Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Why requiring ID to vote is a bad thing, explained simply

You need an ID to get on a plane, to open a checking account, to buy beer, you need an ID for all sorts of things in order to prove your identity. So at first blush, it seems only logical that you ought to be required to present an ID in order to vote, too, right? You don't want somebody stealing your identity to open a checking account, and you don't want somebody stealing your identity to cast a vote for a different candidate. And besides, getting an ID is pretty easy, all things considered.

This is all very appealing to plain common sense. Unfortunately, it's also wrong. The reasons why it is wrong are counter-intuitive, but they are also relatively simple to explain. I don't recall ever seeing the reasons summarized succinctly, logically, and dispassionately (as we will soon see, this debate tends to inflame passions due to its relationship to race and class issues). So without further ado, I offer here my attempt to explain as simply as possible why ID requirements for voting are a bad thing:

In a nutshell, it's because of two reasons. One, there are significant negative side-effects; and, two, there is virtually no benefit in terms of preventing meaningful voter fraud.

Negative side-effects

Most Americans drive. So you've already got an ID. For most of us, producing an ID seems like the simplest thing in the world. Within this context, our "common sense" seems to tell us that only the most irredeemable fuckups are not going to have an ID.

But as always, we are better served by looking at the data than we are by consulting our "common sense", and the data is clear: Laws which require voters to present ID disproportionately affect minorities, the poor, and Democratic voters. We don't have to speculate about this or that, because the data is already there.

The first two groups are historically disenfranchised already, so it seems to me like a demonstrably Bad Thing to disenfranchise them even further. If you think that preventing minorities and the poor from voting is a positive thing, well, I probably cannot convince you of anything (but I would like to tell you to bite me, please). But for those of us who, at the very least, feel that it's downright shameful to disproportionately exclude black voters from the political process, especially in a nation that so recently was regularly lynching it's not-white-enough citizens, the data speaks for itself.

Whether or not the disproportionate disenfranchisement of Democratic voters is a good thing I imagine constitutes a rather straightforward political Rohrshach. But if nothing else, it ought to call into question the motives of the exclusively-Republican legislators who are the ones pushing for such laws: It directly affects their odds of future employment. If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.

But all of this might still be excusable if such laws really did reduce voter fraud in a meaningful way. Do they?

No Benefit

More than once in this post, I've drawn an analogy to the act of presenting an ID to open a bank account, so let's continue in that vein. Let's say there was a bank that didn't require any sort of ID. Somebody could come in with just my name and address and open a checking account in my name, write all sorts of bad checks, and I'd be on the hook for it. That's pretty shabby, I agree.

But wait a minute now, there are problems with this analogy. What if there were about a 57% chance that I would be coming into that very same bank, on the very same day in order to open a legitimate checking account of my own? What if I already got there first? Now it will be mighty embarrassing for the would-be fraudster! Even if the fraudster beat me to it, someone might remember what she looked like, and the odds of getting caught are non-trivial.

And yet, the analogy gets even worse. Turns out that the fraudster can only get fifty bucks or so for each fraudulent bank account she opens. In order to actually make it worthwhile, she will have to visit dozens of no-ID banks, she'll have to do it all on the same day, and for each identity she steals there is a better than 50/50 chance that the person in question will be visiting the same bank on the same day to open an account.

This is starting to look like a pretty lousy way to make a buck. And so it is with this method of voter fraud: You have to steal a lot of votes in order to make it worthwhile, and each vote you steal comes with a non-trivial risk of getting caught.

This analogy was a bit of an over-simplification -- for instance, in reality, you are better off stealing the identity of the recently deceased rather than a living person, since there is a 0% chance they will be making it to the polling place that day, but this still presents problems in that a) you have to obtain a non-trivial number of names of the recently deceased in order to make it worthwhile; and b) given that polling places tend to service a relatively small community, there's still a damn good chance of getting caught. The point remains: This is a really inefficient way to influence an election. Especially when there are much more effective means of tipping the scales which also carry a relatively low risk of getting caught.

So yeah, I admit it's counter-intuitive. In this era of identity theft paranoia -- I just had some fraudulent charges on my debit card less than a week ago! -- it almost seems absurd not to require an ID to vote. But when you crunch the numbers in regards to who is affected, when you look at the feasibility of actually pulling off an election-changing fraud that could be thwarted by ID requirements, it just doesn't add up.

