Hacker News Reader

The problem with enforcing voter ID laws is that it's a solution to a non-existent problem.

If you want to increase the bar for people to vote, you HAVE to demonstrate that the current system is problematic.

There have been multiple attempts to find ANY significant voter fraud that would have been at all affected by forcing voter-ID requirements. They have universally found nothing.

As such, there's no real reason to support voter-ID laws, aside from deliberately trying to disenfranchise low-income voters.

I don't think you HAVE to demonstrate that the current system is problematic. You have to demonstrate the current system is potentially problematic. You are describing a reactionary approach to something that definitely should be thought about proactively.

So, to remedy a problem that you have no evidence exists, you would disenfranchise millions of people.

Voter fraud has been exhaustively researched. The occurrences are negligible. Certainly much lower than most other forms of errors in voting systems. The entire issue is manufactured outrage.

I think there is too much hubris in that opinion. Before the recent election there was very little evidence of the vote being gamed by foreign powers. But if there had been proactive safeguards in place, the attempt could have been nipped in the bud.

If the foreign powers had actually manipulated actual votes (and if you think this is the first time...), their manipulation would have been nearly impossible to hide. That's not what they did.

Nor did I say so. But the point was it is ridiculous to fail to plan for something that has never happened if it could happen and there is a reasonable motive for someone to attempt to do it.

Yes, but being mindful of the negative consequences of employing mitigation strategies has to be kept in mind.

What kind of safe guards would prevent a third party from influencing our elections?

There are myriad legal, diplomatic, and technological solutions to reduce their impact. You can never stop them from trying.

>As such, there's no real reason to support voter-ID laws, aside from deliberately trying to disenfranchise low-income voters.

This is a common point, but I think it assumes too much about low-income voters. You need an ID to access essentially all of the government services that low-income folks would need. I'm really skeptical that mandating voter ID would have any real effect on these groups (understand that we do sound a bit Elitist talking about what's good for the proles ... I like to err on the side of them being competent enough to use their ID to both get access to welfare programs and, also, vote).

There are more people who lack ID for one reason or another (e.g. over 600,000 registered voters in Texas lacked the necessary types of ID to vote under its voter-ID law in 2014) than there are fraudulent voters, so if you're going to address one problem or the other, I think the one that actually happens is the better direction to err.

My proposed solution is somewhat more simple:

Universal, automatic voter registration moots this entire sideshow.

Just like every other mature democracy.

>As such, there's no real reason to support voter-ID laws, aside from deliberately trying to disenfranchise low-income voters. This is a common point, but I think it assumes too much about low-income voters. You need an ID to access essentially all of the government services that low-income folks would need.

That's not generally the case, as I understand it. Imagine a low-income senior, with a paid off home (or an inexpensive apartment or public housing unit) and a family that help take care of them. What do they need ID for? They don't drive. They may need medical care, but that only requires a medicare card, which is not valid ID (no picture, and just printed on plain paper). Social Security comes as a direct deposit to their bank account, which they opened years ago, before ID was required, or when they did have ID, since lost (or as a US Treasury check that they deposit or cash). Checks don't require ID. State SNAP/EBT/Food Stamp cards don't have a picture, and aren't valid ID.

>[optionally] enforce

what's that supposed to mean? it's either mandatory or it isn't. also, all of the options you listed are disproportionately less used by the poor, so it doesn't really address the main issues with mandatory voter id

>And then the obvious next step would be allowing voting via browser.

electronic voting brings up a bunch of other issues. how do you prevent vote selling? how do you secure a (poorly secured) personal computer from being hacked?

>>>[optionally] enforce >what's that supposed to mean?

I was just thinking that some might want to use this software without identification enforcement, or do it some other way (manually via voter list,...).

I think it would not be unreasonable to say that in order to vote, you need to furnish some form of approved identification. That some people don't have a valid government issued Id is in my mind absolutely a problem and we should find a way to make sure people do have some Id regardless of their background.

>>...allowing voting via browser. >and how does this prevent vote selling?

I don't know. But it appears other countries[0] have managed to make this work. I don't see how it could not work here too.

[0] https://e-estonia.com/solutions/e-governance/i-voting/

>That some people don't have a valid government issued Id is in my mind absolutely a problem and we should find a way to make sure people do have some Id regardless of their background.

yet documented instances of voter fraud that could be stopped by mandatory id checks (mainly impersonation) is surprisingly sparse[1]. this either means that the fraudsters are really good at not getting caught, or that this isn't that big of a problem. if you think about it, it really doesn't make sense to commit this type of voter fraud: the penalties are stiff if you get caught, you're putting yourself at risk every time you commit it (as opposed to sitting behind a computer in an extradition unfriendly country), and it scales poorly (each person you recruit can maybe cast 30 votes on voting day if you factor in lineups and driving time, and the chances that one of them snitches goes exponentially as you recruit more people).

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-f...

>I don't know. But it appears other countries[0] have managed to make this work. I don't see how it could not work here too.

The wikipedia page doesn't seem to put it in a good light...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Estonia#C...

Completely disagree. Absentee ballots work fine already. Who needs the feature creep of a nationwide interlinked voting system.

Voting via the browser is such a terrible idea for manifold reasons that ought to be obvious.

TL;DR: Voting in the US is surprisingly complicated. All the facets you mentioned have already been thoroughly ironed out.

Most every US voter registration system I'm aware of requires eligible voters to present some kind of identification. Errors do occur, because we're stubborn and won't implement Real ID. The one exception I know of is (was?) North Dakota.

Further, voters must present some kind of identification and sign-in to receive a ballot at a poll site. For postal ballots, your receiving address is assumed to be proxy for your identity.

Voters can only cast ballots where they're registered.

Voting electronically, by any medium, can neither ensure voter privacy or the public vote count. The gold standard is the Australian Ballot, if you'd like to learn more.

All voting systems I'm aware of tracks ballots. Rules vary by jurisdiction. But generally this prevents double voting. Some places allow newer ballots to replace a prior ballot (IIRC).

Oh, one more thing...

The voter ID debate is a red herring.

All jurisdictions require ID to receive a ballot.

The argument is over what forms of ID are accepted.

As the token liberal here, and former poll inspector and election integrity activist, I insist that any required ID (eg drivers license) is provided free on demand to all eligible voters.

Otherwise it's a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.

> I hope that as part of the design, it will also [optionally] enforce some form of voter identification

How would a counting system for traditional paper ballots enforce that? It's not even a component used in the part of the process where that makes sense