glass houses

[handworn]

Recent legislation requiring photo IDs to vote seems to be a talking point (a term I hate because I think it helps legitimize "snapshot arguments," but will obviously use sometimes) among my Democratic friends recently

Comments

[silme]

Indeed. McDonald's is extremely expensive, particularly if you're feeding a family. I've never known really poor people in the US who've dined there. Poor college students, maybe, but that's not necessarily the same thing as really poor people.

I find the whole debate interesting because there really isn't much voter fraud in the US. Why on earth are photo IDs even necessary for voting there, asks she who'll be voting soon in the upcoming US elections via postal ballot. I won't be showing a photo to anyone, but then I vote out of Colorado, which rejected such a law this past spring.

And here in Britain, you don't need any sort of ID to vote and even the current Conservative government doesn't thinks it's necessary. You don't need even need ID to register to vote here. All you do is add your name to the electoral register which is mailed out annually to every single residence in the country and that's it. (If you miss that, you just go to your local council office and say you want to be added. They don't ask for ID.) Now, if you're not eligible, as in you're not a British citizen (EU citizens who aren't British citizens may vote in some British elections; Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK may vote in all elections), you're too young etc., then you won't be added to the electoral roll. Otherwise, though, that's iot -- you're registered.

But then we still use paper ballots... ;)

[handworn]

My point isn't about the supposed purpose of the laws-- the '04 Democrats I mentioned were no doubt likewise not mentioning their real purpose in their court filings challenging the signatures submitted for getting Nader on the ballot-- but about the low cost and high benefit to poor people of getting photo IDs.

I would assume you have dual citizenship?

[silme]

Yes, I have dual citizenship. I have had it for years. Voting in two countries is great! :) Originally, I lost the right to vote in anything but federal elections when I sold my Boulder condo. However, Colorado changed their laws last year. Ex-pat Americans voting out of Colorado (last legal US residence) may now vote in local and federal elections from that state. I do spend some time researching the local issues, candidates etc. I voted in Colorado's June primary.

It would be lovely if costs were lowered so that poor people in the US could have photos IDs. It would be lovely if the US had socialised medicine also. Oh well. ')

[handworn]

Well, as I pointed out above, it doesn't cost much. The main obstacle is getting someone to push to do it-- to ramrod the application for the birth certificate, if need be (and it's not widely known that it's not necessary in Pa.) and get the person to the correct place for the photo to be taken. I'm quite serious about most poor people around me being able to afford a $13.50 photo ID (and I find it incredibly ironic that it's half the cost burden of a bluer state like Massachusetts). At the poverty level of $23,050, it represents .0006 of annual income.

[silme]

And when they're below that income? A photo ID doesn't cost that much to you, but you appear to have quite a bit of money from how you speak -- well above that US$ 23K level.

But even if it were free (you're all right with the government subsidising costs, yes?), it was revealed earlier this year that there are approximately 600,000 voters in Texas alone without photo ID. Wow. How much time and energy will it take to get them all photo IDs in time to vote?

It just feels like a waste of time and money when there really is so little voter fraud in the US -- and in PA, in particular. I can understand why someone, particularly an elderly person who's voted longer than you or I have been alive, would be angry if he or she suddenly were forced to obtain photo ID -- even if it were free.

A birth certificate, btw, is not needed in PA if you are a PA native. Now, as of five years ago, only about 21% of PA residents were from other states, a rather low percentage compared to some other states. However, it's still a good fifth of the population. What do you advise Gloria Cuttino, for example, to do?

I tell ya, dude, I don't understand the US any longer. Photo IDs for voters are all the rage, but universal health care is evil and/or unnecessary. I just don't get it. :(

[handworn]

To repeat: it's not about the cost of the thing but about what you get in return. As all expenditures of money are, it's an investment.

A fifth of Pa. voters might be from other states, but now we're talking about 11% of 20%-- slightly over 2% of the population.

