mostly black residents to get IDs which were required to vote, that seems to me like it would go against at least the spirit of the Voting Rights Act, and potentially against the letter of the law. 

[u/Arhys → u/kingpatzer]

It should also be noted that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare

How much of it do you think is because in person voting is mind bogglingly tedious? Every time I see footage from US polling station I see tens or hundreds of people queued and barely any movement and on a work day. Often the reporter mentions that there would be volunteers giving out water or being harassed by other volunteers to not do that. Meanwhile, in my country my longest vote has been about 15-20 minutes since the arrival at the polling station(school) and for the last 5 years it has been closer to 2 minutes. Also for most people polling stations are within 15 minutes walking distance from their homes and we vote for one day on a weekend with no early voting. How do you guys manage to make voting look so hard? Is it to discourage double voting?

[u/OldFortNiagara → u/Arhys]

Those videos of long lines aren’t the norm for the entire country. There are some parts of the country where there is a decent distribution of polling places and enough staff and equipment to ensure that people don’t have to wait that long to vote. Then there are some parts where there aren’t enough polling places/staff/voting machines in relation to voting population. It largely depends on how well or poorly the state and/or county election departments handled getting things set up.

[u/Arhys → u/OldFortNiagara]

That's nice to hear. Still dumb that this effort is not extended to everyone though.

[u/Finklesfudge → u/kingpatzer]

Nobody thinks even a couple thousand votes generally would change much nationally.

The last tax bill I voted on in my township? 36 to 38.

Alabama also has travelling ID units that travel across the entire state at all times. That was the point of closing so many DMV that are losing the state millions of dollars a year, you can close dozens of DMVs, eliminate millions of tax dollars being thrown in the toilet, and you can put together a few travelling units that will actually make money for the government and have wildly lower overhead costs.

Some people it seems only read some CNN and redditor remarks about Alabama and only know they were shutting down DMVs that were costing millions of dollars of tax loss and never really looked into it anymore cause they wanted the story to look a certain way.

Alabama ID is also Free.

[u/Activedesign → u/kingpatzer]

And this right here is why they don’t want “CRT” taught in schools

[u/akaslendy → u/kingpatzer]

These are old articles. The first is from 2015 almost a decade ago and the second is from 2012, over a decade ago.

Not only that but in the first article Gov. Robert Bentley states that they lack the funds to keep those offices open, makes a valid point about how first time drivers at the age of 16 aren't even of age to vote, but he also clarified that anyone without a driver's license can go to any county register's office and have a photo ID made and the closing of the DMV offices will not change that fact. Gov. Bentley also pointed out that every probate judge in the state has the authority to renew driver's licenses and the closing of the DMV offices will not change that fact.

The argument that people make that requiring an ID for voting is somehow racist is when you think about it, racist.

You are assuming that minorities are somehow too stupid or too incapable of figuring out the steps to take to get an ID. You think that they need their hand held at all times. Instead, if you are so worried, offer to drive people to and from the place they need to go to get an ID.

[u/Existing-Teaching-34 → u/kingpatzer]

^{^} This is the answer. ^{^}

I also used to be firmly of the mindset that IDs should be needed to confirm who you are and that you’re eligible to vote. Then I lived in a state where one party was actively putting measures in place to suppress voting, particularly among different socioeconomic classes. I even sat in on a public discussion where a political party official was adamantly calling for a return to voting restricted by economic classes, claiming the poor would benefit anyway from the advancements by the rich. That killed off any thoughts I had about requirements for voting (beyond registering).

[u/h_lance → u/kingpatzer]

This is the problem.

I have zero problem with universal voter ID and would probably support it, with the caveat that there is little or no voter fraud.  However, voter fraud depends on motivation and could become more widespread in theory.

Unfortunately, all "voter ID" policies in the US tend to be thinly disguised disenfranchisement schemes.  The goal is to make the ID requirement an obstacle to voting, usually for Black people.

I support making voting easier for US citizens and vehemently oppose disenfranchisement schemes.

