[squirrelicus]

I think it would be reasonable to create a national ID card system and fund it through taxes. It could replace driver licenses and social security cards. I do not know why it would be unreasonable to require such a card for voting. It could also serve as a PKI system with the govt acting as a CA (i.e. manage issuance and revocation). There are non zero benefits. And this doesn't have to operate like a poll tax. I don't understand why this isn't already a thing. Seems obvious.

[kodablah]

> I don't understand why this isn't already a thing. Seems obvious.

Because people don't want yet another mandatory way to be tracked by the government. It is especially opposed by those here illegally, their supporters, and others historically disenfranchised by more and more centralized requirements. Not everyone has driver's licenses or ssn cards. There are non-zero problems so what should be obvious is why some oppose even if you don't.

[ric2b]

> Because people don't want yet another mandatory way to be tracked by the government.

I constantly hear that (the majority of) people don't care about NSA spying, Facebook and Google spying, ad tracking, etc, etc, etc.

But somehow when it comes to being issued a number and a piece of plastic it would never work because people would oppose it based on privacy? I find that very hard to believe.

[squirrelicus]

I've heard, mostly from libertarian small government types, that I should fear government tracking. I'm not sure exactly why. I'm already tracked by IP and cell towers and using my credit card. And I'm not sure what the government is going to nail me with.

I'm not even making an argument about "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why should I fear the machine?" I have assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition purchased with my credit card. There's a non zero risk that the disarmament Inquisition might use my credit card to seize my property or worse. But the risk is... Quite vanishingly small. And I think it's not unreasonable to suggest the risk is vanishingly smaller for ID cards.

Additionally, I'm completely uninterested in warping our legal code around illegal immigrants. They are irrelevant to the conversation. We make laws for the benefit of citizens. Not the other 95% of the globe that aren't American citizens.

I'm additionally not sure how giving, let's say black trans women, a free national ID card and requiring her to show it for purchasing cigs, alcohol, driving and voting is a problem. It's non-onerous.

[salawat]

The reason this hasn't been done is that historically it was taken as a given that the Federal Government were the last people you wanted to do something like that.

The U.S. is a union of States each with different cultures, attitudes, histories, and needs. It was recognized early on that A STRONG Federal government given responsibility to do ANYTHING at a nationwide scale would quickly rustle jimmies as people would begin to feel more and moredisenfranchised by having institutions forced upon them by people who didn't live there.

Common sense thus dictated the country be run from the bottom up. Delegating only certain unquestionable authority to the Federal Government so as to provide a framework for settling disputes between States, and leaving States to handle their own affairs.

It seems to have become more in vogue for issues to end up bubbling straight to the National Congress without passing through a State first.

Nowadays with mainstream media gushing to its various audiences the National Congress seems to have taken center stage, but there is also increased unrest by those uninterested in having their State's ability to run itself as it will usurped by the Federal.

[squirrelicus]

Right. If I had a tenth the hubris that 20th century authoritarian leaders of the USA had when they decided article 1 section 8 and the 14th amendmemt granted the federal government unlimited power (in spite of the 10th amendment), I would ignore this point. But it's always a valid one.

Pragmatically I'm not suggesting an expansion of federal power, since it already de facto has national identification power for both criminal purposes and entitlements in addition to statues regulating elections. This being said, I would support an amendment to make a tiny expansion to the census provision to support a federal indentification system because I believe the benefits far out weigh the costs.

[lotu]

I federal id card is a political non-starter in the US because of a a bunch of reasons. First the federal government currently lacks infrastructure to issue IDs effectively. The states handle drivers licenses at DMV which handle a lot of stuff besides just issuing IDs, building separate federal systems would be a large undertaking.

The REAL ID act which was an attempt to create a federal ID managed by the states was passed in 2005 by is still not implemented because many states simply refuse to comply with the law some have even passed laws that prevent the state from complying with the law. The federal government lacks a way to force a majority of the sates to comply with it's will (see marijuana laws). And states don't want a federal id.

[squirrelicus]

I'd like to understand why, but "infrastructure doesn't exist" isn't a reason to not create it. Maybe the argument is that Congress can't do it because people wouldn't reelect representatives that make it harder to pretend they're "off the grid", as if they already were, which they're not.

In any case, I'd like to hear arguments against it besides monetary cost, but so far all I've been exposed to is fringe right wingers whining about the gubment and lefties feeling like reminding us that Jim Crow et al was a thing and they totally promise that's not a red herring.

[TheCoelacanth]

If such a card existed, it would be reasonable to require it for voting, however, there is no such card, so that is irrelevant until such time as one is created and rolled out to the entire country.

[squirrelicus]

I agree. I think we should make it.