Somebody please explain to me again why we don't require ID to vote.

[MercutioATC]

We go to the polls and the people there just take our word that we are who we say we are. That seems to me the most ludicrous procedure if you're trying to combat voting fraud.

Scenario:

Some enterprising person goes through the obits in the paper for the week before the election, gets addresses for those listed, and casts votes in their names. No ID is required, and the real people obviously won't be showing up to vote, so they're allowed to cast multiple ballots.

I have to show ID to write a check, register my car, or buy a lottery ticket (if I look too young). Why not when I vote?

[Big Blue Marble]

1. Actually,

in Kentucky we do need to show our driver's license and then sign the register under our name. I am surprised that is not the case elsewhere.

[MercutioATC]

2. I'm in Ohio, and we don't show any ID, we just sign the register.

[theorist]

3. I went to change my voter registration yesterday.

They didn't require ID to register, because I did it in person. It seems kind of scary. I'm sure they check the addresses against real addresses, but I'm not clear on how they keep someone from registering under 10 different names. If that guy has 500 friends, well...there goes Ohio.

[MsUnderstood]

4. In california, we sign to show who we are

Then our signature can be compared to the voter registration form we filled out if there is a question.

The reason we don't require ID is because voting is a sacred institution and a private action by a private citizen to send a message to their government.

It invades our rights to privacy to require us to further identify ourselves (and can be used as a mechanism to prevent people to vote through intimidation).

[MercutioATC]

8. Are handwriting experts evaluating the signatures?

We do the same here in Ohio...we sign next to our name in a register.

The measure of how "sacred" voting is depends, in my estimation, on the legitimacy of the process. Refusing to verify that the person casting the vote is who they say they are undermines that legitimacy. I don't understand the objection to requiring people to identify themselves...that should be a requirement if the process is to be considered valid. I also don't understand how the possibility of intimidation is legitimate as a current argument. Your actual vote is cast in secrecy. How does anything about verifying your identity add to the chance of intimidation?

[rinsd]

10. I'm in CA too.

"The reason we don't require ID is because voting is a sacred institution and a private action by a private citizen to send a message to their government."

Okay, then why do we register under our own names? And signify that we have in fact voted by signing in?

"It invades our rights to privacy to require us to further identify ourselves (and can be used as a mechanism to prevent people to vote through intimidation)."

I will agree on the 2nd point. But the privacy argument falls flat when we have to sign in and such.

I wouldn't have a problem with ID required for voting. Simply show the ID and sign your name. We could even create voter cards that would be similar to a driver's license as an alternative ID.

[fsbooks]

5. Montana requires ID

It is new this year. It pissed me off. Personally, I do not think that the major cause of voter fraud is or ever has been at the level of the misrepresentation of identity. Stealing elections is usually done at a much higher, more sophisticated level (stuffing ballot boxes; BBV).

[merh]

6. The lower class citizens and many minorities often do not have

I.D's. For years, requiring i.d.'s was a way to intimidate and refuse ballots to minorities.

[MercutioATC]

7. I understand that, but it still seems to offer too high a risk of abuse.

Aside from those in the country illegally, I can't think of a current reason that everybody shouldn't have state-issued ID. Considering that almost all common business transactions require ID anyway, it's hard to believe that most people, poor or not, don't have identification.

[MsUnderstood]

9. First they identify you, then they classify you

and then they subject you to rules based on the classification. Finally they find those whose classification they don't like and they take care of them.

It goes against the idea of Freedom and Privacy.

We are loosing our rights to privacy every day:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57604-2004Jun21.html

This guy was on the side of the road talking to his daughter and was arrested for refusing to give the police an ID until after he was told why the police were detaining him.

If less than 75% of Americans are registered and less than 1/2 of those are voting, and the electronic machines don't track it anyway, why punish the American citizen for not wanting to identify himself as one of the minorities?

[rinsd]

12. True....

I actually have been following that case a bit.

But I still don't understand why its a privacy violation to show an ID when you identify yourself anyway by signing in.

[MercutioATC]

14. That seems a little paranoid to me...

I don't see how anybody's any more at risk of being "classified" by showing ID to vote. They already have to show up in person (so the "government" knows their race), they have to register (so the "government" knows where they live)...why not require them to be provide proof that they are who they say they are?

[Bandit]

11. In Alaska we are issued Voter Identification cards

They are not photo ID cards but have our voter ID number and our voter precinct.

[rinsd]

13. That's something I could agree to (NT)

[MercutioATC]

15. That's better, but not a real solution.

You could still use a recently dead relative's card or the card of somebody who didn't plan to vote. If you're showing up in person anyway, why is it a problem to use a photo ID? I mean, they can see what you look like when you sign in, anyway...