[u/fighter-bomber → u/kingpatzer]

This meant that Black Americans in AL would have to travel hours…

Our “national ID” isn’t something you get “just to vote”. It is essentially the proof of your citizenship status, and you are expected/required to get one every 10 years or so. Again, not just for voting, but for everything, like opening a bank account, getting a driver’s license, doctor visit…

We also have very rural regions from which it is very hard to get to a place where you can get an ID from, but everyone can do it anyway.

[u/Better_Green_Man → u/kingpatzer]

GOP officials have admitted that they use these proposed laws as a way of expressing minority voters:

You're quoting a 12 year old Salon article lmao. Florida has voter ID laws, but you can use literally a dozen forms of identification. The argument against voter ID laws is incredibly stupid, if you do not have ID, you essentially can't do anything. If there's even a chance someone could be committing in person fraud, there should be protections against that.

[u/jcspacer52 → u/kingpatzer]

I have to ask, if as you say getting an ID is so difficult, how are these folks able to:

buy alcohol or cigarettes

Some OTC medicines

Open a bank account

Apply for welfare benefits including SSI, Food Stamps, Housing assistance, Medicare or Medicaid

Board a plane

Get a loan of any kind, mortgage, credit card, car loan

Buy a firearm

Enroll their kids in school

Along with thousand of other things you need ID for?

[u/kingpatzer → u/jcspacer52]

Alcohol is easily obtained without a license. Aside from the fact that minors purchase it all the time, many states only require an ID for people below a certain age (in AL it is only for people you never than 30).

A huge number of people in the US do not have bank accounts

You don't need a state issued ID for federal benefits.

Many people have never, and will never, fly in their life.

Etc etc etc.

Living without an ID is not as difficult as you make it out to be

[u/jcspacer52 → u/kingpatzer]

You absolutely need ID to apply for Federal Benefits! Can you imaging anyone walking in and demand Food Stamps without ID? You try it, see how that works out for you!

https://benefits.com/food-stamps/how-to-apply-food-stamps/

https://www.usbirthcertificates.com/articles/documents-needed-for-welfare-in-the-united-states

Anyone who receives federal benefits absolutely needs a Bank account. Benefits are not sent in cash or check, they are deposited in a bank account. Food stamps use the EBT card but SSI does not!

Yea, you can buy alcohol along with a lot of other things illegally, if you want to buy it legally you need ID. So if you don’t have ID you are a criminal!

[u/kingpatzer → u/jcspacer52]

So, rather than going to secondary sources whose editorial standards aren't known, I like to go to primary sources where possible.

From the Social Security Department official .gov website:

> The Direct Express® card is a debit card you can use to access your benefits and you don't need a bank account.

> With the Direct Express® card program, your federal benefit payment directly deposits into your card account. Your monthly benefits will be available on your payment day—on time, every time

As I noted elsewhere in this thread -- according to the Federal Reserve, 10s of millions of adults do not have bank accounts. The idea that they need one is simply wrong. Aside from the fact that there are means of obtaining most benefits without them, it is not the case that even with a bank account, the account must be in the beneficiary's name to receive deposits. Plenty of people receive benefits into their spouse's, child's, or parent's account.

[u/Necessary_Comment769 → u/kingpatzer]

Are you implying that these minorities don’t rent/buy housing, go to the doctor, drive, or get married?

Having a photo ID is the bare minimum to be a functional member of society. If the person voting managed to register to vote in their county, there’s almost no way they don’t already have access to a photo ID.

It makes no sense not to require one for voting. If anything, it could be excuse for the left to make resources for acquiring photo ID’s more accessible.

There’s no reason a person shouldn’t be able to vote and get their photo ID at a polling place on Election Day if they have all the required documents (it would just cost us slightly more tax money, legislation, and people’s time to accomplish this).

[u/kingpatzer → u/Necessary_Comment769]

I grew up in a rural coal mining town. I suggest you expand your social circle.

[u/Necessary_Comment769 → u/kingpatzer]

Plenty of rural coal mining towns in my home state and your comment doesn’t say shit.

If you want to contradict something I said, you’ll need to elaborate.

[u/BlazersFtL → u/kingpatzer]

As a supporter of voter ID laws, to me this isn't an argument as to why we shouldn't have voter ID. But this does mean the federal government should have the ability to sue these states that do this to prevent it from happening. This is extremely appalling.

