Where I live you just show up at the polling place, sign on the line next to your name and address, and that's it. Separately, here's how to vote without ID in California:
In other words: in many places, you don't need to present an ID because you've already been identified. But it's a big country, and that's not the case everywhere: lots of states and municipalities do require you to present an additional ID, or at least to present your voter registration (and just your name and address).
Assuming you know all of those things, you could go vote as your neighbor. But there are strong incentives not to: if your neighbor votes either before or after you, the double-count will be noticed and audited. Your neighbor will be able to prove who they are, and you'll have walked into an incredibly easy-to-prove criminal charge. Similarly, for in person voting, you run the risk of being identified when you come in to vote the second time (presumably you aren't going to vote just once, since there's no point in the crime if it counts the same as your ordinary vote).
Adding photo IDs would not meaningfully change the security model here, but would give pollworkers pretext to exclude lawful voters ("you don't look enough like your picture").
Edit: and, to be clear: this all makes sense because studies have consistently shown individual voter fraud to be virtually nonexistent in the US.
It’s not 100% foolproof, but it turns out voter fraud by impersonation is very rare, so it’s good enough.
When you think in terms of “make sure every vote we count was legitimate”, then “not completely foolproof” becomes a solid argument for voter ID.
Instead, if you take a wider view and think in terms of “getting the best quality estimate of the will of the voting population”, the argument against requiring ID (in the US at least) is that it would distort the results of the election far more than a tiny amount of undetected impersonation fraud does.
This will vary by country. In the US, there are barriers to getting ID for some groups (you need to go in person during business hours, pay and wait an unknown amount of time, and this needs to happen weeks ahead of election days; this is a barrier to someone without transport juggling multiple jobs and childcare, for instance.)
Other countries see the trade off differently, or use different fraud prevention approaches. For example, I know India uses indelible ink stains on fingers to prevent multiple voting, and in the UK, there is no ID requirement (yet) but the ballots are serialised and the secrecy of the ballot can be broken to investigate fraud allegations. Neither of these approaches would be culturally acceptable in the US.
Australians are also fairly trustworthy
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27550168
Personally I think voter ID makes sense even if only to quash allegation of voter fraud. Voter ID enjoys overwhelming (>80%) bipartisan support from regular Americans. The main obstacle to new voter ID laws is the Democratic Party establishment. They calculate a marginal decrease in electoral margins if new voter ID laws were to be enacted. Of course then they wind up faced with fiascos like January 6, but politicians are nothing if not short-term planners.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/politics/voter-id-election-la...
The poll linked from the CNN article demonstrates this: there's also overwhelming support for making voting easier, but voter IDs (without free and accessible ID services) will make it harder. And that's the crux of the common Democratic position: voter IDs are perfectly fine if we ensure access to IDs. But that needs to happen before or with any restrictions on voting, to prevent disenfranchisement.
But that's a topic the Democrats are very divided on, and the Republicans really don't want, so it's never gonna happen. The result is that I'm not against IDing voters in principle but am in practice, given the current political situation and lack of demonstrated urgency or need that might justify the down-sides of doing it absent universal national IDs.
So what you're saying is that voter ID will result in some citizens not voting. Personally, that seems like a fair reason to oppose the measure.
Propose voter ID laws that include provisions to make sure that it is easy and free for eligible voters to obtain the necessary ID and Democrats won't object.
I guess I just wonder how likely it would be to quash allegations of voter fraud. When we humans distrust a process, we seem to be able to come up with all sorts of wild stories to justify our fear and anger.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jun/13/nikki-hale...
As a European, it's just really, really strange to see how everything war, gore, death and guns seems to be alright for the kids overseas, but don't you dare show a nipple or say a bad word. I respect your culture, even like lots about it. But sorry, that's weird.
Europeans have their own share if strange cultural phenomenon, BTW. E.g. apparently they don't feed their guests in Sweden. [1]
[1]: https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/countries-where-feeding-house-...
It's just that (sorry for using such a provocative word) the entire war/gun-fetishism is weird af for most outsiders. The way I see it, it's at least equal parts culture and excessive lobbying/brainwashing. And it shows in things like being fine with exposure to violence from a young age. Contrast that to people freaking out at nudity, and it makes for a silly juxtaposition.
I disagree with that. The "America as merely an idea" sentiment is quite popular. [1]
> It's just that (sorry for using such a provocative word) the entire war/gun-fetishism is weird af for most outsiders.
Children in Europe don't play with toy soldiers or guns?
> Children in Europe don't play with toy soldiers or guns?
Occasionally for sure. But it's just on another level in the US. I can't pinpoint it, but I've spent years in America and visited a lot of toy stores :) we simply don't have aisles full of nerf guns and shit over here. You'll find them, but overall the topic is much, much less romanticized.
And in the context of movie ratings, every war/gory movie/videogame will be rated 16/18+ in most parts of Europe. I know, because I used to get some Star Wars shooters for Xbox rated Teen while on holiday in the US a couple years before I would've been able to get them in my home country :)
Well, I kinda think those claims are mostly lies. We all know that Americans are not well-known for their compassion.
American culture used to emphasize frankness, family values, freedom, and individual responsibility. Now, it's rulings class has decided these cultural values interfere with their interests. So, they have decided to pretend these don't exist.
> And in the context of movie ratings, every war/gory movie/videogame will be rated 16/18+ in most parts of Europe.
Interesting, are those ratings taken seriously?
I don't know if it's just the ruling class that has decided this change. I applaud everyone who keeps up "family values", but I will absolutely vote for shutting that shit down as soon as it's a front for "white man, breadwinner, white woman, housewife, two children -- everything else is worth less".
Unfortunately, a whole lot of those who were meant to keep up those values used them to suppress others.
I claim that it's possible to be progressive and still keep your culture intact. Family values can still be emphasized, but why not simply include all families, no matter how quirky they may come?
In any case, I applaud many things in your culture. I've always had a great affinity for the US. No country is perfect, and all will find some aspect about another culture they find strange. What's important is to keep an open mind, and not cling to traditions for tradition's sake.
> Interesting, are those ratings taken seriously?
It depends on the guardians, of course. I know I was not allowed to play games rated 16+ before I actually turned 16. I know friends of mine who played CS when they were 12. We all turned out okay.
I don't care if the US are obsessed with nipples. I find it ridiculous, but also kind of funny.
But when this obsession prevents people from sharing art on US controlled systems and services, then it's incredibly annoying. (It's not the most pressing problem in the world, sure, but it's grating.)
That's just muddying the water by bringing up an irrelevant issue. We are talking about displays of violence in movies.
Research on the effects of viewing violence found a desensitizing effect, especially for children. People become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others and more fearful of the world. This effect is much less pronounced for video games, which tend to not dramatize violence.
There is a reason we try to curtail violence in the media in Europe. When you engage with a fantasy many hours a day, it becomes your reality.
That's an overestimate, it's probably closer to 3 hours per day [1]. Also, if you exclude the elderly (like +55), it probably becomes significantly less.
> people feel that violence is everywhere
It really is though. Right now, there's a war going on in Europe. Curtailing it wouldn't make it go away.
> Research on the effects of viewing violence found a desensitizing effect, especially for children.
Like the vast majority of social sciences, that area is full of low-quality studies.
[1]:"In the 2013–17 period, the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population ages 15 and older spent an average of 2 hours 46 minutes per day watching TV." (https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-7/television-capturing-a...)
> Why not?
Privacy of the victims?
We could blur faces if that's really the one problem preventing sharing gore images of school shootings. Somehow I doubt that's the reason though.