First things first, I don’t doubt it is a bad thing, considering who supports it and who doesn’t.
But my question is what exactly is the issue and what is the current and proposed voting process when it comes to IDs?
Here in my EU country, you have to show some version of a government ID, be it an ID card, drivers license or passport. And we don’t have to pre-register to vote.
Registering to vote is done by proving citizenship and residency, this is the step at which documents are checked. Doing it again at the polls duplicates work for little benefit.
The US system isn’t vulnerable. In order to meaningfully swing an election, it would require massed coordination between millions of people spread across hundreds of precincts. Each one would need to know that the person they are pretending to be has not voted and is not planning to vote after them - multiple voters for a single voter registration begins an investigation.
Voter rolls are purged frequently, so inactive registrations are not widely available for this kind of fraud. The rules vary by state, but generally if the voter does not cast a ballot for 2 consecutive elections they are deactivated.
Voters can only vote at their assigned polling places, meaning any large scale fraud must be distributed, increasing the number of people who must be involved and decreasing the likelihood it goes undetected.
So the argument against voter id is that some people can’t get the id they need due to financial reasons or whatever and thus this is disenfranchising minorities. But if you need that very same id to register to vote then your entire argument falls flat on its face.
Ahh this asshole again. Can you confine the bad faith arguments to one thread?
The documents used to prove residency and citizenship aren’t exclusively photo IDs. Voter ID laws of recent conversation have all required photo IDs.
Different IDs. Not ‘the very same’ IDs.
Which you would know if you cared about any of this beyond mud slinging and muddying the waters.