What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

I am convinced that lack of public awareness of the evidence is a key factor in allowing many of the never-Trumpers to conclude that Biden is no better and so they should stay home.

The last 8 years - heck, the last decades, when we consider things like covid or climate change - suggest that our current predicament isn't one of lack of evidence or awareness. There are thousands of fact-checking outlets; experts have been repeating data, journalists keep saying the same things about state of the economy, or the general decline in crime statistics. More venues for raising awareness about evidence, more spaces of fact-checking have not impaired Trump, and Trumpian rhetoric by much, if at all. A problem of politics isn't solved by spouting evidence, however incontrovertible it appears, and however much we'd like it to be convincing on its own. Politics is about matters of concern, and it is only distantly related to matters of fact.

The existence and theoretical availability of evidence is not the same as awareness and understanding of it, or the willingness to accept evidence as a critical criterion in evaluating policy.  I realized this talking to my son, who has become interested in politics, but whose understanding of issues mostly comes from youtube videos and clips or talking to peers (which in turn is just more social media videos all the way down).  So he will say something about say immigration or inflation or other issues confidently asserting it as fact, but the only real backing is a video clip of some guy giving an opinion.  When I point out that the underlying facts are verifiable through easily available data, his eyes glaze over.  At one point, he vehemently insisted that the price of a dozen eggs was some ridiculously high number based on some clip from a Fox News entertainer ("news anchor") only to be shocked to see that they were available that day at Target for a small fraction of that amount.

Making evidence available doesn't work because evidence is boring and because if it requires even a tiny bit of effort to access and understand, that's enough to make it aversive.  Why bother when FB memes and tiktok videos tell you everything you really need to know and also let you bask in the shared approval of an echoic peer group.

[Barrister]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4764972-house-approves-voter-eligibility-bill/

Yay for political theater!

House passes bill to ban noncitizens from voting in federal elections

I've always struggled with the argument "there's no evidence that X is very much of a problem".

Because the reply is "Great - then you won't have any trouble banning X then".

I fully agree there's no evidence of widespread voting fraud, including voting my non-citizens.

But still - what exactly is the objection to requiring ID to vote?

[garbon]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4764972-house-approves-voter-eligibility-bill/

Yay for political theater!

House passes bill to ban noncitizens from voting in federal elections

I've always struggled with the argument "there's no evidence that X is very much of a problem".

Because the reply is "Great - then you won't have any trouble banning X then".

I fully agree there's no evidence of widespread voting fraud, including voting my non-citizens.

But still - what exactly is the objection to requiring ID to vote?

Honestly? We have covered this to death.

[PJL]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4764972-house-approves-voter-eligibility-bill/

Yay for political theater!

House passes bill to ban noncitizens from voting in federal elections

I've always struggled with the argument "there's no evidence that X is very much of a problem".

Because the reply is "Great - then you won't have any trouble banning X then".

I fully agree there's no evidence of widespread voting fraud, including voting my non-citizens.

But still - what exactly is the objection to requiring ID to vote?

The main objection to voter ID is that is disenfranchises poorer & ethnic minority voters disproprotionately. In the last UK general election as many as 400,000 may have been affected. Whereas the amount of voter fraud since 2019 (all elections) has been less than 1500 cases, of which 11 were convicted and 4 cautioned

[The Minsky Moment]

But still - what exactly is the objection to requiring ID to vote?

The purpose and effect is to deter and suppress citizen voting.

The United States does not have a national identity card. So many citizens lack any official documentation that they are indeed US citizens.  Passports qualify but many US citizens do not have them. Most state drivers licenses in existence today do not qualify.  While the states are phasing in qualifying driver's licenses now, the current user base mostly doesn't have them.  And even after they are phased in, many people in large cities don't drive cars or bother to get a license.

So the real impact, is that there will be many voters that will lose eligibility unless they go through the trouble and expense to get an official ID card just so they can exercise the right to vote - AND DO IT SUFFICIENTLY IN ADVANCE to be able to vote. And it just so happens that the class of people most burdened by the law are people who live in large cities but don't do foreign travel. Guess which way that cuts.