36 comments:

  1. I'm under the impression that the primary concern expressed by proponents of voter ID laws isn't people posing as someone they're not, but rather that people who aren't eligible to vote would do so. Am I missing something? I'm still skeptical of the need for voter ID laws, but I don't really see how your explanation refutes that idea, and I still don't see how having an ID is a burden if there's a provision in place to provide them free of charge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I know this reply is 3 years late, I provide it for completeness. The issue You describe is Voter registration fraud, which is different. As far as "burdens" go, You miss the fact some religions prohibit photography for one reason or another and photo ID requirements for voting place a heavy burden (violate Your faith or lose Your right to choose Your government) without providing either a compelling interest (so few cases of showing-up-at-the-polls fraud each year) or using the least restrictive means of advancing any particular interest (polling precincts can be made sufficiently small as to ensure poll Workers recognize Everyone coming to vote, such as is done in Nebraska).

      Delete
    2. So your argument is that we should not require I.D's just to cater to the smallest minority of people, those whose religions dictate no photography? That's absolutely absurd especially considering the day and age we live in where photography is more and more something you can't avoid. Also the second part of your argument is that the government could make polling precincts " sufficiently small as to ensure poll Workers recognize Everyone coming to vote". This is such an unrealistic idea. Where would you ever find someone that knows EVERYONE in their neighborhood? Even the people that don't go out much. Not only that but this person would have to somehow now each person closely enough recognize/recall their name and face in an instant. How would we find this person? How can we know if they truly know everyone? Are we going to administer a test with pictures and names (excluding of course those whose religions forbid pictures). What about big cities where there are thousands of people within just a few blocks? It seems alot simpler to just use an ID and log it in a computer don't you think? Especially considering there are free ways to get ID's as the original poster pointed out.

      Delete
  2. Actually, I've never quite understood what the primary concern is, so if you could explain it, that would be helpful. So the idea is that somebody who is, what, too young to vote is going to be able to register to vote or something? You're not really going to influence an election that way, either, and it doesn't really seem that tragic to me anyhow, heh...

    As far as having ID not being a burden if there's a provision to provide them free of charge: Again, we don't really have to reason this out, because the data speaks for itself. I can offer some reasons, e.g. going and physically getting an ID is more of a burden if you don't own a vehicle, taking time off of work to go get an ID is a simple thing for me but may not be for people with a different type of job, etc.

    However, I'm sure someone can think of ways to parry each of these reasons, and I don't want to get bogged down in that. The data speaks for itself: Requiring ID disproportionately disenfranchises minorities, the poor, and Democratic voters. Just in general, additional requirements for voting tend to have that effect, no matter what the requirements. If we view the disenfranchisement of voters based on race and class lines as a bad thing (as I do), then any additional requirement on voting must have a very worthy goal behind it that can be achieved in no other way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you have to 'take off work'....then you have an ID because you needed an ID to get the job.

      There is no reason to not require ID for presidential elections. The only people that bitch about it are those that want to be able to vote multiple times.

      Delete
    2. I know I am late to this party, but the "burden" you speak of is the same "burden" that I had to endure, and everyone has to endure. Is there a special "white people's only" phone number where you just call in to get your driver's license or state I.D.??? We all draw a number and wait in the same line. When I was young and didn't have a car I did take the bus and wait in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles between my 2 job shifts. I needed the I.D. to open my checking account so I could cash my checks from my jobs. I assume even those who don't have jobs and get monthly payments also need an I.D. to deposit or cash their checks as well. I just don't buy the argument that my burden to get a state I.D. is much lower than anyone else who lives and benefits from living in the United States of America.

      Delete
    3. While I know this reply is 3 years late, I provide it for completeness. The issue You describe is Voter registration fraud, which is different. As far as "burdens" go, You miss the fact some religions prohibit photography for one reason or another and photo ID requirements for voting place a heavy burden (violate Your faith or lose Your right to choose Your government) without providing either a compelling interest (so few cases of showing-up-at-the-polls fraud each year) or using the least restrictive means of advancing any particular interest (polling precincts can be made sufficiently small as to ensure poll Workers recognize Everyone coming to vote, such as is done in Nebraska).

