Hacker News Reader

Comment by monero-xmr | Hacker News Reader

Having bare minimum protections against invalid voters, illegal immigrants or otherwise, is a basic precaution that every country on Earth except America does. The honor system we have here is absurdly lenient. I understand the Democrat desire to oppose everything Trump proposes, but imagine if in The Netherlands you can waltz in and say you are this person or that person, without any ID check whatsoever. Europeans might not realize this but that is literally the American system.

I totally grant that the fraud Trump is claiming is way off the mark. But why not just... require ID to vote? At least in federal elections? The lack of verification is the exact reason why the lies continue

View on HN

Voting systems in Europe differ by country, but for example here in Switzerland I just get my ballot in the mail, fill it in and send it back to get counted.

And of course Swiss Post just processes this as a regular piece of mail, routing it to the address written on the envelope, without any weird cross-tabulation against voter registers or barcodes…

Some years ago a postman in Spain was caught with a sack in his home with 3000 votes that never were delivered to their destiny. This happened many months after the election. Last year in December some thieves broke into a small village post office and stole the money and the sack with 124 mail votes that were found later partially burnt. The few voters involved were allowed to re-send his vote before the elections and an organization of 12 people were detained later for this an other assaults to post offices before the local elections.

So yes, mail voting has a few issues still, not a lot, but is not impossible to break. If every worker in the post office is from one party and nobody in that party votes by mail, bribing and corrupting the system is doable, and even easy; specially if your work depends on it.

If you do this in small populations or at scale you could easily remove enough votes from the system until winning the place by one single vote. If you are malignant enough you could even blame later millions of "lazy" people for not voting and laugh about it.

Mail voting depends on trusting what your postman is not a plant.

> But why not just... require ID to vote?

Among other things, consider https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...

> The lack of verification is the exact reason why the lies continue

I think the evidence suggests they are not particularly constrained by reality? Recall "They're eating the cats and dogs."

> imagine if in The Netherlands you can waltz in and say you are this person or that person

That's not at all how it works. Typically, you do need to present ID to register. You also need to verify your address on the day of voting. If someone does commit fraud, it's easy to detect: as soon as the real voter tries to vote, the system will detect a "double vote." The fact that this almost never happens suggests that there is not much fraud, if any. And the amount of fraud required to actually change an election result with this method would require a concerted effort of tens of thousands of people, all risking federal prosecution.

> that is literally the American system.

No. Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

> But why not just... require ID to vote?

There are lots of good reasons, which you are probably already aware of, including the fact that many people eligible to vote do not have the requisite ID and are unlikely to get it. My litmus test for supporting voter ID is that it is accompanied by (a) free, mandatory, and automatic national ID cards, and (b) national holiday on election days. Republicans won't support part A for their own ideological reasons, and moreover their purported effort to support voter integrity is not sincere: the goal is simply to prevent undesirable (i.e. non-Republican) voters from voting.

many people eligible to vote do not have the requisite ID and are unlikely to get it

Just trying to understand as a non-American: which people are eligible to vote, but are unlikely to get an ID?

Canadian here, so take with a grain of salt. Both Canada and the US don't have a national ID system, at all (short of a passport). A state/province issued driver's license is the default form of ID. If you don't have a driver's license it is very possible you don't have an ID.

Most (if not all?) states and provinces will have some form of "non driving" ID available if needed. However, it is optional, costs money and requires other documentation to get it, such as an original copy of a birth certificate.

It's not that uncommon for an adult to not have an official ID. Either they never had one or have lost theirs and they haven't bothered/can't afford to get a new one.

The argument is that Republicans are exploiting the fact that this will disproportionately affect Democratic voters. Would some Republican voters be turned away? Of course. Would more Democratic voters be turned away than Republicans? Very very likely, and that's the point. It's a net win for one party to enforce voting ID laws while also not supporting some sort of free/cheap universal identity system.

> It’s not that uncommon for an adult to not have an ID

It’s extremely uncommon.

You need an ID to buy beer, open a bank account, prove you are eligible for employment, pick up a prescription at the pharmacy, book a hotel room, the list is very long. You cannot function in society without some form of ID.

The idea that a large number of Americans are being disenfranchised because they don’t have ID is farcical.

> It’s extremely uncommon.

34 million people [1] or about 10 percent of the US population lack a form of ID that would be required under a voter ID law.

The fact that you assert otherwise, without evide, shows that you live in a privilege bubble. None of your friends lack an ID, so you conclude it's rare.

[1] https://voteriders.org/article/who-doesnt-have-an-id-in-amer...

Thank you for the link, it very much proves my point. Let me walk you through the claims with you one by one:

"Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license."

A driver's license is not the only form of ID permissible to vote. You can vote using other forms of ID. Additionally, most states allow people over a certain age to use an expired ID to vote.

"Another 12% (28.6 million) have a non-expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name."

People move and people get married. The average American will move 12 times in their lives and get married at least once. These people will get their license updated. They have one in the first place that isn't expired, after all.