Imagine as a counterexample, that a law was passed saying that gun owners need to be licensed in order to retain their right to vote. The idea being that we don't want unlicensed gun owners to disrupt elections.  No GOP objection?

[Barrister]

But still - what exactly is the objection to requiring ID to vote?

The purpose and effect is to deter and suppress citizen voting.

The United States does not have a national identity card. So many citizens lack any official documentation that they are indeed US citizens.  Passports qualify but many US citizens do not have them. Most state drivers licenses in existence today do not qualify.  While the states are phasing in qualifying driver's licenses now, the current user base mostly doesn't have them.  And even after they are phased in, many people in large cities don't drive cars or bother to get a license.

So the real impact, is that there will be many voters that will lose eligibility unless they go through the trouble and expense to get an official ID card just so they can exercise the right to vote - AND DO IT SUFFICIENTLY IN ADVANCE to be able to vote. And it just so happens that the class of people most burdened by the law are people who live in large cities but don't do foreign travel. Guess which way that cuts.

Imagine as a counterexample, that a law was passed saying that gun owners need to be licensed in order to retain their right to vote. The idea being that we don't want unlicensed gun owners to disrupt elections.  No GOP objection?

I mean - I fully support a requirement that gun owners need to have licenses.

There's a distinction to be made between criticizing a political party's motives, and criticizing the proposed policy itself.

Canada has long required ID to vote.  Now I just double checked and we're quite liberal in what kind of ID will work -  if you lack formal government ID you could use a combination of a bank statement and a utility bill for example - but I still don't see the downside to requiring ID.

[Valmy]

I always thought the fuss over the ID requirement was a little weird beyond the weirdly narrow limits to the form of ID required. The explanation that people born before World War II would often lack things like birth certificates blah blah but hey surely that only impacts like 2% of the electorate at this point. Maybe 80% of the candidates but a small percentage of the electorate.

My proposal was just that the Voter Registration Card could be a photo ID and solve the whole thing. But instead I guess we are just doing this.

The funny part is that this requirement has done zero in lessening the conspiracy theory that tons of non-citizens are voting in our elections. Or that dead people are voting. Or the same people are voting multiple times. So....is it actually doing any good in increasing the public's confidence in elections?

And we have had it for awhile in many states, has it actually decreased voter turnout?

Has this requirement had any impact at all beyond just being a slightly bigger pain in the ass to vote?

[Syt]

From a survey published in January by the University of Maryland:

(Emphasis all theirs)

https://cdce.umd.edu/sites/cdce.umd.edu/files/pubs/Voter%20ID%202023%20survey%20Key%20Results%20Jan%202024%20(1).pdf

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 nonexpired 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.

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).

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 (28% and 27% respectively), compared to about one out of five adult citizens who identify as Asian/Pacific Islander (21%) or White (18%). Eighteen percent of Black adult citizens, 15% of Hispanic adult citizens, and 13% of Asian/Pacific Islander adult citizens do not have a license at all, compared to just 5% of White adult citizens.

Young Americans are least likely to have a driver's license with their current name and/or address. Younger Americans overall are far less likely to have a driver's license with their current name and/or address, with 41% of those between the ages of 18-24 and 38% between the ages of 25-29 indicating this, compared to 24% between the ages of 30-49, 13% between the ages of 50-64, and 11% of adult citizens over the age of 65.

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. While 42% of White Americans ages 18-29 do not have a driver's license with their current name and/or address, only 5% do not have a license.

One in five Americans living in states with voter ID requirements do not have a current driver's license. Twenty-one percent of adult Americans in states with strict photo ID requirements do not have a driver's license with their current name and/or address, including 7% who do not have a license at all. For states with strict non-photo ID requirements, 26% do not have a current license with their current name and/or address, including 5% who do not have a license at all.