If the Brennan Center is correct about percentages, the number of Texans of voting age (and, presumably, citizenship) who lack photo ID is a lot higher than 600,000, since 11% of 19 million or so would be much higher than that. Again, I repeat: this fact reflects badly mostly on the Democratic leadership, who aren't interested in fighting poverty through means that involve no political profit. As for this election, one particular election doesn't much matter in this issue; what are the chances they're going to swing one of the reddest states to blue? An extra 600,000 voters (and suggesting that you'd get more than half of them to the polls is an amazing stretch) would not have come remotely close even in the recent Presidential election which was closest, 2008, and most pollsters put Pennsylvania pretty reliably for Obama even without however many potential new Democratic voters there might be here. Focus on the issue, not on its immediate consequences.

My wife and I do have a fair amount of money, but then again, we buy garments for $3 at the local thrift store, as opposed to the mother of the neighbor kid (who prefers to hang out at our house because no one screams foul language at him here) who thinks she has to spend $80 on a shirt because she won't wear clothing other people have worn before-- and is all too typical of stories I've encountered in a decade's living among such people. When we mentioned thrift stores, in fact, we had to explain what they were to the neighbor kid.

Since this is my blog rather than yours, I can be blunt-- the Left are, ironically, a lot like religious people, not least in that they simply will not genuinely consider impermissible conclusions. The Left's analogues to "God does not exist" or "the Bible isn't to be taken literally" are, perhaps, "intelligence is mainly genetic" and "poverty is quite frequently the result of what's in poor people's heads." Which is why I say the Left is essentially a religion that lacks an anthropomorphized deity. As between right-wing organized morality in government and left-wing organized morality in government, there isn't much to choose.

[silme]

Whoa. "Living among such people"? Wow. That's a mouthful.

[handworn]

Q.E.D.

[silme]

And universal health care doesn't cost much neither, to be honest. The percentage of funds spent on health care in the UK is far lower than in the US; the latter country tops the league tables. So, sure -- get everybody IDs as long as they all have socialised medicine in addition. I'll hand you that compromise.

[handworn]

How is that a compromise?

[silme]

You get your precious photo IDs that you seem to think are necessary to human life, and everyone in the US gets health care in order to maintain that human life.

Personally, I feel that health care is far more important to human life than photo IDs, but if you insist on photo IDs... ;)

[handworn]

Photo IDs are necessary because they're necessary, not because I want them to be. All those uses that I listed were no doing of mine, and so it's not any genuine kind of compromise. To be honest, your attitude is mysterious to me; you don't want poor people to be able to take care of themselves?

[silme]

Yes, some people do benefit from having photo IDs. However, many of the people involved in the case against photo IDs haven't had them and haven't needed them until now -- to vote. That's it. Most of the pensioners involved will have no need of them except for this one so-called 'benefit'.

I think you misunderstand me. Once Americans have universal health care, then poor people will be able to take care of themselves and be healthy. They will be able to see doctors when they are ill. However, poor people cannot take care of themselves automatically the minute they have photo IDs in hand. Also, having photo IDs will not mean they can take care of themselves without any state assistance from that day forward. Your thinking seems rather simplistic and a bit black/white.

Please note that I was one of many people in the UK opposed to national identity cards and was thrilled when the previous government finally discarded that idea.

Alas, I have far too many essays to mark. I've been sneaking on-line for marking breaks, but I can't afford more time doing so today. I wish you well.

[handworn]

Most of the pensioners involved will have no need of them except for this one so-called 'benefit'

...because the government will take care of their other needs? There's a word for that kind of government. You're wrong-- it's not just some people who benefit from having photo IDs. All people do, unless they're hermits. True, they haven't needed them to vote until now, and I'm not saying these laws requiring them are a great idea, or genuinely necessary. And I am very far from saying that they're a panacea. But they are, yes, so useful that the Left is genuinely guilty the way I said.

Once Americans have universal health care, then poor people will be able to take care of themselves and be healthy.

And you call my thinking simplistic and black/white?