TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why didn't I have to show my ID when voting?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Why didn't I have to show my ID when voting?

Can someone explain why nobody asked me for my driver's license or other ID when giving me the ballot today? I was able to cast my ballot without any kind of ID check, in my area (Baltimore MD).

In fact, I went to the official Maryland board of elections site (http://www.elections.state.md.us/), I entered my personal info, and I saw this:

Do you need to show identification when you vote? NO

How is this possible? Why aren't they afraid of voter fraud!? Somebody could have mentioned my name before me and no questions would have been asked.

Thanks for mentioning this HTP, it should tell you a little something about the functionality of the system.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Thanks for mentioning this HTP, it should tell you a little something about the functionality of the system.

holy fucking shit

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd holy fucking shit

...?

I don't understand? What did I say that was so shocking?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z ...? I don't understand? What did I say that was so shocking?

I mean, I didn't think it was that bad...

This whole thing is a joke... how hard is it to check goddamn IDs, when they're making it out to be such a huge deal, such a responsibility, and the whole world is watching? I'm gobsmacked.

You know, Americans are the first to bitch about poor voting practices in other countries, the first to complain that this or that election wasn't fair, but in our own country, we can't guarantee the simplest kind of security??..

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd I mean, I didn't think it was that bad... This whole thing is a joke... how hard is it to check goddamn IDs, when they're making it out to be such a huge deal, such a responsibility, and the whole world is watching? I'm gobsmacked. You know, Americans are the first to bitch about poor voting practices in other countries, the first to complain that this or that election wasn't fair, but in our own country, we can't guarantee the simplest kind of security??..

Voter IDs were struck down as unconstitutional in several states - a large enough segment of the population does not have driver's licenses that it is a contested practice to require people to show picture ID at the polls.

Just look at the most recent case to appear before the Supreme Court - the Indiana Voter ID case - arguing the constitutionality of a law in Indiana that effectively disenfranchised all of the nuns at Notre Dame (the most famous instance from the Primaries).

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/ma...ion/na-voterid7

NJ requires IDs. some states are just weird. the federal government needs to step in to establish standards for voting. and i still don't understand why voter registration isn't linked to the official state ID (i.e., why you aren't automatically registered, and information automatically updated, by the motor vehicle records)

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Voter IDs were struck down as unconstitutional in several states - a large enough segment of the population does not have driver's licenses that it is a contested practice to require people to show picture ID at the polls. Just look at the most recent case to appear before the Supreme Court - the Indiana Voter ID case - arguing the constitutionality of a law in Indiana that effectively disenfranchised all of the nuns at Notre Dame (the most famous instance from the Primaries). http://articles.latimes.com/2008/ma...ion/na-voterid7

LOL, but that doesn't mean that you should just be able to say a name out loud and have them believe you, does it?

If a person is responsible enough to vote, they should be responsible enough to make arrangements to procure some kind of identification, like a passport (not necessarily a driver's license), isn't that so?

To say I am outraged and amazed about this, in (supposedly) the top and most advanced country on earth, is to say nothing at all.

I worked in a polling station one year in UK elections, and was surprised that we didn't have to check anyone's ID. You don't even need to bring your polling card to the station, just give your name and address! At the end of the day, someone could quite easily come and give any name and address of someone in the area and they'd be given a voting slip!

I had to show my ID... It's ridiculous that you don't need to in half the states. All anyone needs to do is grab a phone book and they can place dozens of fraudulent votes without one.

We need a damn federal voting law that makes voting rules uniform throughout the country. ID required and the same voting machines everywhere.

Oh, and make election day be on a Saturday too.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I worked in a polling station one year in UK elections, and was surprised that we didn't have to check anyone's ID. You don't even need to bring your polling card to the station, just give your name and address! At the end of the day, someone could quite easily come and give any name and address of someone in the area and they'd be given a voting slip!

Same in Australia actually. You just turn up to the polling station, give your name and address and have your name crossed off the list. I'd be interested to know what happens in the event that the same person has their name crossed off at two different stations? Surely they could just say they know nothing about it and there's fuck-all that could be done about it?

I think the only solution at this point is the mandatory insertion of microchips into the brain of every newborn child. Come on democracy, we can win this thing.

The United States seriously needs a fucking standardised system of voting.

What is wrong with just making an X with a pencil beside the name of the candidate you want to vote for? Why have these unreliable voting machines and irregularities from state to state, county to county, etc, etc.

I realise that Canada is a much smaller country, but our voting system is pretty much flawless. Registered voters receive a voter card weeks before the election. We take that to the polling station (a school, hall, or whatever), we show our ID to verify who we are and the elections people cross off our name to show that we voted. Then we go behind a cardboard box thing with our ballot, open it up and make a simple X with a pencil before placing the ballot in polling station box. It's really fucking simple. I'm in and out within 5 minutes every time!

Why can't the USA just adopt a universal system?

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd LOL, but that doesn't mean that you should just be able to say a name out loud and have them believe you, does it? If a person is responsible enough to vote, they should be responsible enough to make arrangements to procure some kind of identification, like a passport (not necessarily a driver's license), isn't that so? To say I am outraged and amazed about this, in (supposedly) the top and most advanced country on earth, is to say nothing at all.

Seriously, it's a constitutional issue.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/epps

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03carter.html

I bet the person that said that to you was as ex ACORN employee/volunteer. Obama is going to win the elections because of fraud, therefore, we should denounce his victory tonight, and not recognize him as the next president.

