Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Tasunke]

I suppose in Desperate times, Rulers more focused on the plight of the people than on things like "ethics" may be the appropriate response.

However, I suppose for such a leader, it would be more-so that his ethical system would be based primarily on survival, rather than on the superego.

(I would like to add that I believe Voter ID laws are good, but I don't think that people should be offered 50 dollars to not vote, that sets a bad precedent)

[mackoti]

I am courious how many states besides USA dont request an ID to vote.Here in Romanie we are not near sua as income or development but everyone of us has an iD and its requestet to vote. I find a very poor excuse that in 2 years-4 years you cant go and get an ID . People fighted to vote and were porer then the one which cant get an ID for some reasons.

[Bacchus]

Actually in the West lack of ID is quite widespread. In the UK until recently they basically had no controls over voting at all. You come up, find "your" name and address in the list, and off you go. To a non-Westerner its pretty shocking.

Almost like the complete abscence of a culture of regular all-around health checks. Try asking for a cardiogram in the UK and they look at you like a crazy man. Russians get check ups even though healthcare is free at the point of delivery, how Americans do without them is a mystery.

[mackoti]

It is indeed.So lets see if i underatsnd corectly.In Sua you go to a place were they are voting and say, i want to vot and they let you and after you can go somewere else if you want and do same?

[T-hawk]

The American way is to, if you fail to take a small amount of time to do a fairly simple task once in two or four years, blame everything else and the system rather than your own lack of responsibility and planning ahead.

I have no moral opinion on voter ID laws either way.  Selfishly and practically, it likely favors me because people who lack IDs would not vote in correlation with myself.  If I cared to justify my position, I'd use arguments like these here, that gating such a civic privilege with an easily satisfiable barrier to entry is reasonable in service of the greater good of reducing fraud.  Realistically, that's what most everyone does, pick their position out of self-interest then look for moral justification to support it.

[Ichabod]

Brazil will actually be using biometric authentication (fingerprint)  in the next election (as well as the required photo ID). It'll not be required in every state, as it's still being implemented in some of them.

Makes me feel so advanced. 

[AdrienIer]

Honestly if having an ID is not mandatory (like it is in France) it shouldn't be required to vote. Either citizen need to have them or it doesn't matter.

[Bacchus]

How can it not matter? I get it not mattering in Garboldisham, Norfolk, where there are 50 voters and pulling off some swindle is just not the done thing. In a large, anonymous metropolis, where entire groups of people are socialized around antagonism to 'the system' -- why shouldn't they take a tour of polling booths and vote for one John Smith in each precinct?

Edit: but you are right in the sense that a universal state-issued ID is just more of a need in the modern world -- they tried introducing one in the UK some 15 years back, but there was a strange amount of opposition. I think because it was biometric and noone trusted the govt to hold the data.

[Mr. Cairo]

Last time I voted in the UK, I didn't need ID. But I still needed to register to vote, which requires have proof of address and a social insurance number (as far as I remember). Then before voting day, I got sent a voting card in the mail, which told me where to go and vote (they have my name on a list to check off). So, sure I didn't need ID, but it's not as though it would have been easy to vote multiple times.
In Canada, I need ID to vote (at least in BC, where I live)

But, since no-one has actually explained what is required to vote in the USA, I did some investigating. Here's some useful websites for the curious:
https://www.wikihow.com/Register-to-Vote...ted-States
https://vote.gov - this lets you see the requirements state-by-state

I also looked at the federal voter registration form: https://vote.gov/files/Federal_Voter_Reg...18_ENG.pdf
From what I can tell, every state requires you to provide either an ID number to register, or the last four digits of your SSN. if you have neither some states (I saw Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts among others) you can still register, and you get assigned a unique number. Some other states have different requirements as well (like a photocopy of an ID, or your full SSN).
Once registered, you receive a voter card in the mail telling you where to go and vote, but you don't need to take it to vote. Some states then require you to have id when you vote.

So, from what I can tell, it's largely similar to the UK. You register, your name gets added to the list in your constituency (or whatever it's called), then when you go and vote, you tell them who you are (in some cases need to prove it), they cross you off the list, and you vote.

So, no, you cannot simply go from polling place to polling place to vote multiple times. In fact, defrauding this system extensively enough to have an effect would require extensive groundwork, falsely registering hundred and thousands of people to vote, then having people remember the many many different names and addresses used to register. Certainly possible, but also something that would be pretty easy to spot. Presumably, like most places, the USA looks for voter fraud, and an operation on a scale large enough to change the outcome would be obvious.

[AdrienIer]

Yeah putting the requirements at the registration instead of the voting booth is a good idea too. I think France has both but either one is enough