The opposing party (in the US) will make the offices where identification is offered difficult to get to. Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification. We might see some states close some DMV or RMV offices.

Keep in mind that DMV and RMV office _assume_ that people have vehicles. In the case of voters this is not the case.

It's like gerrymandering but in this case what's being manipulated is the ability of voters to get these cards. In many cases it is racist.

This seems like something that could be mitigated by legislating where voter registration offices are located (based on census data perhaps) and their hours of operation and documentation requirements, including an appeals process.

I agree. I think the fact that these aren't discussion points is important. Steps could be taken to ensure that everyone entitled to a card gets one but I suspect there is a significant cost associated with that. So far cost hasn't really been a big part of the discussion.

As an aside, in the US, there's a history of not needing papers to get around or prove who you are. My grandfather fought in World War II and this was an important issue for him. There likely are people in the US opposed to a national ID card for similar reasons, fear that police will start demanding you carry your card at all times. I have no idea if they might be numerous or not.

The welfare state was much smaller in the 40s. Things have changed, and people need to be "means tested" in order to implement these government programs.

>The opposing party (in the US) will make the offices where identification is offered difficult to get to. Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification. We might see some states close some DMV or RMV offices.

Getting a photo ID is a infrequent event. That makes gaming the ID acquisition process a means of disenfranchising voters ineffective.

That is incorrect. In Massachusetts, for instance, you have to renew your license every two years. I believe you need a new photo (requiring a trip to the DMV) every four years.

Your next thought might be along the lines of accepting expired ID for voting purposes. That's an interesting idea but unlikely to be accepted. In Massachusetts, for instance, you can't buy even a six pack of beer if you cannot produce a valid driver's license. Expired licenses are as good as no license at all in that case.

This is incorrect. A Mass license is valid 5 years.

https://blog.massdrive.com/2012/03/26/renewing-your-license-...

It pains me to admit it, but you are correct. I was on my phone and misread the page.

Still, the life span of these cards could be managed for political gain. Perhaps if the majority part in the state house changes, the valid lifetime for only the ID cards could be shortened.

Interesting. Does it mean that people who don't own a car, have to take driver's education courses just to be able to buy alcohol?

We have ID cards in Massachusetts, you can get one of those without needing to take the driving exam. There is a "LiquorID" card that lasts five years, I can't find any information on the "MassID" card but it's probably good for five years as well.

Thank you for asking the question, I had assumed these cards lasted as long as a driver's license and that is not the case. :-)

You make a good point in that these voter ID cards might have a longer expiration then a driver's license. To my knowledge the expiration period of the ID isn't a part of the legislation. In that case we can probably expect to see the length of time vary from state to state. In that case I would suspect that state's with a shorter valid period might be trying to manipulate the number of legal voters.

> Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification.

The U.S. sounds more and more like a dystopia to me. In Germany having an ID is a matter of fact, you get a new one every few years and they glue an updated adress on its backside when you change your main adress. The times when you can get it updated might be inconvenient but you are required to have a valid one, so you just have to spend a vacation day every few years on it - the horror.

> In many cases it is racist.

How about trying to improve on the current state of afairs instead of complaining while keeping the barndoor wide open so the racists can continue doing as they currently do?

In my opinion there is no real issue with requiring ID in the US, they are inexpensive and not hard to get. If someone doesn't want to spend $20-$30 and take the time to get an ID, they don't want to vote very much. Although I strongly believe in progressive taxation, this is such a small sum for such an important part of civic life it is a strange hill to die on.

I very much think the right does attempt to exclude certain voters, and does use Voter ID regulations as part of a larger strategy regarding voter disenfranchisement. But it is a relatively easy fix that could be calmly resolved with common sense regulations, like other commenters in this thread have mentioned regarding requirements for physical location and hours of operation for voter registration/id centers. So it sometimes appears people (in this case the left) would rather have something to cry about than just calmly fix the loophole the opposition is trying to exploit.

In brief, the real issue is that actual attempts to cooperate and govern have died, to be replaced by grandstanding (when not in power) and scorched earth practices (when in power). I blame first past the post systems, and think this is an inevitable result. I would welcome the existential requirement for political parties to cooperate which comes with a larger spectrum of parties in power, as a natural effect of more effective proportional representation.

> The U.S. sounds more and more like a dystopia to me.

> Germany having an ID is a matter of fact

Having an id as a matter of fact sounds more dystopian than a country where you aren't required to identify yourself at any given time.

The few government related times I had to use it since I have the current one: once to have the adress updated after changing my main residence, once to get a passport, three times when voting.

The last time I had to deal with the police they just asked for my drivers license. Evil dystopian government keeping track of people who drive past red lights. Even in the U.S. you can't escape that.

