Voter ID 4

I have talked about this and the motivation of those who hold strong positions on it.  I have indicated a general position about such matters, but I don’t think I have indicated how that position determines how I would view a particular voter ID law.

General Position:

A.   If a person claims to have a right or an entitlement to something, they should have to demonstrate that they are eligible for that thing.   This would include welfare benefits, SS, and medicare as well as voting rights.

B.   Since voting is essential to a democracy it gets special treatment.  There is a fundamental obligation by the government to ensure there is no impediment (other than eligibility and the time it takes) to the exercise of the right to vote.  In particular (24th  amendment) there can be no financial impediment – tax, charge, or cost.  In particular, if you require a picture ID, then you must provide a way for the voter to get one cost free.

I believe that these are pretty much self evident if you keep in mind that I expect the reader to know that we are taking proof to be reasonable documentation.

So here comes a voter ID law which will revise the current law.

It will require a birth certificate at the time of registration and a picture ID at the time of voting.

Here are the questions I would ask and the answers that I would need to get my support.  Someone would point out the absence of voter fraud as evidenced by the absence of convictions for voter fraud and someone else would note that that did not prove the lack of voter fraud.  In particular who are we relying on to report voter fraud?

1.  Why do we need this revision?

            This one is pretty easy.  Times change, improvements in technology, etc.

2.   Registration:  What do you do with a current or previous voter who does not have the birth certificate and can’t get one?

            If you grandfather these people in and keep them on the rolls, then I am OK.  If you want to throw them off of the voting roles then you are trying for too much. 

The burden of proof should be on the state to prove that someone should be taken off of the rolls.  The burden of proof is on the individual to get on the rolls in the first place.

3.   Voting:       Why do you require a picture ID?

            A picture ID is more secure, technological advances have made them easier to get and they have become the norm – almost everybody has got one.

                        What about those that don’t have one?

            They can go to the Driver’s License Bureau and we’ll make them one free. "part of the bill"

                        Who pays to get them there?

            The voter does.

                        That is not good enough.

            What do I have to do?

                        Pay all costs or go to their home.
The thing is that unless it is a reasonable bill it will have the media and the Democratic party all over it: using it as "proof" that the Rs are racists.  

The public debate is not connected to reason, it is based on paranoia and propaganda and goes like this:

D     Those Rs are just trying to deny the right to vote of the old, poor, and minorities who are expected to vote Democratic. They are racists.

R.     The Ds are just trying to fix it so that when  those 10-15 million illegal aliens become legal residents then the Ds can get them to vote illegally. 

So on this one if I have to choose between those, then I think that I would go with the Rs because ff the D’s are right in their paranoia then the R’s will have their leadership doing their dirty work (making bad voter ID laws) in full public view. I think that that is impossble.  On the other hand if the Rs are right then the Ds actions (voter fraud) would be carried out by the rank and file and not see the light of day.

Motivation and Voter ID 2

I find the use of an alleged “motivation of your opponent” as an argument against his case to be rather boring and persuasive only to those who desperately want to believe.  The idea is:  Don’t argue that the opponent's case is invalid, argue that the opponent’s motivation is nasty.  I suppose that it is a subcase of the abusive ad hominem argument: A fallacy which usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments.  In this case the opponent’s motivation is the particular aspect of the person that is attacked.   The merits of the case, one way or another, often get lost altogether.  Of course, if you don’t have a good case, then perhaps avoiding an argument based on merit is your best chance.  (Did I just slip into the motivation fallacy?)

The place this is currently getting a lot of play is in the Voter ID laws.  Those Rs are just trying to deny the right to vote of the old and poor who are expected to vote Democratic.  The D’s are just trying to fix it so all of those illegal aliens can vote for them.  Both arguments totally ignore the fundamental question:

A.   If a person claims to have a right or an entitlement to something, should they

1) have to demonstrate that they are eligible for that thing or

2) should the government grant these rights and benefits on the honor system.

B.   Since voting is essential to a democracy it gets special treatment.  There is a fundamental obligation by the government to ensure there is no impediment (other than eligibility) to the exercise of the right to vote.  In particular there can be no financial impediment – tax, charge, or cost (24th  amendment).  That is, if you require a picture ID, then you must provide a way for them to get one cost free.

