Here's my solution to ending the "Voter ID" controversy

I'm sure you've heard about the ongoing controversy regarding voter ID.

Republicans support requiring voters to show ID before being able to vote, as a security measure to prevent both double voting and fictitious registrations.

Democrats are against voter ID, claiming that it disenfranchises the poor and elderly, who may not have ID and can't get it easily.

Despite all the moral posturing, both sides are being self-serving with their positions. Republicans know that those without ID are more likely to vote Democrat, so they don't exactly want to solve the problem of these people not being able to vote. Democrats know the same thing, so they're willing to accept an absurdly low level of election security in order to gain these few extra votes. Were it reversed (people without ID being more likely to vote Republican instead of Democrat), you'd probably see the sides reversed on this one.

Anyway, the reality is that we can't toss election security out the window just to accommodate the small percentage of people with no ID. The way it stands, anyone can register any name to vote, and there's no check if that person exists. Then anyone can show up without ID (in states without an ID requirement) and claim to be that fictitious person.

In California, I could register my dog to vote, and then show up, say I'm my dog, and vote as him. Not joking. This would be incredibly easy to do, and I would never get caught.

If you think the above is acceptable, then you're a fool who doesn't give a shit about the legitimacy of our elections.

I've heard the dumb argument from Democrats of, "Studies have shown that there is very little fraud of this type", but that's a ridiculous counter. If an election is expected to be close, this could easily be exploited. It is insane to intentionally leave such a gaping hole in election security, regardless of what any "studies" say. It's like leaving your door wide open with $100,000 cash sitting on your kitchen table, because studies show that your neighborhood has a low crime rate.

On the other side, Repubilcans don't have the greatest answer, either. They basically say "tough luck" when it comes to the fact that people without ID -- and without easy access to their birth certificates to acquire ID -- are shut out from voting in ID-required models. There needs to be a better solution than simply shrugging your shoulders and leaving such a hurdle for these people to vote.

Anyway, I have an idea on how to solve all of this, using modern technology, and I'll post it in the next message....

The only real solution to this is a national ID system, even if such a system is only used for voting purposes.

But how could we issue such IDs to people without existing state IDs or birth certificates?

Very simple.

Fingerprints.

This would ensure that each person only gets one vote. Here's how it would work:

1) Federal government sets up National ID centers all over the country.

2) In order to get a National ID, you come in and show your state ID, birth certificate, or passport. Then you get fingerprinted, and they issue you a National ID with your picture on it.

3) If you do not have a state ID, birth certificate, or passport, you state your name, and they will fingerprint you, print your National ID with your picture on it, and give it to you.

4) If you lose your National ID, you just come back down to the center and they will print you a new one, based upon your fingerprints in the system.

5) All services would be free of charge to everyone. This sounds expensive, but in reality would be just a drop in the bucket compared to the yearly federal budget.

6) You must show this National ID in order to vote. At this point, there is zero excuse not to have one (it's free, doesn't require prior ID, and is replaceable if lost.) People without National ID cannot vote, and their registration must match the name shown on their ID.


Done.

The fingerprint element would prevent people from getting more than one National ID, thus limiting every person to one vote.

I would support this 100%, regardless of which party it helps.

However, I have a feeling that Democrats still wouldn't support such a thing, because they would fear that the current ID-less voters simply wouldn't feel like expending the effort to get this, and again they'd claim disenfranchisement. However, this would take away any kind of reasonable excuse as to why these people can't get the ID (aside from apathy or laziness).

What do you guys think?

For me there are only two options:

1) No Voter ID
2) Mandatory ID for every single citizen

If you made it so the National ID was something every single person HAD to do, then fine. But otherwise you're just gonna disenfranchise people.

Only white men who are 35 or older and own land should be able to vote.

Problems solved.

Please cite me one instance since 1960 where voter fraud has influenced the outcome of an American election (crickets chirping). The only reason for Druff’s “solution”” to an nonexistent problem is to discourage voter participation. Understandable position for the Republicans, whose voters are dying off. Eliminating voting by mail would be the first step, but absentee ballots are overwhelmingly conservative, so that will never happen.

Love it. I am strongly in favor of fingerprinting all Americans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPIT this

Love it. I am strongly in favor of fingerprinting all Americans

---

Fingerprints? Why not our DNA?

retina scans sfo

You want to fingerprint the entire voting populace to address a non-existent issue that your party already exploits to its benefit?

Bigger threats to election security:

Hackable voting machines
Lack of verification
Foreign influence/troll farms
Dark money
Partisan hacks being in charge of elections, even elections in which they themselves are running

Druff, I'm guessing Republicans will like your idea less than Democrats. Sounds a little deep statish.

Jesus fucking christ Druff.

You've jumped the shark here fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Fingerprints?

A lot of dumb responses in this thread.

First off, it's very difficult to tell if there has been a "problem" with voter fraud of this type. Given that there is no verification of legitimacy of registration, and no ID taken in most states, it is incredibly easy to commit voter fraud while going undetected. It is impossible for any "study" to determine the scope of such fraud.