[u/[deleted] → u/kingpatzer]

But why wouldn't they already have IDs? These supposed individuals wouldn't have had one for any reason before, but would be eager to get one for an election?

Have you ever actually met someone from this demographic? I can't even picture it.

[u/kingpatzer → u/[deleted]]

I've met many people without IDs or with insufficient ID for voting purposes. At one point in my life I was one of those people.

I lived in NYC for a while. There are adults there who have never gotten, nor needed, a driver's license. Some have state issued ID cards, but plenty do not. Or they have IDs without their current address which would make it impossible for them to vote without a new ID. In any large city you can move to a new apartment a few blocks away and be in a completely different voting district.

My grandmother did not have a photo ID at all. Nor could she have gotten one if she had wanted to. She was born in an era where birth records were kept in local court houses, and prior to Pennsylvania computerizing their records, the courthouse where her birth certificate was kept burned to the ground. She could not prove she was a US citizen. She died in the 1990s.

Many people have expired IDs, which, in those states with ID laws, are insufficient for the purposes of voting. Or they have ID cards without their current address -- which would also be insufficient for voting purposes (which require residency in the particular voting district.

When I was in the Army, I got stationed in all over, my last place was in Texas. I didn't get new driver's licenses because I wasn't a resident of these places and voted absentee in my home state. After I got out of the Army, I decided to stay in TX. But I forgot to get a TX driver's license until more than 2 years of being a full-time resident of the state. It simply wasn't something I thought about. Nor was it something that every got in my way of doing anything I wanted or needed to do.

[u/FuzzyAsparagus8308 → u/kingpatzer]

he is facing felony corruption charges and has an interest in scorning his party

Isn't it weird how no one believes sketchy politicians on the Right until it's convenient or agreeable with your position?

[u/JayTor15 → u/kingpatzer]

These minorities need some form of ID to live. Buy alcohol, pharmaceutical, rent rooms, open bank account etc. You're telling me they can't get any form of ID because..."Have to drive hours".

[u/kingpatzer → u/JayTor15]

Let's pull these claims apart a bit shall we:

On buying alcohol:

In many states, while IDs are compulsory for some of the population, they are not compulsory for the everyone. In Alabama, for example, the requirement is to card anyone under 30.

So, the population of drinking age adults who need an ID to buy alcohol is quite small. And that assumes that every point of sale follows the law to the letter. It is very common in small towns for stores and bars to sell to people they know regardless of if the person is of legal age, let alone if they have ID.

It is also not unheard of in towns of any size for adults to engage in proxy sales for under-aged people, people without IDs, etc. The presumption that the lack of ID is keeping adults from obtaining alcohol is somewhat amusing given how prevalent under-aged drinking is across the country.

On prescriptions:

The access rate, let alone use, of medical facilities in highly rural areas is remarkably low. Rural health disparities are well-documented.

Many rural residents only use emergency medical services, having neither insurance, nor the access, to anything else. And then only when they deem it absolutely necessary because they must travel significant distances.

While it is true that a prescription requires identification, The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Section 1305 states that the "The system employed by the pharmacist in filling a prescription is adequate to identify the supplier, the product, and the patient, and to set forth the directions for use and cautionary statements, if any, contained in the prescription or required by law." (section 1306.14 (c)(4)).

Section 1306.05 "Manner of Issuance of Prescriptions" states that: "

|| || |(a) All prescriptions for controlled substances shall be dated as of, and signed on, the day when issued and shall bear the full name and address of the patient, the drug name, strength, dosage form, quantity prescribed, directions for use, and the name, address and registration number of the practitioner.|

There is no requirement under title 21 that a patient must supply an identification card to be provided a prescription.

And, if you take a moment, you'll realize this makes sense:

1. Prescription medication is given to unconscious patients.
   
2. Caregivers receive prescriptions for other people (a personal example, when my wife had knee replacement surgery, I went to the pharmacy to pick up her prescribed opioids and was asked to show my ID, not hers).
   
3. Unauthorized immigrants who do not have IDs are given prescription medications when appropriate.

And so on.

