Should voters be required to show photo ID?

[Sheilbh]

How easy is it to catch an illegal voter?  My guess is it's not easy at all.

But that's not the issue.  How many illegal voters are there?  Is it a sufficient problem to justify imposing extra requirements on voters?

How easy it is to comply is irrelevant, unless there is an actual problem that needs solving, in which case the severity of the problem can be compared to the reasonable ease of compliance.

Exactly.  Unless there's a pressing need there's no reason for the state to place extra burden on voters exercising their rights.  Though I think a possible exception could be a national ID system which everyone's required to have and required to carry as exists in some European countries.

[Monoriu]

If voters are required to show photo ID at the voting booth, then the government should have responsbility to ensure that all eligible voters have such photo ID. I think voting rights is so fundamental to a society that calls itself a democracy that the government should not have the power to take away such rights so easily. 

[Monoriu]

I am skipping all 8 pages:

Don't you people have to go to the registered polling station of your residental address, then give your name when voting, to avoid people voting multiple times? If so, why shouldn't you show some ID?

The way things work in HK (which doesn't even call itself a democracy) is that before voting, the government mails a letter to each voter.  The voter then takes the letter and his mandatory ID to the voting booth to vote.  The key I think is that both the letter and the ID are provided by the government to every eligible citizen who has registered to vote.  The responsibility that the voters have these documents rests with the government.  What we are talking about is that the voter is required to show photo ID, but getting such ID is the responsibility of the voter.  I think that is not really acceptable because the process of getting the ID may constitute a hurdle to voting.  Yes, fraud distorts the will of the electorate.  But this kind of law has the potential to distort it even more.  If they really want to implement something like this, then their government should actively seek out every voter and provide him with the necessary photo ID to vote.

[Admiral Yi]

How easy is it to catch an illegal voter?  My guess is it's not easy at all.

But that's not the issue.  How many illegal voters are there?  Is it a sufficient problem to justify imposing extra requirements on voters?

They're the same issue Shelf.  How can we know how many illegal voters there are unless we have an estimate of the percentage that get caught?

[Sheilbh]

They're the same issue Shelf.  How can we know how many illegal voters there are unless we have an estimate of the percentage that get caught?

They're not.  There've been extensive investigation into voter fraud by the DoJ.  They've uncovered very little and let to extremely few convictions.  My argument would be that that's because there's very little fraud and if there were more there'd be more evidence of it to begin with (anomalous voting patterns etc.), while yours is that because it's so difficult to prove people just aren't getting caught so you can't say there's probably very little fraud.

But academic studies have found very little too.  Apparently a study of the Washington gubernatorial election in 2004 found fraud accounted for 0.0009%, while a study of the Ohio vote in the same year found it accounted for 0.00004% of the vote.  A think tank looked at law enforcement and academic research found similarly low amounts.  No doubt you're right and it's terribly difficult to catch but that doesn't address the question of whether measures that make it easier to catch are worth the hassle to legitimate voters - and the potential of legitimate voters being turned away because they forgot the right kind of ID.  Even if you're right and the real problem is how difficult it is to catch, then if your double or triple the amount of fraud you're still more likely to be struck by lightning and you'd probably need to increase it by such a scale that we'd know by other ways for it to have a substantial effect.

As I say at what point do you stop?  What sort of responsibility do you place on polling booth volunteers not to be duped?  Should it be like selling booze to a minor?  Why is one ID (that shows your address) available to legal immigrants who can't vote okay while another isn't?  As CdM says isn't electoral misconduct, like giving out leaflets with the wrong address for the polling booth, probably more serious? 

I've no issue with combating voter fraud where it's a problem, in the UK there's serious issues with postal or absentee ballots, or imposing requirements on people getting on the electoral roll.  But unless there's some indication that there's actually a problem I don't think there's any justification in increasing the hassle on voters (though a national ID card gets around this, if you're so inclined).  Like Berk, I'd wonder about the possible other reasons for pushing for this.  One study in Indiana showed that Democrats and independents were 3-5% less likely to have valid photo ID than Republicans - that sort of figure is a substantial enough difference for me to think that there could be a problem with some voting laws.

[The Brain]

Monsters from the ID!

[Maximus]

People still need to get to where ever it is that people need to go to get these things.  Not everyone has a car, or access to transit or can get there during the hours that office might be open.

What part of "that everyone can get" did you not understand?

Why would anyone construct a system that would in any way create a disincentive to voting when participation rates is one of the biggest problems in Western Democracies.  Probably because we all know who this will adversely effect the most.

Yes, yes, it's all a grand conspiracy

[derspiess]

Then why the hell are Democrats objecting?

What is it you think the Democrats goals are?

To ensure that people who shouldn't be voting (either felons, fictitious names, or dead people) are able to vote, since they tend to vote for Democrat candidates.

Cite?

Same source that states how evilllll Republicans want to disenfranchise minorities.

[Berkut]

People still need to get to where ever it is that people need to go to get these things.  Not everyone has a car, or access to transit or can get there during the hours that office might be open.

What part of "that everyone can get" did you not understand?

Why would anyone construct a system that would in any way create a disincentive to voting when participation rates is one of the biggest problems in Western Democracies.  Probably because we all know who this will adversely effect the most.

Yes, yes, it's all a grand conspiracy

Not reallly all that grand at all. And not really a conspiracy either, since that implies some secretiveness - this is all pretty much right out in the open.

[Berkut]

Then why the hell are Democrats objecting?

What is it you think the Democrats goals are?

To ensure that people who shouldn't be voting (either felons, fictitious names, or dead people) are able to vote, since they tend to vote for Democrat candidates.

Cite?

Same source that states how evilllll Republicans want to disenfranchise minorities.

So you don't have any actual data that shows that there is some kind of problem with voter fraud that this "solution" would address then...right?

[Ed Anger]

I'd like to disenfranchise everybody. Except for us landowners.

[crazy canuck]

@cc

I would be willing to bet that the above also describes a large portion of rural Canada as well.  Don't try to tell me you have voting booths installed on every street corner.

typically polling stations are located in schools, community centres and churches so that yes, polling stations are very conveniently located making it very easy for people to simply walk to their polling station.  I dont think I have ever driven to a polling station to vote - including when I lived outside an urban centre.  There are likely places in very remote areas where a person lives a long distance from any school or church in the boonies.  But that would very much be the exception.  Certainly there are many more polling stations then DMV branches.

[crazy canuck]

People still need to get to where ever it is that people need to go to get these things.  Not everyone has a car, or access to transit or can get there during the hours that office might be open.

What part of "that everyone can get" did you not understand?

Why would anyone construct a system that would in any way create a disincentive to voting when participation rates is one of the biggest problems in Western Democracies.  Probably because we all know who this will adversely effect the most.

Yes, yes, it's all a grand conspiracy

You have to have some mighty big blinders on to fail to recognize that this is not a nuetral measure.

[Razgovory]

We've had similar laws in this country before... Often in the same states that try to push these voter ID cards now.  Funny that.

[derspiess]

So you don't have any actual data that shows that there is some kind of problem with voter fraud that this "solution" would address then...right?

No data, sorry.  But I'd think voter fraud one of those things where you'd want to take common-sense measures to prevent.