Difference between revisions of "Essay:Voter ID: A Personal Reflection"
(→There is widespread fraud, and Voter ID reduces its occurrence: add example of the type of argument) |
|||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
===There is widespread fraud, and Voter ID reduces its occurrence=== | ===There is widespread fraud, and Voter ID reduces its occurrence=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | This includes arguments of the form "The only reason that someone would oppose Voter ID is so they could commit fraud/benefit from fraudulent votes." | ||
====Voter ID prevents registration fraud (like that committed by ACORN workers)==== | ====Voter ID prevents registration fraud (like that committed by ACORN workers)==== | ||
Revision as of 00:58, October 3, 2012
This is an original essay by User:GregG. The views expressed in this essay do not reflect the official position of Conservapedia or of any other editor, except where specifically noted.
There is now just over a month before the 2012 Presidential election, and this election will be the first one where restrictive Voter ID laws will be enforced in more than a couple states. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of October 2, 2012, four states will have laws enforced in the November 2012 election requiring most voters to provide an approved photo identification in order to have their vote counted. Five other states currently have their laws blocked for the November 2012 election. Thirty states will request some form of identification from voters in November 2012.[1]
Nevertheless, every state with a voter ID law has their own variation on what sort of identification is required (including whether the identification must have a photo), and whether or not a vote will count if the voter does not present identification (strict voter ID vs. non-strict voter ID).[1] Additionally, within the classes of strict vs. non-strict ID and photo vs. non-photo ID, there are variations in exactly what kinds of ID are acceptable, what types of identification the state makes available to those lacking a valid ID, and the documentation and procedure required to obtain such identification.
Although journalists find it convenient to lump all voter ID laws together in discussion, more sophisticated individuals (such as the readers of Conservapedia) will appreciate the subtle nuances of each individual law (especially the law, if any, of their own state). Polls regularly show that most people agree that the general idea of voter ID is a good thing to have in our election system. In deciding whether a voter ID law is good or bad, an empiricist like me would have to examine both the pluses of a specific voter ID law (in terms of reducing fraud, increasing trust in elections, making polls more efficient) versus its minuses (disenfranchisement, reducing trust in government, costs of training and issuing free identification to those lacking it). A good citizen or legislator will also compare the pluses and minuses for individual provisions to determine the best voter ID law, if any, for their state.
(will expand later)
Arguments to avoid in Voter ID discussions
I have been following Voter ID for much of 2012. What I have noticed is that the arguments for and against Voter ID have shifted over time, both in response to events involving Voter ID (like new legislation, procedures, or court rulings) and as new arguments develop and old, refuted arguments are discarded. When a commentator uses a long-refuted argument in favor of Voter ID, I personally cannot help but wonder sometimes whether the commentator is actually a liberal troll parodying conservatives (like Stephen Colbert). Thus, below I offer a list of arguments that proponents should avoid in voter ID discussion, not only to avoid making themselves look like fools but also to further trustworthy discourse on this important issue.
(I will get to a list of arguments opponents should avoid later)
No one lacks ID
Identification is necessary for X, and therefore it should be required to vote
(fill in the litany of examples)
Doing X with private company Y
Boarding an airplane
Opening a bank account
Cashing a check
Driving a car
Obtaining health care
Purchasing tobacco or alcohol
Filling out an I-9 form for employment
Identification is necessary to purchase a gun, and the Second Amendment grants a constitutional right, like voting, and so ID should be required to vote
Identification is necessary to obtain government benefits to which individuals are entitled, and therefore it should be required to vote
Food stamps
Welfare
Medicare/Medicaid
You are required by law to carry identification, and if you do not, the police can arrest you, and so voters not having ID is not a big issue
Because you must be a citizen to vote, every registered voter has proof of citizenship (such as a birth certificate) and therefore cannot be disenfranchised by state requirements to present proof of citizenship to obtain ID
Because you must be a resident to register to vote, every registered voter has proof of residency and therefore cannot be disenfranchised by state requirements to present proof of residency to obtain ID
People who lack ID are not trying hard enough
People who claim that they cannot get to the DMV to get ID are lying because, if so, they would not be able to get to their polling place
Because there state does not charge to obtain Voter ID, it does not disenfranchise and is not a poll tax
People would go out of their way to obtain ID if there were a reward, and therefore those lacking ID do not have enough incentive to exercise the franchise and therefore should not vote
People who protest about not being able to get ID could have used those efforts to actually obtain ID and therefore they should not vote
There is widespread fraud, and Voter ID reduces its occurrence
This includes arguments of the form "The only reason that someone would oppose Voter ID is so they could commit fraud/benefit from fraudulent votes."