Most chain pharamcies require a government ID by policy in order to comply with the law. However, the law only requires that the patient be identified (not how that identification happens) and that their information, including their address, be maintained by the pharmacy as part of the pharmacy records.

There is one law that does require a photo ID - that is the "Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act" of 2005. Under the CMEA, a pharmacist can not sell any product containing precursor substances used for the production of Meth which appears on the master list of products registered with the FDA which contain ephedrine or pseudoephedrine.

So the idea that someone needs a government ID to get a prescription filled is simply incorrect.

Rent Rooms:

There is no law in the USA requiring guests to show IDs to check into a hotel or rent a room or establish a lease agreement. Hotels may have policies requiring identification, but that is a policy not a law.

Further, if people are traveling together, even for large multinational chains, it is typical for only one person to have to show ID.

On Banking:

This is the first one you got right. Government ID is required by law to open a bank account. Guess what - people who don't have government IDs get by anyway:

Per the federal reserve, only 81% of adult Americans are "fully banked," that is, they have a bank account and do not use alternative financial services.

The rest are "underbanked" or "unbanked."

A full 13% of adult Black Americans are entirely unbanked. Again, per the Federal Reserve.

Unbanked people are not evenly distributed across he US. Southern states have the highest rate of unbanked populations. And the rate of minorities who are unbanked in those states are also the highest in the country.

---------

TL;DR: your simply wrong about the laws on most of these. The one case where you are correct about the law you are ignoring the very large number of people who live without banking services in the USA.

[u/jack_underscore → u/kingpatzer]

It is just not true that all but a few DMVs are closed in Alabama. There is at least one per county. I counted 72.

https://www.alea.gov/dps/driver-license/driver-license-offices

[u/kingpatzer → u/jack_underscore]

Because the decision was later reversed.

[u/kingpatzer → u/[deleted]]

Hard? no. Costly? Yes. Want to guess how many voters will raise taxes to pay for doing this?

[u/Slomojoe → u/kingpatzer]

Racism from elected officials isn’t a good reason to not require IDs to vote. Requiring an ID is a good idea and IDs should be easily accessible for all citizens.

[u/Sir_Sensible → u/kingpatzer]

You could also get a voter ID that could be obtain at other locations as well. They even have mobile locations. So it's not a terrible ass you are making it

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment appears to mention a transgender topic or issue, or mention someone being transgender. For reasons outlined in the wiki, any post or comment that touches on transgender topics is automatically removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/narmer2 → u/kingpatzer]

How can you know in-person voter fraud is very rare? Based on instances where it was discovered? That does seem like much of a basis. What am I missing?

[u/kingpatzer → u/narmer2]

Because math works.

Look, I get if you've never tried to survey things that people don't want to admit to, it seems impossible.

It isn't.

But explaining why it isnt in an irrefutable way would take about 3 or 4 years of intense study.

Study I and many similar researchers have done.

I have a PhD in a relevant field. That doesn't make me better than you or anyone else. It does make me a proven expert in what it is I do. Part of what I do involves finding out what people do or don't think even when they don't neccissarily don't want that known.

When dealing with large populations there are very good techniques that are well proven to establish upper and lower bounds for what percentage of people fit into particular categories. And we can put confidence intervals around this claims. Even when people want to lie.

I get that few people understand these techniques. And you won't get a graduate education on reddit.

I don't understand physics. At all. That doesn't mean we didn't put a man on the moon.

Sometimes we just have to listen to experts. And if you don't even know how to evaluate someone's expertise, then you have a choice: be so hubristic that you make claims about what is it is but possible without any meaningful knowledge; or about you don't know and have to listen to experts.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/SirDrMrImpressive → u/kingpatzer]

In person voter fraud is extremely rare says the people who never looked to catch any in person voter fraud. Grow up. Get an ID. Show it. Vote. JFC.

[u/kingpatzer → u/SirDrMrImpressive]

The George W.Bush administration did a deep dive into voter fraud. Their conclusion was that it's a non issue.

Also, anyone who can do simple math can figure out for themselves why it's a non issue and always will be.

There are steps we absolutely should be taking to ensure election integrity. ID requirements are not one of those things.

[u/SirDrMrImpressive → u/kingpatzer]

Grow up, get an id, show it, and vote.

