Requiring ID is a problem given that a lot of people don't have easy access (or access at all) to legal ID, for various reasons, some as simple as cost. Having a license costs money on an ongoing basis and you need to have access to documents to prove your identity like a birth certificate, and some citizens don't have those through no fault of their own, like losing everything in a fire or even the relevant records agency itself burning down. Thankfully there are often fee waivers for hardship but there are certainly corner cases where saying 'if you want to vote you need ID' is basically a poll tax, something we rightfully banned in the US a long time ago.
It's about keeping the undesirables out of the voting booth.
For the Republicans it's the immoral and poor and 'non Americans' who shouldn't really be voting.
And IMO it's gross attitude for a democracy.
The idea just rubs me the wrong way.
I understand America is somewhat unusual among most Western nations that lots of people don't have passports. A driving license should serve as a good ID card but lots of people don't have one of those either. As a Brit the idea of an ID card also feels undemocratic to me. In the UK we have inexpensive passports and a national voter registration database, with signatures and adresses recorded, why would that not work in the US?
I fear that uninformed people will just fill in the bubbles though, and then you start getting votes based on name recognition only, and thats already a big enough issue.
In the US, we also have county (and state) voter registration databases with signatures and addresses recorded. And they do work in the US. The only real difference is that those practices are determined at the county and state levels and not at the national level. That's not a bug. In fact, it's required by our Constitution.
That some places abuse that really sucks. For me at least, that doesn't happen where I live.
I love this notion that the US is such a special snowflake that there's always a reason that things that work nearly everywhere else couldn't possibly work here.
After all, if nine months of partisan rioting in an election season is kosher before a "free and fair election", which leads to over twenty five deaths, then not voting shouldn't be a big deal.
Unless, of course, a compulsory level turnout has value in lending legitimacy given the the broader context of antidemocratic events.
Democratic governments should not have the political protection of citing the compulsory turnout. Whether the political currency lent by the compulsory turnout is implied or overtly cited.
The political currency that the turnout lends is something that needs to be earned via the legitimate practice of government.
If the government processes become corrupt, then the voter turnout should be one avenue of reflecting that opinion by the populace.
The choice to withhold a vote is as democratically "sacred" as the right to vote.
You are free to not vote for any candidate in Australia. You are free to write "Fuck you all" on your ballot. All you must do is attend a voting station. And unlike the US, there are many legally enshrined protections to ensure you can.
I'm not sure your complaint. You are the one that tarred mandatory voting with a wide brush. I apologize for offering a counter-argument.
Whereas my arguments are referencing democratic logic. I'm attempting to speak to a general logical framework of principles, rather than to (too much) give specific place opinions.
I took your "counter argument" statement about the existence of Australian compulsory voting as fact.
I'm not sure what the point is of returning to, what, partially contradict me on the details of Australian voting and where it isn't exactly totally compulsory?
Truly with all due respect, I think that you're having an argument with yourself at this point.
I very much agree.
In Australia you can go along, write "screw you" on the ballot, job done, attendance recorded.
And the fine if you miss it is only a few bucks. It's a good nudge get everyone participating.
The protest is in the visible lack of turnout, and more relevantly in the lack of turnout of voting blocks that have historically shown up. Still agree?
I know that this is hard for you guys.
So I'll simplify it with an example scenario, which also tests your democratic moral logic.
Which is more democratic?
An election of Kim Jong Un in North Korea with 100% compulsory turnout. Or
An election of Kim Jong Un in North Korea with 5% non-compulsory turnout?
The answer, very obviously, is that the scenario with 5% non-compulsory turnout is more democratic.
This is the correct answer because the 95% that did not show up to vote would be seen by the world as a protest vote against a corrupt system. This is a necessary and valuable democratic mechanism. As it deprives Kim Jon Un's corrupt government of democratic legitimacy.
As it stands, North Korea has 100% voter turnout.
Do you want to veer toward or away from North Korea's model of "democracy"?
What you have in Australia is publicly visible compulsory turnout, period. Aside from whatever you might do privately in the election booth.
You can claim that Australia is a model of non-corruption. Maybe it is.
But compulsory turnout sure is a large step in corrupting elections, and one could argue a hallmark of corrupt elections. As well as a highly unusual shared characteristic with the most corrupt governments in the World.
Lack of turnout has never made the blindest bit of difference anywhere, and is indistinguishable from laziness and disinterest in actually democratic countries. But in Australia we can see the numbers who spoiled their votes.
In North Korea Kim Jong Un is free to invent the attendance figures just as much as he is the prevalence of votes for himself.
I really think people are too uninformed for compulsory voting. I envy these people. It would be nice not to care. I don't need them looking at a list of candidates and being like "Oh I remember that guy, he made a cameo in Home Alone 2, check"
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification...
No one imagines that everyone is just fine with what is implied to be the same level of discrimination in accessing air travel that they state is going on when voter ID requirements are in force. And yet.
I disagree in regard to your assertion as to what voter ID is about.
Disagree all you want, they aren’t exactly keeping it a secret.
You aren't quoting a "they", you are quoting one man.
Last, by your logic, eliminating voter ID is about winning elections for the democrats.
We also have an entire party who thrives on reduced turnout, and they basically control everything right now.