People with less education and lower annual incomes are more likely to lack a current driver's license. Forty-one percent of people without a high school degree do not have a driver's license with their current name and/or address, and 35% do not have a license at all. Twenty-four percent of high school graduates and 20% of those with some posthigh school education do not have a license with their current name and/or address, compared to 17% of college graduates and 15% of those with some post-college education. Thirty-nine percent of those with annual incomes under $30,000 do not have a license with their current name and/or address, including 23% who do not have a license at all. Twenty-one percent of those making between $30,000 and $50,000 annually do not have a license with their current name and/or address, compared to 15% making between $50,000 and $100,000 and 9% of those making over $100,000.

People with a disability are far more likely to lack a current driver's license. Twenty percent of people who self-identified as having a disability do not have a license, and an additional 9% have a license but without their current name and/or address, compared to 6% of non-disabled people who do not have a license and an additional 13% who have a license but without their current name and/or address.

Knowledge of ID Laws

Over half of Americans living in states requiring photo ID to vote in-person do not know their state's laws, and do not realize that they will need this type of identification to successfully cast a ballot. Fifty-five percent of people living in states with photo ID requirements indicated they do not think photo ID is required for voting in person in their state or don't know if it is. In these states, nearly two-thirds of people ages 18-29 (66%) are not sure that photo ID is required, compared to 52% of people over the age of 29. This confusion and misperception affects all partisan groups, including 50% ofRepublicans, 58% of Democrats, and 61% of independents/others.

People in lower income groups are more likely to think photo IDs are not required for voting in person or to be unsure, including 61% of adult citizens with annual salaries less than $30,000, 61% making between $30,000 and $50,000, 51% making between $50,000 and $100,000, and 48% making over $100,000 annually. Black Americans are
less likely to be mistaken or unsure about photo ID requirements, with 46% of Black Americans who live in a state requiring photo ID thinking that photo ID is not required in their state or being unsure, compared to 56% of White Americans and 56% of Hispanic Americans who do not realize that they need photo ID to successfully vote in-person.

Many Americans living in states that do not require photo ID to vote in-person are also mistaken about their voter ID laws. Overall, a majority of adult citizens in states that do not have strict photo ID laws are aware that photo ID is not required to vote in-person in their state. Sixty-five percent of Americans living in these states know that photo ID is not required for them to vote, while 35% think photo ID is required or are not sure what the law is.

Forty percent of Black Americans and 44% of Hispanic Americans in these states incorrectly think photo ID is required to vote in-person, compared to only a third of White Americans (33%). This misperception is similar across partisan groups, with 33% of Democrats, 38% of Republicans, and 35% of independents/others in these states
indicating photo ID is required.

More than half of voting eligible Americans are unsure about the ID laws for voting by mail in their state. Whereas 25% of adult Americans are not sure whether their state requires voters to show identification for in-person voting, more than double that percentage (56%) are unsure whether their state requires identification for voting by mail.

There are many reasons why people do not have a driver's license. Some people do not have a license because they "don't like driving/don't drive" (31%), they are "not interested" (8%), or they have anxiety about driving (3%). Nineteen percent of individuals without a driver's license cite bureaucratic or economic factors as the reasons for which they do not have a license, including the cost of getting a license (8%), financial/legal difficulties including unpaid tickets/fines (4%), lack of time (4%), or lack of underlying documents (3%).

There is strong bipartisan support for requiring high schools to provide state IDs for those without a license. Overall, 81% support this initiative, including 84% of Democrats, 78% of Republicans, and 81% of independents/others.

Potential ID Difficulties

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%).

Younger adults and adults in lower income groups are more likely to lack ID or have a form of ID that may cause potential voting difficulties. Thirty-one percent of adult citizens aged 18-29 face potential voting difficulties due to their lack of ID or a form of ID not having their current address and/or name on it, compared to just 11% of adult citizens over the age of 30. Adult citizens with annual incomes less than $30,000 are more likely to face such potential difficulties (21%) than those making between $30,000 and $50,000 (17%), between $50,000 and $100,000 (12%), or over $100,000 (9%).