In America, you can win an election by fraud and by hanging around with domestic bin ladens.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I bet the person that said that to you was as ex ACORN employee/volunteer. Obama is going to win the elections because of fraud, therefore, we should denounce his victory tonight, and not recognize him as the next president. In America, you can win an election by fraud and by hanging around with domestic bin ladens.

Well it worked for Bush!

Altho to be fair to Bush he was hanging around Saudi bin Ladens so it probably isn't as bad, oh wait, where was bin Laden from again?

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Obama is going to win the elections because of fraud, therefore, we should denounce his victory tonight, and not recognize him as the next president. In America, you can win an election by fraud and by hanging around with domestic bin ladens.

Aren't you gone yet?

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I bet the person that said that to you was as ex ACORN employee/volunteer. Obama is going to win the elections because of fraud, therefore, we should denounce his victory tonight, and not recognize him as the next president. In America, you can win an election by fraud and by hanging around with domestic bin ladens.

This post is the equivalent of a toddler sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "nanny nanny boo boo I can't hear you."

I had to show my drivers license. But seriously--I agree. Shouldn't a person be required to show some form of government issued/recognized identification in order to be eligible to cast a vote in a government (let alone federal) election? I'm sorry, but if you can't muster up the time to at least procure identification, you shouldn't be exercising any voting privileges.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I had to show my drivers license. But seriously--I agree. Shouldn't a person be required to show some form of government issued/recognized identification in order to be eligible to cast a vote in a government (let alone federal) election? I'm sorry, but if you can't muster up the time to at least procure identification, you shouldn't be exercising any voting privileges.

I live in DC, so maybe I'm more attune to this. But there are a lot of veterans in this country that don't have homes, much less a valid driver's license. Are you saying that they should abrogate their right to vote, even though they've served their country, simply because they don't have the right piece of plastic?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I live in DC, so maybe I'm more attune to this. But there are a lot of veterans in this country that don't have homes, much less a valid driver's license. Are you saying that they should abrogate their right to vote, even though they've served their country, simply because they don't have the right piece of plastic?

Not at all. You can still get an ID card that is not a driver's license. And if that is too hard to procure, perhaps presenting a social security card would suffice? I mean if you can't prove you are a U.S. citizen how are we to ensure that we minimize voter fraud? It just opens up too many ways to potentially game the system if you don't have some sort of method to reliably identify legally registered voters.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Seriously, it's a constitutional issue. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/epps http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03carter.html

i think there is a very weak argument against requiring IDs at the polls. I think the government has a compelling justification for requiring IDs. Regardless of whether voter fraud could be proved as prevalent today, the government has a right to take the least restrictive measure to meet its goal (in this case, to reduce voter fraud). Requiring an ID is not restrictive at all considering every person is required by law to have a government issued ID.


if someone doesn't have a home how can they register to vote? at the very least a person needs to prove their address. "under the 35th street bridge" isn't a valid address and certainly wouldn't qualify for voter registration.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 if someone doesn't have a home how can they register to vote? at the very least a person needs to prove their address. "under the 35th street bridge" isn't a valid address and certainly wouldn't qualify for voter registration.

In DC they're allowed to provide an intersection and draw a picture for a voting official. Seriously - that made even me .

As for the legal argument, I think it depends largely on how you apply the Anderson Balancing Test - whether there is an undue burden put on the free right to vote by requiring some form of identification that generally costs money to procure.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov In DC they're allowed to provide an intersection and draw a picture for a voting official. Seriously - that made even me .

no shit!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov As for the legal argument, I think it depends largely on how you apply the Anderson Balancing Test - whether there is an undue burden put on the free right to vote by requiring some form of identification that generally costs money to procure.

i'm not familiar with that test, however, since citizens are required by law to procure identification (for other reasons), it can't be a burden on voting since you don't need to procure the license solely for voting. said differently, procuring the license is not equivalent to a poll tax. I think of requiring an ID to vote more along the lines of requiring voters to wear clothing to the polls. i'm pretty sure that would withstand a constitutional challenge even though the clothes must be procured by the voter.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 no shit!!! i'm not familiar with that test, however, since citizens are required by law to procure identification (for other reasons), it can't be a burden on voting since you don't need to procure the license solely for voting. said differently, procuring the license is not equivalent to a poll tax. I think of requiring an ID to vote more along the lines of requiring voters to wear clothing to the polls. i'm pretty sure that would withstand a constitutional challenge even though the clothes must be procured by the voter.

Well, we're both considering the voting population in general. The Anderson Balancing Test is used to determine whether an undue burden is put on even one voter's right to vote. Since the right to participate freely in democratic elections is considered a fundamental right of all citizens, the magnitude of the infringement is more or less irrelevant - if it infringes in any way on the ability of even a small population to participate, it can be deemed unconstitutional.

I'm more or less neutral on the issue - the number of people affected is admittedly very small.

However, the dissenting opinion (Breyer) in the recent Supreme Court case was intriguing:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Since the right to participate freely in democratic elections is considered a fundamental right of all citizens, the magnitude of the infringement is more or less irrelevant - if it infringes in any way on the ability of even a small population to participate, it can be deemed unconstitutional.

that's not true. fundamental rights may be infringed upon if it meets strict scrutiny. Essentially, satisfying strict scrutiny means: Governments can prohibit a fundamental right if it has a compelling interest, the law is narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of the law, and it is the least restrictive means to achieve that goal. As an example, free speech is prohibited in many instances (in schools, on certain public property, etc...).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.