I was taking issue with the characterization that the US is dystopian based on voter id arguments. You don't need an id to live in the us, you don't need one to vote in many states, and the contexts in which you would need one make sense.

If you contrast that to a country that has government mandated ids just because, then that's clearly the more dystopic example.

Not directly racist, but it costs money and time to obtain a passport.

In the US there is no such a thing as a universal ID. The closest thing is the state drivers license, and statistically poor communities tend to drive less for various reasons, so for them it is an extra hassle to go get a driver license OR EQUIVALENT ID just for the purpose of voting. The policy is not racist on his face, but a minimal context awareness is enough to understand the ultimate purpose.

In addition, trying to source IDs tends to surface some historical issues that we usually don't think about. One big one is that everyone has a birth certificate -- yet, if you weren't born in a hospital, you may not have such a certificate.

This is an internal passport (not for travelling abroad) and everyone has it because without it you cannot buy a train ticket, open a bank account, enter the college etc. Also there is a fine if you don't get it when you are 16 (or 18, I don't remember the exact age).

Also, young people cannot buy alcohol and cigarettes without it (to prove that they are adult) so some of them are motivated to get it as soon as possible.

Here is a Wikipedia link in case if someone didn't hear about "internal passports": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_passport

Also I wanted to add that internal passport is valid for a long time and you have to change it only twice in a lifetime: you get it first time at 14, then get a new one at 20 and at 45 years and that last one is valid forever (of course if you don't happen to die). So although there is a fee to pay, it is not really expensive.

Why should you need any form of identification to buy a train ticket? Say, for domestic-only travel.

Passport for a regular person in my country costs 30$, for children, people under 20 or over 65 and disabled persons it is 15$, and it is valid for 10 years. You literally have 10 years to put down 0.25$ per month.

P.S. You must have a valid passport when you reach a certain age.

The US does not have a law requiring you to have an id. Requiring people to have one is making the assumption that every person in the US can afford the time and money to obtain one, as well as the physical ability to do so.

If you cannot make this assumption, then you are actively disenfranchising people.

Sounds a bit backwards when one of the most powerful countries in the world cannot afford to issue its poor citizens passports...

We can afford to do that, easily. Can we achieve it politically? No. Is it worth doing? No.

You can achieve the same result by not requiring an id to vote.

In the US passports — our only national photo ID — are $145.

Passport cards are $65. But the cost is somewhat a red herring. There's nothing to keep the US from issuing a free voter identification card but issues of appropriate identification and the effort involved exist outside of out-of-pocket cost. [ADDED: And, of course, concerns about slippery slopes to national IDs which Europeans in particular may consider silly but nonetheless we're all allowed our hangups.]

And god forbid if you need a passport in two months or less--then you're looking at spending $200 to expedite the process (and add to that USPS 1-2 day document delivery).

>it costs money and time to obtain a passport.

As long as the process and cost is not punitive and targeted it's fine if something costs time and money. We have multiple constitutional rights that are burdened in that fashion. The right to petition the government, to have courts decide arguments, to own a gun, all cost time and money. (Not to mention that I have to have a photo ID and pass a criminal background check every time I buy a gun.)

As long as you acknowledge that you're implementing this explicitly to suppress American votes, sure, go ahead and try. I'm tired of the misdirection with election safety when anyone in the game knows what it's actually about.

On the contrary, you've just put words in my mouth because you've done some logical leaps in your head that just took you away from reality.

In reality, if you want to make an assertion and have other people convinced of your argument, then your obligation is to provide all the facts. Given that, you cannot simply take the inverse hypothetical situation where election fraud is just assumed and use that to form your argument. We still have yet to establish that fraud is happening. So why would we want to suppress votes to prevent something that doesn't happen?

I've already been banned from reddit, please don't ban me from this site. How will I debate the merits of plastic making trans people gay, men's rights, programming languages that were created before 1990, startups that have clear business value but discussing how they don't have value to a small subset of society, overvalued IPOs, etc, etc etc.

It is not factual that fraud happens on a scale the warrants disenfranchising voters. If you advocate for disenfranchising voters without providing any sort of argument that legitimizes doing so, then yes, I absolutely am accusing you of wanting to disenfranchise voters for no reason other than to fear monger. You're the TSA of airport security. The WMDs of war. The daily weather of climate change. The fucking pizza of sex trafficking.

You should be banned from this site for spreading this fucking nonsense.

If there was already a universal ID everyone has, it wouldn't be racist to require it in connection with voting, but there isn't a universal ID everyone already has.

It's easy to forget that about one in seven or eight adult americans don't have a driver's license.