Hispanic adult citizens are the most likely group to have potential voting difficulties due to a lack of ID or a mismatch between their current address/name and what appears on their ID. While 12% of Asian or Pacific Islander adult citizens and 14% of both Black and White adult citizens have a form of ID that may cause voting difficulties, 18% of Hispanics do. Over one third of younger (18-29-year-olds) White adult citizens (35%) face potential voting difficulties due to having an ID without their current address or name on it, compared with 28% of younger Black adult citizens, 30% of younger Hispanic adult citizens, and 20% of younger Asian or Pacific Islander adult citizens.

Democrats and independents/others are more likely to face these potential voting difficulties than Republicans. Eighteen percent of Democrats and 17% of those who are independent or not affiliated with one of the two major parties either lack an ID or have a form of ID that may cause voting difficulties, while only 11% of Republicans do.

IMHO there's nothing wrong in principal with voter ID laws, but:
- the state needs to make sure that everyone understands what is required
- it must be as easy as possible for citizens to obtain said ID

It's been a common thread in these discussions about voting in the US that both leave a lot to be desired (I checked back and we had similar discussions in the early 2010s and probably before then, too).

[Barrister]

ID can mean much more than just an active driver's license.  I know in Alberta for example you can get an Alberta ID card that is similar to a driver's license, but is only for the purpose of ID.  The process is relatively simple.

Because it's not like you don't really, really need ID to operate in society.  I hear this all the time in court from homeless people - they've been robbed so they lose their ID which makes it difficult to access all kinds of services (such as health care).  As a result homeless shelters will spend a fair bit of time helping people to regain their ID.

[Syt]

ID can mean much more than just an active driver's license.

That's covered in the "Potential ID Difficulties" where it mentions besides drivers licenses also State IDs or more generally "lack ID".

And here's e.g. what is accepted in Texas (US-ians, are any usually accepted IDs not included among the "official 7"?)

https://www.votetexas.gov/docs/sos-voter-ed-8-5x11-eng.pdf



Here's an overview: https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state

[The Minsky Moment]

ID can mean much more than just an active driver's license.  I know in Alberta for example you can get an Alberta ID card that is similar to a driver's license, but is only for the purpose of ID.  The process is relatively simple.

Because it's not like you don't really, really need ID to operate in society.  I hear this all the time in court from homeless people - they've been robbed so they lose their ID which makes it difficult to access all kinds of services (such as health care).  As a result homeless shelters will spend a fair bit of time helping people to regain their ID.

You need to check out the legislation more carefully.  Most forms of official ID don't qualify because they don't establish *citizenship*.  Other than Passports, the new "Real ID" compliant state driver's license, and some military issues IDs, most forms of government issued cards don't work for this purpose.

This isn't Canada and it isn't Europe. General purpose government ID cards don't exist and the very idea is viewed by many with suspicion.  Where states or the even the Feds do issue identity documents or licenses, there is usually a lot of annoying paperwork and considerable delay unless you pay big expediting fees.  The drafters of this legislation know this and that is WAD from their perspective.  It is extremely disingenuous.

[Valmy]

That's covered in the "Potential ID Difficulties" where it mentions besides drivers licenses also State IDs or more generally "lack ID".

And here's e.g. what is accepted in Texas (US-ians, are any usually accepted IDs not included among the "official 7"?)

https://www.votetexas.gov/docs/sos-voter-ed-8-5x11-eng.pdf

Yeah. My issue has always been the bizarrely limited number of acceptable ID. That seems absurd to me. I mean you are already registered to vote, all you should need is a photo ID that shows you are that person. But only a small amount of photo IDs are allowed.

[The Minsky Moment]

The bill is full of mischievous bullshit.  For example

(k) Removal Of Noncitizens From Registration Rolls.—A State shall remove an individual who is not a citizen of the United States from the official list of eligible voters for elections for Federal office held in the State at any time upon receipt of documentation or verified information that a registrant is not a United States citizen."