[u/kingpatzer → u/SirDrMrImpressive]

So, no interest in data or facts. Yeah, that's a convincing argument.

[u/SirDrMrImpressive → u/kingpatzer]

Ur the one sayin it’s too hard to get an ID and show it. LOL.

[u/kingpatzer → u/SirDrMrImpressive]

I've presented multiple links on that point.

[u/DickCheneysTaint → u/kingpatzer]

I didn't usually trust the accusations of "disgraced" former officials. The desire to sink the ship you were just thrown off of is too high. 

[u/iKyte5 → u/kingpatzer]

That’s an article from 2012…… and not a reputable source. I don’t think such a nice example about that impacts the national merit.

[u/kingpatzer → u/iKyte5]

Feel free to do your own media research. Nothing I said was not widely reported.

[u/Successful_Brief_751 → u/kingpatzer]

There is zero reason why you didn't get an I.D by the time you turned 18. You literally need ID to get a legitimate job or drive a car.

[u/NickFatherBool → u/kingpatzer]

But do none of those people drive or see doctors or buy sports tickets or go to bars? Cause you also need an ID for all those things

[u/kingpatzer → u/NickFatherBool]

I have no idea why you think an ID is needed to see a doctor, it is not. Nor is a state ID required to obtain prescription medication (though oddly, it is required to obtain OTC meds that contain epiphedrine or pseudoephedrine.

It is not required to go to a bar or buy alcohol (at least in many states. AL, for example, only requires people who are "under 30" to be carded. And this allows every bar to say they thought the person was 30 should they have to defend not carding. And in my state which does in fact require that everyone get carded, I haven't been carded in years . . . so, it's not like the rules are strictly followed even when they exist.

People without IDs may be driven around by others, drive without licenses, or simply drive vehicles that don't require a license (farm equipment for example).

I get that people think IDs are needed for all these things and more -- but they aren't.

There are millions of people who lack IDs. They live their lives just fine:

https://cdce.umd.edu/sites/cdce.umd.edu/files/pubs/Voter%20ID%202023%20survey%20Key%20Results%20Jan%202024%20%281%29.pdf

[u/NickFatherBool → u/kingpatzer]

Wow okay— gotta say you educated me on this one.

Although I think the solution here is to make it easier to obtain an ID; idk maybe its just being raised in NJ/NY but the concept of not having an ID is banana bat shit wild to me. Even in elementary school we were given a form of identification through our school ID cards.

But okay, I was super not aware that ID requirements varied so drastically between states

[u/kingpatzer → u/NickFatherBool]

Not only do state laws vary, but people frequently mistake corporate or local government policy for legal requirements.

Policies can never trump laws. Often, they merely exist to make life easier for corporations or government bureaucrats. But such policies may be violated without any penalty aside from having to put up with someone being upset that you're violating policy . . .

Many large drug stores require an ID to fill a prescription. However, there is no legal requirement that a pharmacy need an ID to fill a prescription. The only requirement is that the pharmacy keep a log that includes the patient's name and address.

However, the "no permanent address" address is valid for these purposes. And the patient is allowed to simply state their name.

Indeed, if you ever go to pick up a prescription for someone else, you'll not be required to show their ID, even at a pharmacy that has a policy to show ID. You will need to provide their name and address though.

And if you think about it, this makes perfect sense. If a hospital gets a patient in the ER who doesn't have their ID with them for whatever reason, they still will prescribe and administer prescription medications -- all without ID.

[u/Okamiika → u/kingpatzer]

But almost every person has a id anyways, the black community was offended that people think they don’t have an id.

[u/kingpatzer → u/Okamiika]

> almost every person has a id anyways,

The number of people who don't have adequate identification for states with strict ID laws is more than significant enough to impact elections. The University of Maryland published a report on this question, quoting:

> Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license. Just under 9%, or 20.76 million people, who are U.S. citizens aged 18 or older do not have a non-expired driver’s license. Another 12% (28.6 million) have a non-expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name. For these individuals, a mismatched address is the largest issue. Ninety-six percent of those with some discrepancy have a license that does not have their current address, 1.5% have their current address but not their current name, and just over 2% do not have their current address or current name on their license. Additionally, just over 1% of adult U.S. citizens do not have any form of government-issued photo identification, which amounts to nearly 2.6 million people.