      Delete
    4. So your argument is that we should not require I.D's just to cater to the smallest minority of people, those whose religions dictate no photography? That's absolutely absurd especially considering the day and age we live in where photography is more and more something you can't avoid. Also the second part of your argument is that the government could make polling precincts " sufficiently small as to ensure poll Workers recognize Everyone coming to vote". This is such an unrealistic idea. Where would you ever find someone that knows EVERYONE in their neighborhood? Even the people that don't go out much. Not only that but this person would have to somehow now each person closely enough recognize/recall their name and face in an instant. How would we find this person? How can we know if they truly know everyone? Are we going to administer a test with pictures and names (excluding of course those whose religions forbid pictures). What about big cities where there are thousands of people within just a few blocks? It seems alot simpler to just use an ID and log it in a computer don't you think? Especially considering there are free ways to get ID's as the original poster pointed out.

      Delete
  3. There's a related philosophical question here, I suppose, to: Analogous to the question, "How many guilty people would you be willing to set free to prevent one innocent person you send to prison?", we might also ask, "How many fraudulent votes are you willing to tolerate to prevent one eligible voter from being disenfranchised?"

    My answer to that question is, as long as it's not enough to in practice to allow the deliberate manipulation of election results. But I get the impression from some supporters of voter ID laws that their answer is Zero.

    There is always some degree of error in any election of sufficient size, and I sort of feel like as long as the fraud is smaller than the noise, who even cares? But I suppose for some people, the idea of even a single fraudulent vote is anathema. I can't really address that argument other than to ask, how is a fraudulent vote for candidate X worse than a disenfranchised voter who would have voted for candidate Y?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am not entirely sure how getting id is so difficult or financially restricting. In New York, I can apply for a long term ID card for 14 dollars. I make minimum wage and that is within my reach. I don't eat out and I share a small apartment with someone else.

    Although at 14 dollars, I do not see much reason for them to charge for id. It might as well be a free service since it makes such a small service.

    But back to point. Anyone who becomes disenfranchised by having to pay 14 dollars and present their birth certificate is pretty apathetic about the whole process to begin with. That is hardly the fault of requiring id. This is just a case of both sides pretending that this is a big issue(there is little proof of widespread voter fraud and having to pay the equivalent of 2-3 meals at McDonalds is hardly anti-minority). This is just sensationalism which is why it is hard to become interested in the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You also have to go down to the DMV, meaning you need transportation, you may need to take time off of work, if you have children to take care of you may need child care, etc.

    And in any case, the point is not to say that someone who is really serious about voting can't get around these hurdles. The point is that people who are sitting in a position of privilege don't have those hurdles, so they can vote even if they are really apathetic about it, whereas young people, the poor, and minorities may not be able to be so apathetic if they want to get it taken care of. Which means those groups are disproportionately disenfranchised.

    We have to remember whether we are talking about what an individual should do vs. epidemiology. On an individual level, yeah, it's not that hard, just get out and do it. On an epidemiological level, even if it's only ever-so-slightly harder, if that difficulty disproportionately affects a particular group, then that group will be disproportionately disenfranchised.

    And anyway, this doesn't address the "No benefit" side of my argument. Even if there is only the teensiest, tiniest downside of requiring voter ID, that is intolerable if it turns out there is no actual benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well I would not say that there is no benefit. It just might be a very small benefit like a very small reduction in fraudulent votes.

    It just so happens that very small relatively unimportant things are happening on both sides of the scale. On one hand a very small portion of the population has to take a very small extra step to vote beyond registering. On the other hand, a very small difference is made in election result accuracy. This is tiny downside for tiny benefit.

    But back to what matters, do we as a society want people who are so easily discouraged to vote(I am not saying that this is my opinion. Just inquiring your opinion)? If someone cares so little, that having to goto the DMV once every 10 years and present their birth certificate and 14 dollars is all it takes to disenfranchise them, do we want that person voting? If the task of getting an id is too great, I suspect being informed about the candidates will also be too difficult a task. Personally, I find keeping up on politics to be much harder than taking an extended lunch break and having a friend drive me to the dmv once every 10 years.


    But in agreement with you, I do not see the purpose(other than political) in enacting laws that have so little impact. Legislators should really focus on more substantial problems.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I really do think it is NO benefit. Nobody is intentionally trying to pull off the type of voter fraud that would be made in any way more difficult by requiring an ID, because it simply doesn't really work, as I explained in the blog post. Voter fraud exists, but not of this kind.