So what stops a secretary of state from purging the voter rolls of everyone with "foreign" sounding names the day before Election Day? Nothing, as long as some yahoo writes them a letter saying they think they are aliens, thus providing "documentation"

(i) Private Right Of Action.—Section 11(b)(1) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20510(b)(1)) is amended by striking "a violation of this Act" and inserting "a violation of this Act, including the act of an election official who registers an applicant to vote in an election for Federal office who fails to present documentary proof of United States citizenship,".

I.e. an election official faces personal liability if they register a voter whose paperwork isn't 100% OK, even if the voter is a citizen entitled to vote   In pratice, this means that any election official who receives any challenge to voter documentation, no matter how spurious and unfounded, is likely to deny registration, for fear of being sued. 

(j) Criminal Penalties.—Section 12(2) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 20511(2)) is amended—

(1) by striking "or" at the end of subparagraph (A);

(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (D); and

(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraphs:

"(B) in the case of an officer or employee of the executive branch, providing material assistance to a noncitizen in attempting to register to vote or vote in an election for Federal office;

"(C) registering an applicant to vote in an election for Federal office who fails to present documentary proof of United States citizenship; or".

Yes, election workers can be thrown in jail for paperwork processing errors.

It is an outrageous piece of legislation.  When combined with the powers of Secretaries of State in the US states, some of who are now insane MAGA election deniers, it is hard to overstate how dangerous this would be if it became law.

[Barrister]

ID can mean much more than just an active driver's license.  I know in Alberta for example you can get an Alberta ID card that is similar to a driver's license, but is only for the purpose of ID.  The process is relatively simple.

Because it's not like you don't really, really need ID to operate in society.  I hear this all the time in court from homeless people - they've been robbed so they lose their ID which makes it difficult to access all kinds of services (such as health care).  As a result homeless shelters will spend a fair bit of time helping people to regain their ID.

You need to check out the legislation more carefully.  Most forms of official ID don't qualify because they don't establish *citizenship*.  Other than Passports, the new "Real ID" compliant state driver's license, and some military issues IDs, most forms of government issued cards don't work for this purpose.

This isn't Canada and it isn't Europe. General purpose government ID cards don't exist and the very idea is viewed by many with suspicion.  Where states or the even the Feds do issue identity documents or licenses, there is usually a lot of annoying paperwork and considerable delay unless you pay big expediting fees.  The drafters of this legislation know this and that is WAD from their perspective.  It is extremely disingenuous.

OK, so these are all very reasonable arguments to make.

But this is where Democrats just seem very bad at politics.  The average voter hears "we should make sure that only citizens can vote" and thinks "yeah, makes sense".  GOP proposes a bad bill with the purpose of ensuring only citizens can vote.

Instead of Democrats making these kinds of policy arguments, or proposing alternative legislation, just stand up on principle and attack GOP's motives and say they'll veto any bill.  Because that kind of action gets a positive response from the very-online-left.  But the average voter hears it and thinks "huh, maybe they do want illegal aliens to vote".

[Valmy]

OK, so these are all very reasonable arguments to make.

But this is where Democrats just seem very bad at politics.  The average voter hears "we should make sure that only citizens can vote" and thinks "yeah, makes sense".  GOP proposes a bad bill with the purpose of ensuring only citizens can vote.

Instead of Democrats making these kinds of policy arguments, or proposing alternative legislation, just stand up on principle and attack GOP's motives and say they'll veto any bill.  Because that kind of action gets a positive response from the very-online-left.  But the average voter hears it and thinks "huh, maybe they do want illegal aliens to vote".

Yeah and this sort of thing is really common in American Politics with the two parties. Like with Obamacare, the Republicans threw a fit and constantly talked about having a plan of their own...but never produced one. So of course Obamacare ended up winning, but of course it did. We never got a Republican plan to consider.

It gets really frustrating. It would be nice to have two proposals at some point we could debate but for whatever reason both parties seem content to simply try to stop the other one when it comes to their policy initiatives. No matter how popular or seemingly non-controversial those initiatives might appear on the surface.