I choose A1 and B.  A1 it seems to me is self evident.  B is a bit harder to implement, but not really that bad.

Don’t misunderstand me.  I am not saying either group does not have the alleged motivations.  I am not saying that motivations are not important.  They may explain why someone is taking a certain position.

But an argument based on the opponent’s motivation is not valid.  There are at least two good reasons:

1.  Even if their motives are bad the result could be good.

2.  Unless you are God, you don’t know their motives.

Voter Fraud

Full disclosure:  I believe that you should have a picture ID to get any of the things that we get  from the government including access to the voting booth.  The government should provide an easy and cost free way of getting  a working ID for voting.

Now how many times have you heard or seen the following argument:
Voter fraud is a fake issue because there have been only a small number of prosecutions for voter fraud.

Here are two more arguments using this reasoning.

You can count the number of drinkers by counting the number of prosecutions for drunkenness.

or

You can count the number of young women who are engaging in sex by counting how many of them are getting pregnant.

Voter ID 3

The Republicans need to cut out or revise their voter id campaign.

Now, I favor the requirement of a reliable voter ID to cast a ballot.  I have previously said so here see 7/25/12 - go here - and below.  But that is subject to Rule II:  Anyone who doesn't have an acceptable ID should be provided one - at government expense.

Without Rule II it is very believable that they are engaged in voter suppression.

*****************************************************************
7/25/12
Perhaps this should be subtitled "Things you get from the government."
All politics aside, I guess I am in favor of the following rule:

Rule I  If you  have a right to or are entitled to get something from the government, then you should be prepared to prove that you are eligible for it.  

It doesn't make me any difference whether it is a welfare check, tax "loophole", or the right to vote.

 

Rule II     Since voting is constitutionally fundamental it should get special treatment.  The state is obligated to provide for the cost free  acquisition of a suitable ID for the individual.  Otherwise you have overtones (if not the reality of) a poll tax.

The arguments against this (rule I) which are based on: "Poor ole granny doesn't have a picture ID." , seem silly to me. They do have an lot of emotional appeal, but they go right down the drain in the face of rule II.

PS  Since rule two would require a bit of time to implement, you can't do one of these things just before an election.

 

Polling

.
If you have heard people (Rs in this case) talking about the pollsters skewing the sample in favor of Obama, here is at least part of what they mean.  (For a general description of polls and error see this piece in the NYT.)  Some of the polls will show you the behind the scenes stuff if you click on it. This one came from the Wash Post poll in OH.

The main result of the poll reported on RCP was that among likely voters (LV) Obama was ahead by 4.

If you look at the breakdown of Ds, Rs, and Is you get the following:

Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as:

                                                          

              Democrat   Republican   Independent   Other   No opinion 

9/23/12 OH       35          26            35          3        2    

9/23/12 OH RV    35          27            34          3        1  

9/23/12 OH LV    37          30            30          2        1     

The debate is over whether that is a reasonable split for Ds and Rs.

At first thought it might seem like it is not.  But you would have to know the breakdown of Ds and Rs in Ohio to say that with confidence.  

But, the pollsters and Ds say, the real question is how many of each will actually come out to vote in this election.  No one knows the future.  The pollsters look to the turnout in the 2008 election as being the best guide for what will happen in 2012.

But, say the Rs, there are two things wrong with this.  
   1.  The electorate is not nearly as excited about Obama this time as they were in 2008 and
   2.  You should use the most recent election which was 2010 which certainly did not have 37-30 Ds to Rs turnout advantage for the Ds.

Voter ID 2

.
Perhaps this should be subtitled "Things you get from the government."

All politics aside, I guess I am in favor of the following rule:


Rule I  If you  have a right to or are entitled to get something from the government, then you should be prepared to prove that you are eligible for it.  

It doesn't make me any difference whether it is a welfare check, tax "loophole", or the right to vote.

Rule II     Since voting is constitutionally fundamental it should get special treatment.  The state is obligated to provide for the cost free  acquisition of a suitable ID for the individual.  Otherwise you have overtones (if not the reality of) a poll tax.

The arguments against this which are based on: "Poor ole granny doesn't have a picture ID." , seem silly to me. They do have an lot of emotional appeal, but they go right down the drain in the face of rule II.

PS  Since rule two would require a bit of time to implement, you can't do one of these things just before an election.