    There are people who vote erroneously where this kind of thing would stop them, but those cases are incredibly rare. Far more common would be people who simply forgot their ID in their other pants or something and couldn't vote just because of that. There really is, literally, NO benefit. It's not just a small benefit, it's NO benefit.

    As far as someone who is not with it enough to get an ID also being not with it enough to vote, I am sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but again the point is about relative disenfranchisement. Rich lazy apathetic uninformed voters will be disenfranchised at a much lower rate than poor lazy apathetic uninformed voters. The net result is a relative disenfranchisement of the poor.

    And anyway, we don't have to reason this out: Laws making it more difficult to vote disproportionately affect poor and minority voters, we know this from empirical data. There's just no getting around it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. when you mention empirical evidence are you referring to the fact that those who are poor are less likely to have a car and thus less likely to have a driver's license? Or are you saying there is a study that claims requiring voters to get a license results in some measurable amount of deterrence?

    In Kansas in 2010, there were 221 reported cases of voter fraud. That is not a presidential election year and that is only the reported cases. So in Kansas in 2012, it could a thousand or so fraudulent votes. I have no direct numbers on Kansas' population that is eligible to vote but has no id. South Carolina is listed as having 216,000 id-less individuals who are otherwise eligible to vote. Population of Kansas is 61% of S. Carolina so I am going to estimate that there are 132,000 id-less eligible voters. In 2010 Kansas had roughly a 40% turnout, so 53,000 of them were likely to show up to vote id-less in 2010.

    Now you have to measure how big an impact requiring an ID has. are we saying 1% of these voters are turned away? 10%? Well if it is anything less than 10%, then the cost and gain of this silly id requirement is pretty close.

    If you have more accurate sources of information, you can correct me where I am wrong. I got some of that at http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/are-new-voting-laws-necessary-or-discriminatory

    Sorry to spam your blog...every time I get a break at work, I tend to find ways of procrastinating.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The right to vote is a privilege! Not all countries have the right to vote and people are willing to fight for this right! Our history shows that the "POOR" is willing to march, protest and even die for the right to vote. Why do you assume that the "underprivileged" are not willing to go to the DMV to get an ID for this right?

    Your argument is weak and insulting! How dare you assume that people of low social economics are not willing to fight for their rights. Obviously you have never been poor and have no idea what a poverished person is willing to do to survive. I am sick and tired of people making the poor seem like they are incapable human beings. THEY ARE VERY CAPABLE! They have to fight harder than anyone born with a silver spoon in their mouth.


    When I was a child, my family came to this country from war-striken Nicaragua. My father had to ride his bike to work every day, both of my parents worked two jobs each and for awhile we lived in a home with 2 other families. My family did whatever it took to get ahead and fought hard for their rights. We became Naturalized Citizens and now have the right to vote. It is amazing to me, that as a Naturalized Citizen I see the importance of making voting secure. It took a lot for my family to gain this right and I think it is of utter importance to maintain its integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is amazing how every topic is turned into a race or class issue by liberals. First off your numbers are clearly made up. But I will ignore your poor math skills and point out what voting problems there are in places that are "less- restrictive", like Chicago. It is estimated that at least 10% of votes are cast under some type of fraud, including check card voting and identity theft. In the last election (non-presidential) there were 25,000 votes casted by people who have been dead for at least 5 years. When this was found, the votes were thrown out, and amazingly enough, all the votes were cast for democrating canidates in polling offices controlled by liberal, pro union, groups such as Acorn.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Your argument against is just as specious as the argument for. Every poor person I know has an id. Even my son, who is homeless and living in the street has an id. You need id to collect public support. The only reason anyone would NOT want to show an id is because they are mentally ill, e.g. paranoid, or because they are attempting fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't have the energy to argue this point, but I just want to point out that every "rebuttal" I've heard relies heavily on anecdote. "My son has an ID, so what's the problem!" Try data, people.

    Oh wait, the data told us Mitt Romney was going to lose. Fuck data.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you please cite your data sources? Give link? I like to check sources for myself and am curious to see your data.
      Thank you!

      Delete
    2. OK, James, you're losing your cool. Couldn't you just answer the nice person's question about where you got your data from? I'm curious too. No proof makes data as good as made up.

