Remix.run Logo
▲ 0xDEAFBEAD an hour ago

>ID requirements that hurt people who don't own cars and thus don't need Drivers' Licenses (and are essentially a form of poll tax)

The majority of non-US democracies require ID to vote, and it's considered normal and un-controversial. Here in the US, there is a tempest in a teakettle because this has been deemed a "civil rights issue". It really illustrates the role that "civil rights" plays in modern US political discourse.

▲yummypaint an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The nature of that ID is essential. If it used to authenticate someone for voting, which is a RIGHT, then every citizen must have a RIGHT to possess that ID. Not only that, but obtaining the ID must not pose any encumbrance beyond the effort to vote.

Americans manifestly do not have a right to possess a driver's license, it's a privilege. The process for obtaining one requires expenditure of time, energy, and money.

The only form of government "ID" that could presently meet the bar is social security cards, as every citizen has one by right. That is obviously a bad idea. There is no "move fast and break things" when it comes to democratic process. If something as important as this cannot be done right, then it should not be done. The right to vote is sacred and cannot be infringed upon, period.

▲0xDEAFBEAD 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

>Americans manifestly do not have a right to possess a driver's license, it's a privilege. The process for obtaining one requires expenditure of time, energy, and money.

Just get a state ID or passport then.

▲sham1 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As someone from one of those non-US democracies, the reason why we can mandate IDs for votes is because they're basically trivial to get, whereas from what I've heard of the American hodgepodge of state-level IDs and "this one counts while this one doesn't" shenanigans, that doesn't seem to apply to the US. Now, I know that over there, the several states are responsible for running the elections within their borders -- that being in the US Constitution -- but some states seem to try to (and succeed in) making it unnecessarily difficult, and that may or may not be on purpose. Civil Rights groups certainly seem to think that it is, and that it affects minority populations disproportionately, because of course it does.

For a point of comparison, here in Finland we require that a voter has a valid ID, that is an ID card, a driver's licence with a photo in it, or a passport. Now what if you _don't_ have one of those IDs? Easy, you go to the police station and get yourself a temporary ID, which is by law given free of charge. You do need to get a passport photo taken for that, but those can usually be done in about 10 minutes for around 10 Euros.

And of course there are other things outside of the ID issue which make the elections not rigged against minorities. Simple things like having the actual election day on a Sunday, the polling stations being usually in walking distance in cities -- people living in the countryside most likely have a car -- and that said polling stations tend to be in schools, shops, and other such places where people would be going anyway. Oh, and you usually also get polling stations popping up before the actual election day so that people may vote in advance, in said shops, schools, and similar assorted places.

---

The US could totally start doing ID mandates, but the problem is that in the US, their usage doesn't seem to be out of a genuine worry about election integrity or other similar concerns, but out of voter disenfranchisement, which again, hits minority populations disproportionately hard.

▲0xDEAFBEAD 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

>You do need to get a passport photo taken for that, but those can usually be done in about 10 minutes for around 10 Euros.

This doesn't sound like a big difference in effort from the last time I got myself an ID.

>Oh, and you usually also get polling stations popping up before the actual election day so that people may vote in advance, in said shops, schools, and similar assorted places.

Yep, the US also has early voting, vote by mail, etc.

>their usage doesn't seem to be out of a genuine worry about election integrity or other similar concerns

Gallup says 80% of people of color in the US favor a voter ID requirement: https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-...

▲K0nserv an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The US could make IDs free and then make election day a national holiday, in which case the resistance to ID requirements probably wouldn't be as strong. Currently voter ID laws will suppress voting, whereas the goal in a democracy should surely be that everyone has ample opportunity to vote and have their voice heard.

▲datsci_est_2015 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah other democracies don’t have the historical baggage of literacy tests and poll taxes and other tactics that were used to prevent blacks from voting for a century.

I’m not being obtuse here. Have you opened a fucking history book, or are you just purposefully acting dense for political convenience?

▲0xDEAFBEAD an hour ago | parent [-]

I don't think mumbling something about "historical baggage" justifies bad policy.

I appreciate you illustrating my point about the role "civil rights" plays in modern US political discourse.

Yearning for a day when self-identified "progressives" look to the future instead of obsessing about the past.

▲datsci_est_2015 an hour ago | parent [-]

Yearning for a day when conservatives, whether they identify as one or not, recognize that there’s a rich history of human suffering under the yoke of conservative thought leaders that could be easily avoided if they just opened a history book. Or just read the news. Because there’s no interruption between the two. Jerry Jones is in the background of a photo of the Little Rock 9. Donald Trump led a hate campaign against the Central Park 5 in 1989. These are contemporary issues.

▲0xDEAFBEAD 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

Would you accept this type of "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" argument if I told you that you haven't yet realized you're a communist and there's a rich history of human suffering under communism?

Imagine I tried to justify a policy that seemed bad to you, on the grounds of "historical baggage of communism". Would you consider that a compelling argument?