Again, you can vote using other forms of ID beyond a driver's license, and furthermore, a driver's license with an old address is still valid to prove your identity.

"Millions of Americans across political parties do not have a license."

Again, the fixation on driver's licenses is a canard. Millions of American's aren't eligible to drive, so you would expect them not to have driver's licenses.

"People with less education and lower annual incomes are more likely to lack a current driver’s license."

Yes, people who can't afford to own a car are less likely to have a driver's license.

"People with a disability are far more likely to lack a current driver’s license."

Wow, what an insightful finding. People that are not able to drive don't have driver's licenses.

Here's a fun quote from your own link that refutes exactly what you are claiming:

Only "nineteen percent of individuals without a driver’s license cite bureaucratic or economic factors as the reasons for which they do not have a license." The rest weren't interested, or weren't eligible due to legal difficulties.

That means that only 4 million of the 21 million people who don't have a license can't get a license for the reason you're claiming. That's 1% of the entire country.

In a nutshell, only 1% of Americans are too incompetent to figure out how to apply for a license or too lazy to stand in line and fill out the paperwork to get one. Everybody else either has one, has a good reason they don't want one, or should not have one.

And that doesn't even mean that these people can't vote, only that they don't have a driver's license. It's entirely possible those people have other forms of ID.

Open your eyes friend. People are disenfranchised everyday, but it isn't because the mean old DMV denied them a driver's license.

>Most (if not all?) states and provinces will have some form of "non driving" ID available if needed. However, it is optional, costs money and requires other documentation to get it, such as an original copy of a birth certificate.

False. Every state in the US has a free voter ID option.

You are missing the point.

Even if there is no financial cost, it requires documentation and time to get voter ID. It is not issued automatically. That's why 10% of the US population doesn't have form of ID that could be used to vote and will be disenfranchised under Republican voter ID requirements. Until that issue is fixed, voter ID is not something I can support.

>You are missing the point.

No I'm not.

>Even if there is no financial cost, it requires documentation and time to get voter ID.

Yes, you must prove your eligibility to vote.

>It is not issued automatically.

They are issued automatically after proving eligibility.

>That's why 10% of the US population doesn't have form of ID that could be used to vote

Correlation != causation

>and will be disenfranchised under Republican voter ID requirements.

No they won't.

>Until that issue is fixed, voter ID is not something I can support.

There are no issues to fix.

>and will be disenfranchised under Republican voter ID requirements.

Can you explain this further?

A person who can legally vote today, but in the future cannot vote because of election restrictions, will be disenfranchised. You are supporting election restrictions that disenfranchise 10% of the US population.

>>That's why 10% of the US population doesn't have form of ID that could be used to vote

>Correlation != causation

I never made a claim of causation. I just said that 10% of legal US voting-eligible citizens don't have ID and will therefore be disenfranchised by your proposal.

> They are issued automatically after proving eligibility.

That's not what "automatic" means.

>Can you explain this further?

Yes, voter ID laws do not disenfranchise voters. The Supreme Court agrees with this statement.

>A person who can legally vote today, but in the future cannot vote because of election restrictions, will be disenfranchised.

Voter ID laws are not "election restrictions" the same way as registering to vote is not an "election restriction."

>I just said that 10% of legal US voting-eligible citizens don't have ID and will therefore be disenfranchised by your proposal.

That's not what the stat says. Nowhere does it say 10% of "voter-eligible" US citizens don't have IDs.

>That's not what "automatic" means.

Wrong, that is what automatic means.

A significant fraction are non-whites.

Many who were born before segregation ended in the mid-1960s were not granted birth certificates, as their mothers were forced to use midwives during birth because local hospitals were whites only and turned them away.

See: https://atlantablackstar.com/2025/05/07/florida-woman-real-i...

See: https://chicagodefender.com/black-woman-born-during-jim-crow...

See: https://academic.oup.com/north-carolina-scholarship-online/b...

> as soon as the real voter tries to vote, the system will detect a "double vote."

And which of the two people are lying? Would you have to... verify ID to figure that out?

I'm assuming that your question is not offered in good faith, but just in case I'm wrong: no, you could just see where they live.

The comparison to western European countries doesn't hold up. Speaking from Norway: yes, it's true you have to provide ID to vote, both in national and local elections. The difference is that obtaining ID is trivial, to the point where essentially everyone here legally has ID. I wouldn't be surprised if the most common way for someone not to have ID would literally be "all of it was in my luggage and the airline lost it", or some similar very temporary state. In the US, the people who do have ID do not even form a representative sample of the population as far as I understand

I can't speak for the Americans, but I would imagine there'd be far less liberal pushback against voter ID if everyone could trivially obtain it.

How's this for a compromise: republicans get voter ID laws, in return for a national, bipartisanly monitored program to ensure that anyone who wants it can trivially obtain ID. Once that's realized, the voter ID laws can kick in?

You need an ID to drive, buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, board a plane. And people manage to do all those things.

No, all people do not manage to do those things (even if they wanted to).