      Delete
  13. This article sucks. You do not explain anything...How are minorities disenfranchised? You are a stupid motherfucker and I wish you would fall down and scrape your knee.

    Everyone needs an ID. Democrats don't want this rule because they get hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant votes. Now go fuck your mother ass-clown

    ReplyDelete
  14. James Sweet is a faggot

    ReplyDelete
  15. You keep saying the data speaks for itself... can you show the data please? A link, or something, so I can look for myself. I keep getting the same response from every person I ask about this, and it's frustrating that none of them are willing to show me the data and instead insist that I just take their word for it. It's not that I don't believe it - I just want to take a look for myself so that I can know more about this.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mr. Sweet,
    Your opinion is just that, opinion. You speak in generalities, provide no fact based data with supporting indica of reliability, and completely ignore, because it would kill your opinion, the fact requiring an ID would allow only legal citizens of this country to vote. The "disadvantaged" and "minorities" you cry for are the very people that are the "takers" in society. The ones that will vote Santa Claus for president, because he promises them everything for free without having to work or contribute. It is the estimated 12 MILLION illegal, non-citizens, that will vote for Santa, that you assert should not be required to have an ID and should be allowed to vote? And you think that is okay? Go to any other civilized country on an election day, jsut walk into a polling place and tell them you want to vote. I'm sure they will just give you a ballot, uhhh... NOT. The ONLY people that should be allowed to vote for the people that will make and enact laws in the US are US citizens. Answer this Mr. Sweet, WHY should someone from mexico, france, korea, or any other place on earth, who is NOT a citizen of the U.S. be allowed to cast a vote for who will be president of the U.S.? To an even simpler level, Pick a sports team, let's say the baseball, NY Yankees. Who should be able to vote for electing a team captain? The members of the Red Sox? NO, the other Yankee players are the ONLY ones that should vote for THEIR team captain. If you are not a card carrying, pinstripe wearing member of the team YOU DON"T GET TO VOTE FOR THE TEAM LEADER. Surely you would agree with that, right?

    ReplyDelete
  17. You didn't explain how requiring an ID disproportionately affects minorities. If you are so bad off that you can't afford or get transportation to get an ID, how are you getting out to vote? Ohhh, the good democrats are coming to your house to help you vote...C'mon people, it's not about requiring an ID being such a burden; it's because voter fraud is going to be cut SIGNIFICANTLY and that is going to negatively affect the democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Minorities and the poor are required to show ID to exercise their right to bear arms, but no one is bitching about that. It is a ridiculous argument to say they can't vote if ID is required. If Obama can give away phones, I'm sure the democrats will figure out how to get their base to the DMV.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Arkansas requires a STATE ID for anyone over 18. So it's not even an issue here if they were to do it. The only reason why the bill would be blocked is for Fuad votes to slip through. It cost $10 for a state ID. anyone that is voting sure can make it to the polls to vote. so why wouldn't they be able to make it to the DMV once every 4-10 years? When you have an instance like OHIO in the last election that had 250,000 give or take registered voters but came out with over 400k votes, theres something seriously wrong. Of all the votes that was later to be shown as fuad, they were all democrat?

    Clinton said today that it was some type of "discrimination". I see it as discrimination to everyone playing by the rules to not have the law in place. You say the fuad numbers are low,so low they do not matter. But rememeber every vote counts or you wouldn't vote yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to correct your misinformation, in 2012 there were 625 possible voting irregularities reported in Ohio.

      "Husted, a Republican and the state’s chief elections official, said at a news conference and in an accompanying report that based on a survey of all of Ohio’s 88 counties conducted in the wake of last November’s election, 625 possible voting irregularities were reported across the state and 135 of them have been sent to law enforcement for further investigation." http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/ohio-voter-fraud-does-exist-but-not-an-epidemic/

      Not sure where you're getting the 250K voters vs 400K votes "data" but I did find one instance where it was claimed in Wood county that President Obama received 106,258 votes but there were only 98,213 eligible voters. However, this was deemed "demonstrably false" by PolitiFact Ohio http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/nov/19/we-people-petition/online-petition-claims-obama-got-more-votes-one-co/

      Delete
  20. To this analogy that someone opens a checking account in your name and can only withdraw $50 bucks at a time. What happens when hundreds are doing the same thing on the very same day? Case in point is a county in Florida where 170,000 were registered to vote, but yet Obama received 220,000 votes in that very county! That's how these low-life Democrats win election. That's why they don't want voter ID's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except of course, that didn't happen. You just made that bullsheeite up. Got a link? No, you don't, because you're lying. Your big scandal story isn't found anywhere, not even Fox, because, what? MSM coverup? You're a joke.