Second, some people here don't seem to understand how security works. Security is preventative. You close all known holes in advance. If you give even two shits about security, you do NOT leave a gaping hole wide open just because "studies show it hasn't been exploited yet". That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Holecards on livestreams weren't known to have been exploited until Mike Postle was caught doing it. Should livestreams have had no security prior to that?

Yahoo's e-mail wasn't known to have been hacked on a mass scale until 2013. Should they have had no security prior to that?

I could go on and on.

I could, right now, go register 10 fictitious people to vote -- one at each of the 10 closest voting precincts to me -- and complete it in about an hour. Then I could vote as all 10 people with zero point zero chance of getting caught.

Even if I were a convicted felon, supposedly with no voting rights, I could do this.

How can anyone say this isn't a huge security hole? Why do we have a voter registration process at all, if it's this easy to cheat?

It's laughable seeing people on the left advocating a zero-security voting system just to ensure that a tiny percentage of the population who can't get ID (ones who probably won't vote anyway) can vote. Note that I said CAN'T get ID, not WON'T get ID. Most people without ID simply choose not to have it. Almost everyone can get ID with a minimal amount of effort.

Also LOL at the panic regarding the government collecting fingerprints.

Um, news flash: There's a good chance you already voluntarily gave your fingerprints to the government. Many states, including California, require fingerprinting in order to get a driver's license or ID.

This is a non-issue because there's really not anything that can be done with your fingerprints, aside from using them to identify you if you commit a crime and leave them on something. That's why there's very little controversy about DMVs collecting fingerprints, to the point where many of you don't even realize that many states collect them.

So Druff, what percentage of the voting population do you believe is willing to commit a felony to get some numbnut elected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

So Druff, what percentage of the voting population do you believe is willing to commit a felony to get some numbnut elected?

---

A much higher percentage than the people who really want to vote but can't get ID without a tremendous amount of effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Please cite me one instance since 1960 where voter fraud has influenced the outcome of an American election (crickets chirping). The only reason for Druff’s “solution”” to an nonexistent problem is to discourage voter participation. Understandable position for the Republicans, whose voters are dying off. Eliminating voting by mail would be the first step, but absentee ballots are overwhelmingly conservative, so that will never happen.

---

Also interesting you start with 1960, because there was huge voter fraud in that election. Which only came out because it was incredibly close. It's actually reasonable to believe that JFK shouldn't have been the winner. (Different subject for a different time, though.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Many states, including California, require fingerprinting in order to get a driver's license or ID.

---

Many states? Show me a link to that. I've been looking. I can only see 4 states. Far from "many".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Many states, including California, require fingerprinting in order to get a driver's license or ID.

---

Many states? Show me a link to that. I've been looking. I can only see 4 states. Far from "many".

---

The link showing four states was from 2001. I saw that same link when looking for it myself.

Here's a forum discussion from 2010 where a bunch of people chime in about whether their individual states require fingerprints: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...prints.498126/

You'll see a mixture of "yes" and "no" for various states, including those not on the original list of four you saw.

I have to imagine that even more are requiring it in 2019, given that the number seems to have vastly increased from 2001 to 2010. It's possible that terrorist concerns after 2001 had something to do with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Many states? Show me a link to that. I've been looking. I can only see 4 states. Far from "many".

---

The link showing four states was from 2001. I saw that same link when looking for it myself.

Here's a forum discussion from 2010 where a bunch of people chime in about whether their individual states require fingerprints: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...prints.498126/

You'll see a mixture of "yes" and "no" for various states, including those not on the original list of four you saw.

I have to imagine that even more are requiring it in 2019, given that the number seems to have vastly increased from 2001 to 2010. It's possible that terrorist concerns after 2001 had something to do with this.

---

Read the first sentence in the link....it says "Is there a state that doesn't require fingerprints in order to get a concealed carry license".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Read the first sentence in the link....it says "Is there a state that doesn't require fingerprints in order to get a concealed carry license".

---

I've stumbled across this enlightening flowchart for how to deal with this situation, Muck.



That should clear it up for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The link showing four states was from 2001. I saw that same link when looking for it myself.

Here's a forum discussion from 2010 where a bunch of people chime in about whether their individual states require fingerprints: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...prints.498126/

You'll see a mixture of "yes" and "no" for various states, including those not on the original list of four you saw.

I have to imagine that even more are requiring it in 2019, given that the number seems to have vastly increased from 2001 to 2010. It's possible that terrorist concerns after 2001 had something to do with this.

---

Read the first sentence in the link....it says "Is there a state that doesn't require fingerprints in order to get a concealed carry license".

---

Whoops. Misread that shit on my phone. But it is still true that the article you saw is from 2001, so I really want to see current info on that.

California also has like 1/9 of the country's population, so that's already a healthy chunk of the country with fingerprints on file by itself. Honestly it's no big deal. I normally hate any privacy intrusion shit, but fingerprinting doesn't matter unless you're planning upon committing major crimes.

An alternate solution could involve using your existing ID *or* getting fingerprinted for a voter ID. In fact, that would make more sense and be a lot easier/cheaper to implement.

Still LOL at anyone who advocates continuing the current honors system voting we have.