"National" Holidays | Main | Wictory Wednesday
October 13, 2004
Voter Fraud
I do not understand why people object to showing some form of identification to election officials when voting. Every state issues official state identification cards as well as drivers licenses, but Democrats still insist that it is not fair to minorities to ask for identification.
That's ridiculous. This is a nation of millions and millions of people. There must be a way to verify who is voting and to verify that each person only votes one time. As it stands right now, anyone could go to my polling place, say they are me, and vote. No questions asked.
There should also be a national voter registration clearing house - making sure that everyone is registered only once - where they live.
Why don't politicians do this? Could it be they all depend on fraudulent votes to guarantee their elections and reelections?
It is something to think about.
Posted by Beth at October 13, 2004 7:16 AM
Comments
I'm actually pretty torn about this, Beth, so let me play the devil's advocate for a second.
One the one hand, yes, presenting identification at the polling place is an entirely reasonable requirement. However, it opens the door for registered voters to be turned away for lack of adequate documentation. That, in and of itself, rubs some folks the wrong way, myself included. I don't like the idea that if I lose my driver's license on November 1 that I will be unable to vote on November 2.
Sure, you can go farther with it, extrapolate all sorts of conspiracy theories about how people who intend to interfere with the election could go on pickpocketing sprees and steal people's ID, but that's kinda silly in my opinion. For myself, it's enough that the ID requirement kinda gets my hackles up just on principle.
Life is all about compromises. I think requiring folks to show ID is an entirely acceptable compromise. But I think it is a compromise, if you know what I mean.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at October 13, 2004 8:26 AM
Here's my compromise for you, Jeff (and I'm a hackle kinda guy, too). The whole 'early voting' process. Since I'm going to be out of town for the election, I'm going to the Courthouse tomorrow to get my ballot and vote it. Essentially, here in Kansas, we effectively have a two-week voting period, so, unless you wait until the last minute, you can lose your id, but have time to rectify that.
Yeah, in a sense you're still screwed if you lose it late on the day of the election, but... sometimes you're just screwed.
I'm all for making it easier to vote, but adding to it mechanisms to make sure you only vote once (tough to do if you're cheating jurisdictions, to be sure). The two-week window also gives people who have employers who won't/can't/don't make any provision for voting a chance to get their say in.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at October 13, 2004 9:12 AM
Jeff,
People have to show ID to write or cash a check to help guard against fraudulent check writing, so I don't think that showing ID to do something as important as voting in order to avoid fraudulent votes should be considered an additional hassle.
Many people have more than one ID card - I have a passport, a military spouse's id and a driver's license and a work id - all with my picture on it. I can't imagine losing all those forms of ID on the day of an election.
Posted by: Beth at October 13, 2004 10:02 AM
The problem with early voting — again, just playing the devil's advocate here — is that you vote before you have all the facts. If you cast your ballot for John Smith on October 20th and on October 25th John Smith is found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, you can't take it back.
Again, though, I'm just throwing out arguments based on principle in order to make for a fun discussion. Practically speaking, I have no problem with presenting a government-issued picture ID at the polling place.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at October 13, 2004 12:32 PM