      Delete
  21. empirical data of disenfranchisement possibly sited is research done at the university of Chicago by Cathy j Cohen (black lesbian leftist activist feminist) and one of her former students. I bet there's no bias there! P.S. black youth votes have been rising. dude google some facts.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Banking, driving, marriage, buying, selling, flying are all acts involving commerce. Voting is not. You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Two lines of argument that particularly bug me:

    One is to talk about any kind of fraud except in-person voter impersonation. But impersonation of an eligible voter is the only kind of fraud that voter ID would be the only tool to prevent. Yes, voter ID may help prevent "dead voters" — but so would purging the rolls of dead people.

    The other is that people should care enough to leap the hurdle and vote. You must not have read the author' comment that nicely addresses this: "The point is that people who are sitting in a position of privilege don't have those hurdles, so they can vote even if they are really apathetic about it, whereas young people, the poor, and minorities may not be able to be so apathetic if they want to get it taken care of."

    Anyway, even if the laws affected all possible demographic groups equally, the "you should care" argument would still be pointless because it justifies literally any obstacle to voting.

    We could require that voters show a measurable increase in their fitness, for example. All the voters should undergo a Rocky Montage so they'll be Ready to Vote. See how absurd that is? Yes, given the existence of obstacles, one may have a duty to overcome them, but that doesn't give the government a duty to create obstacles in the first place!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The thing is, we Dont Live In the 1920's, or even in the sixties. We live in an age where the poor and oppressed have to show their I.d. to get their medicaide card, their food assistance card, their ssdi checks cashed, their housing assistance, filling the Rx that is subsidized and heaven knows what else. Its really ridiculous that we can't require id's for voting. ID'S DO NOT PREVENT VOTING!!! Laziness, apathy & cynicism prevent people from getting to the polls. Requiring ID's prevents non - citizen's from assuming a right they just do not have. ID's prevent iillegally voting in multiple districts, ID's discourage voting in a district from which uou have moved. ID's encourage you to change your address and pay taxes in the state you are actually residing. ID's help prevent FRAUD. Yes, that is the right word:FRAUD. I.D's help emphasize that voting is a right not to be taken lightly. Or, that should be taken at least as seriously as proving you're old enough to buy booze. Don't get me wrong...I could use a little help right now. iIi don't even vote in every election. But, when I see aora candidate i csn actually stand eith....I would have my I.d. Ready to go.

      Delete
  24. your points are valid and make perfect sense. but you miss the problem entirely. it is not about one person voting. one vote doesn t really make that big a difference. everyone does have the right to vote and we would be a better nation if everyone did. this is easy to agree with. the problem lies in not knowing who is voting. unless i am wrong, there is a huge push to register voters right before presidential elections. it is a tactic used by both parties but much more effective for democrats. just check the stats before the 2008 election. so say we sign up 1 million voters. now we have 1 million new votes that can be cast. we won t be sure who actually went in to cast these vote. but more importantly, these votes can be cast, i would imagine, electronically in huge blocks. if you believe a little of what you read, there was most likely ballet box stuffing in the not so distant past as the JFK election. how many we will never know. now i do know that people who desperately want to win will cheat. and the easier it is to cheat the more tempting it is to do. and these people want to win and there is huge amounts of money being thrown around. i m not saying that electronically stuffing ballot boxes is easy, but if it is possible, someone will figure it out and it will be done . an old saying goes something like this... "if you ain't cheatin' you aint ' tryin'". it has been attributed to way to many famous people to ever know who said it first but is it basic human nature. by making it too simple, by not requiring some effort to be put into the act voting, its not the people who did or didn't vote that we need be concerned with, it is the politicians and more importantly, their backers. what is so hard to understand about having people make an effort to vote in order to make it as honest as possible? and voting with a computer from home? Mucho bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If someone do not even want to get an ID, why he should vote?

    ReplyDelete