|
|
|
|
|
by pmyteh
1533 days ago
|
|
Politically you may be right. As a piece of policy, it's a solution in search of a problem. Even in places like the UK (which have ID-free voting) personation is essentially a non-problem. Literally a handful of votes a year. If you want to try to influence election results you don't do it at retail, with a high chance of getting caught and low returns, you do something systematic: the present government's drive to redraw boundaries and discourage the 'wrong kind' of voters, perhaps, which will end up being legal but which is deeply scummy, or the kind of skulduggery seen in Erlam v Rahman[0]. Given that any kind of ID requirement is likely to reduce the number of votes (some proportion will lose or forget their ID even if you literally issue IDs to every single eligible person) the ultimate question is this: how many valid votes are you prepared to lose in order to prevent each invalid one? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_v_Rahman |
|
Voter ID, yeah; but lack of ID, no. My understanding is not having photo ID causes people way more problems than just difficulty voting. If you can solve a real issue through a non-issue, why not?
> Even in places like the UK (which have ID-free voting) personation is essentially a non-problem. Literally a handful of votes a year
That's not the whole problem, though. The other issue is perceptions. If people are no longer trusting and they perceive impersonation as an issue, all the assertions that impersonation isn't a problem aren't going to do any good to rebuild trust.