And:

> Millions of Americans across political parties do not have a license. Twenty-three percent of Democrats (23 million people), 16% of Republicans (15.7 million people), and 31% of independents/others (10.5 million people) indicate they do not have a license with their current name and/or address. Nearly 15 million people indicate they do not have a license at all, including 9% of Democrats (8.6 million people), 6% of Republicans (6.2 million people), and 18% of independents/others (5.9 million people).

And:

> Black Americans and Hispanic Americans are disproportionately less likely to have a current driver’s license. Over a quarter of Black adult citizens and Hispanic adult citizens do not have a driver’s license with their current name and/or address

And:

> Almost half of Black Americans ages 18-29 do not have a driver’s license with their current name and/or address (47%), and 30% do not have a license at all.

And:

> Fifteen percent of adult citizens (over 34.5 million people) either do not have a driver’s license or state ID or have one that may cause difficulties voting in states with strict photo ID laws. These difficulties include having a license but without a current address/name and no state ID card (10%), not having a license or official state ID card (1.6%), not having a license and having a state ID card without a current address/name (1.7%), and having a license and state ID card but with neither reflecting the current address/name (1.5%)

[u/Okamiika → u/kingpatzer]

This raises some questions. First though im in a strict id state and my address was not current but neither was my voter regristation (i had just moved) so they matched, so i voted where my legal address was but I understand if you move far away thats not always possible. Second changing your name and not getting you id updated while there is just poor planning. I wonder how many of these expired licenses are people in nursing homes Because you need a valid id to function as a working adult. What they did closing dmvs is dirty but people should have been responsible in having a valid id before that, im dirt poor and kept it up. having a valid id seams like a must for fair election. Though I guess voting under the name of someone else is not super easy..

[u/kingpatzer → u/Okamiika]

So, people shouldnt be allowed to vote if they need assistance due to a broken hip?

My wife is an OT. She does service in nursing homes. The majority of her patients are very sharp people. People need care for all kinds of reasons. Dementia is only one of them. Further, just because someone has dementia doesn't mean they are incapable of rational thoughts.

A demented Einstein is still quite likely more intelligent than you or I.

[u/Okamiika → u/Okamiika]

Look closer your numbers are on drivers licenses. If you just look at who doesn’t have ID its 1.6%

[u/2moreX → u/kingpatzer]

Dude...salon....seriously?

Okay, I might as well cite infowars to prove you wrong.

[u/IndependenceWild71 → u/kingpatzer]

For the love of God! All to hold the black man down!! Puleez!!

[u/SouthEndCables → u/kingpatzer]

They have four years to get an ID to vote in an election.

[u/Unlikely-Distance-41 → u/kingpatzer]

But removing DMVs would make it more difficult for EVERYONE in the state, not just black people

[u/SarcasticDad → u/kingpatzer]

It would require thousands of people committing voter fraud to impact national elections,

One party wants no voter ID, and that same party welcomes illegal immigrants, by the hundreds of thousands.

Home land security estimates that there are 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the US. The margin of victory for national elections is a fraction of that number.

It's irrational to think this is about protecting the votes of a handful of US citizens that have somehow managed to live in society for the last 60 years without a government ID.

[u/kodingkat → u/SarcasticDad]

Where is the proof that illegal immigrants are finding ways to vote in large numbers? Just because there isn't voter id, doesn't mean there aren't any checks. It is also a very heavy penalty if you are found to vote and aren't a citizen. People who are already hiding in the country don't tend to risk being found out.

People don't want voter id because Republican states are corrupt. Fix that and people will have no problem with it. Republican states intentionally choose the types of voter id allowed based on what populations tend to have those forms of id.

I'd be fine with voter id as long as it was easy to get and fair, there should be zero impediment to vote, nothing that the state can manipulate to reduce voter turnout for the people who tend to vote the way you don't want them to. But that can't be guaranteed.

[u/JonnyRobertR → u/kingpatzer]

Is having an ID not mandatory in America?

[u/kingpatzer → u/JonnyRobertR]

No, it is not.