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

[Dan Druff]

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....

[Dan Druff]

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?

[MrTickle]

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.

[devidee]

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

Problems solved.

[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.

[SPIT this]

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

[Dan Druff]

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.)