You can do all that with a driving license, but a driving license is not a proof of citizenship and thus of your eligibility to vote.

In Europe, you can't get a regular ID without being a citizen. So having an ID automatically means you're eligible to vote.

> In Europe, you can't get a regular ID without being a citizen. So having an ID automatically means you're eligible to vote.

Nitpick: E.g. Norwegian ID cards can be had by any legal resident. The card will say that you're not a citizen though, so your point about that stands.

Re driving license: Driving license is a valid form of ID for voting here. All eligible people are on the voting rolls automatically (unlike the absurd american system), and the driving license is merely used to prove you are who you say you are.

This is not true. For example not every citizen can vote (people under guardianship or criminals) and not citizens can vote in local elections in the EU, if they came from another EU country.

Yes. There are all kinds of edge cases.

The point I tried to make is that with the system we have here it's much less of a hassle to prove you're eligible to vote. The system wants you to be able to vote, and to be able to do that easily.

Yes, but a driver's license can be accepted as ID.

Just because a driver's license isn't proof of citizenship doesn't mean that it isn't sufficient, since it will have some identifier connected to the identity of the voter. You would show the driver's license, then the registrars would find your name on the list, strike it out, give your voting envelopes, and then you go wait for a private booth to become free and then you go into that booth and put your votes in those voting envelopes.

A Swedish driver's license doesn't mean Swedish citizenship. It can still be used to check somebody's identity. Citizenship is checked by seeing whether the person is on the voter rolls, not by their identity card.

Some of the Republican proposals would require a proof of citizenship at registration time. You would still be able to register without a passport but you need to take your birth or naturalization certificate. Not everyone has them at home so you might need to go to your parents place in another state or risk getting it mailed. Good luck.

The point is not making registration impossible, just harder and more complicated. When you combine it with voter roll purges the play is clear.

Get a biased commission to remove everyone named Jackson or Hernandez a couple months before the election because "there's too many people with that last name and officials might confuse them" or purge a whole district that just happens to be an opposing party stronghold based on a single voter fraud conviction.Do it silently without informing voters, and when they realize they need to register again they have to go through a complicated process designed to make them give up.

Rejecting IDs at the poll booth is actually pretty rare because it's so obvious. Real schemes are a bit more creative.

> Yes, but a driver's license can be accepted as ID

So what would that accomplish? The Trump playbook asserts that there is a massive conspiracy involving noncitizen voting. Their proposals involve proving citizenship to vote. And now your argument is to use ID that doesn't prove citizenship. Brilliant.

In my state government issued ID is used to verify who you are. You are then issued a ballot if your name is also in the poll book.

Your eligibility to vote and have your name entered into the poll book is determined by providing a Social Security number or birth certificate.

So yes, a driver’s license is sufficient ID to vote in many states.

> So yes, a driver’s license is sufficient ID to vote in many states.

At the moment, yes. Under Republican voter ID proposals that require proving citizenship, no. Having an SSN does not imply US citizenship.

Actually you need a REAL ID to board a plane now. 20% of americans don't have them. They're pointless, take a lot of time and effort to aquire and are needlessly expensive.

I don't have one because I have a passport.

> Actually you need a REAL ID to board a plane now.

If you don't have a REAL ID or passport, you can just pay a $50 fee and get on the plane anyway. So whatever the REAL ID proves cannot be essential to security.

In much of Europe you don't need ID for those, except a driving license, which happens to be an ID but primarily exists to prove you are qualified to drive. If you look young you are asked to prove your age if buying cigarettes or alcohol but the requirements for that are relatively low.

Until recently in the UK you did not need any ID to vote, that was introduced recently as an echo to the US stolen election conspiracy, as demagogues love to steal ideas from each other.

> imagine if in The Netherlands you can waltz in and say you are this person or that person, without any ID check whatsoever. Europeans might not realize this but that is literally the American system

This is of course not true, why say clearly incorrect things?

First, there is no "American system" as such, because every state is responsible for running elections, so there are 50 state systems in the US.

More importantly, I get my ballot in the mail only because I'm registered to vote at the DMV, you know the same agency that issues the very ID they check to make sure I'm elegible to vote.

You don't just "waltz in" to the post office or whever to get a ballot.

Literally, what the fuck are you talking about.

As in, please be more specific with your claims that we don't require identification to vote.

Because it strikes me as a very low effort Fox News talking point, not any reality.

Most states allow you to cast a provisional ballot on polling Day without an ID, but require that you return and present an ID to accept it.

But no state is accepting votes without identifying the voter. They just vary somewhat in what alternatives they accept.

Compare your statement to the info here and come back with something better: https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state

I have never voted without being required to present gov issued ID. Ever.

The GOP and Trump supporters have so far spent millions of dollars trying to prove voter fraud. Mike Lindell of my pillow has lost his fortune trying to prove it.

They didn't prove any of their claims, and several even went to prison for contempt because they refused to substantiate their claims in front of a judge.

HN rules says to be kind and not call names, but you are either willfully ignorant or a liar, and in both cases you are complicit in a soft coup attempt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com