Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dashundchen 3126 days ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...

Because there are barriers, and expensive fees for many, intentional or not. The article above gives a couple stories of the issues people face trying to get ID for voting.

Until everyone can automatically and without cost obtain an ID for voting, these are new versions of poll taxes.
1 comments
Mindless2112 3126 days ago
> Until everyone can automatically and without cost obtain an ID for voting

And yet, no politician campaigns for that because it would actually resolve the issue.

link
eropple 3126 days ago
Free, universal, automatic ID would totally be the technically-correct-is-the-best-kind-of-correct answer. Which is to say, it's wrong, because the issue is not "voter fraud", the issue is "voters who aren't conservative," because when one erects barriers to voting, conservatives (who tend to be white and more affluent, as a rule, in the areas where these shenanigans are going on) will turn out and everybody else won't.

A politician who campaigns for that will be beset upon by the right wing as it heaves into a fit over they're spying on us, they're trying to track us. Because in actually solving the nonexistent problem, they threaten the true reason for the problem being posed.

link
Mindless2112 3125 days ago
No, the issue is that there are people who need an government-issued ID but the barrier to getting one is too high.

But you decided to take only the slice of the problem that fit your talking point, and that is the real problem.

link
eropple 3125 days ago
Lowering the barrier to entry causes screams from that same contingent, just the same as "here's an ID, for free, right now". I know this, because I have been (peripherally) involved with folks trying to push such systems and the pushback from the drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub crew is real and it is strong.

My "talking point", such as it is, is that one political party is actively disinterested in democracy (while the other is more or less ambivalent), and that nobody in that actively-disinterested party is going to let the ambivalent party make this happen. Because it empowers them for it to not happen. It's not rocket science.

link