Having a form of identification to vote.

[Coito ergo sum]

Voter ID. Many, if not most, modern Western Democracies require some form of identification for a person to vote in elections in that country. Is this something that ought not be done? If not, should the practice be discontinued? Is the practice o.k. in some countries, but not in others?

What is the advantage of not requiring identification?

It has been alleged by some that requiring identification is discriminatory against minority groups. Is this true? If so, isn't it also discriminatory to require identification for any purpose, like, well, driving a car. If it is discriminatory against minorities to require them to get ID, then the entire drivers license system is itself discriminatory against minorities, and they are being unfairly kept off the roads disproportionately.

Also, identification is required to obtain alcoholic beverages and cigarettes. If ID requirements are discriminatory against minorities, then aren't they unfairly limiting the ability of minorities to drive, buy alcohol, and buy cigaretes?

The same would be true for purchasing a house, wouldn't it? Now, under federal and state regulations (in the US) folks have to have ID in order to get a mortgage or close on a home purchase. If having an ID is discriminatory, then aren't minorities being disproportionately limited in their ability to secure housing?

[klr]

Yes, you should have reliable ID to vote. Most people use their driving licence. Since I don't drive myself, I have to dig up my passport every time I go to the polling booth. I don't complain about that. Voting is far too important to not have the best possible verification of your identity.

Nor do I see it as discriminatory to require proper ID when signing off any major financial transaction. Or to be able to drive. Call me a heartless bastard ...

[pErvinalia]

Well, those other examples fail the analogy in two ways: 1 - they are no were near as universal or important for the functioning of society as the right to vote easily; and 2 - In the case of mortgages (and to a much lesser extent cars), they are things that are a greater expense - with the expense being more of an impediment than the licensing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, those other examples fail the analogy in two ways: 1 - they are no were near as universal or important for the functioning of society as the right to vote easily; and 2 - In the case of mortgages (and to a much lesser extent cars), they are things that are a greater expense - with the expense being more of an impediment than the licensing.

So, are you saying that the countries that require identification to vote ought to discontinue that practice?

[pErvinalia]

Regarding the need for id to vote, I can see the reason for wanting it. Does that outweigh the disadvantages to certain segments of society? I don't really know. But looking at it from a practical point of view, trying to rort an election result in a system of voting without ID (but requirement to proffer a name that is on the voting register - as is the case here in Australia) would seem pretty hard to do. You would need to know the names of people on the voting roll (admittedly which possibly is publicly available). but you would also need to get in early and vote multiple times without being noticed and before the voter whose name you are voting on votes first. Actually, this particular comment is probably more relevant in a system like Australia with compulsory voting. That is, the whole voting roll is usually ticked off on election day. In the US and other places without compulsory voting, then there would remain a potentially large number of names without a vote cast, meaning it would be easier to rort the system.

[MrJonno]

No id at all is required in the UK through you have to give your address and if someone has already voted under that name/address you can't vote.

ID no problems as long as

a) its relatively easy to obtain, ie a 10 minute walk /15 minute bus/car ride and can be obtained with long opening hours. To get a bank account these days in the UK is a nightmare if you don't have a passport/drive which is a lot of people

b) is free (ie paid for by taxes).

[Rum]

Here you have to register and they send you are card which you take along.

What's to stop double voting, voting by non-nationals and such if you don't? The argument about discrimination don't really hold in my view and you aren't comparing like with like when talking about proof of age and such.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The voter exclusion laws would require specific types of id. After that, you just make it hard for the "wrong kind of person" to get them. Apparently innocuous legislation piles up to produce an electorate of the "right kind of voters". Motor-voter laws are being subverted.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, there have been examples here in the US of dead people voting. So, it seems that at least an ID requirement would require that anyone who registered a cemetery full of dead people, and then who organizes some lackeys to go in and vote the dead person's names by falsely attesting to their identity, would have to present some form of ID.

The most notable example of this in the US is the election of 1960 about which the Chicago Tribune wrote that "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory." There was an investigation in Illinois and they found lots of voter fraud.

Now - would the voter ID requirement stop that? It depends. It would stop people from being able to come in, identify themselves as a dead person by declaration, and then vote in the dead person's name. It would not stop behind the scenes ballot box stuffing. So, it would depend on how the fraud was perpetrated as to whether the ID would remedy it.

However, what I don't see is a reason not to have an ID requirement. To say that the ID requirement is discriminatory against minorities in voting, but not discriminatory in housing/finance or driving, or employment, etc. (employment is another area -- in the US every US employee has to prove they are eligible to work in the US by I-9 procedures) I can't see how government ordered discrimination is o.k. in terms of buying house and getting a job, but it's not o.k. in voting. The reality is, to me, that it isn't discriminatory in any of those instances, and that blacks, women and hispanics are all perfectly capable of trotting down to the DMV or the County Offices and getting themselves an ID, or they can easily apply for a passport, etc.

Also, it doesn't have to just be one form of ID. We could have a bunch of options, like the I-9 employment eligibility verification procedure, where we could have options other than a drivers license or a passport.

[MiM]

Obviously it depends on the country/society. In places where id:s are not as common as here, or might even be hard get,it clearly would be wrong to demand it. There the dipping of a finger in ink is a much better way, even though it identifies who has voted and who has not.

[Coito ergo sum]

Here you have to register and they send you are card which you take along.

What's to stop double voting, voting by non-nationals and such if you don't? The argument about discrimination don't really hold in my view and you aren't comparing like with like when talking about proof of age and such.

I think it is a like-with-like comparison, and let me tell you why.

The reason offered for getting an ID being discriminatory against minorities is that it is for some reason "harder" for minorities to get these IDs. Let's assume that it is harder. That would mean that fewer minorities would get the necessary ID, and therefore eligible voters can't vote because of the added difficulty they have in getting the required ID.

The same would, necessarily, be true about driving a car. If it's harder for them to get an ID(drivers license) then it is harder for them to get the ID. It doesn't become "no harder than for anyone else" just because they need the ID for a purpose other than voting. That means that if the discrmination allegation is true, then minorities are being discrminated against in their ability to legally drive a car. Under the equal protection principles in the US, it would be unconstitutional for a state or federal law to invidiously discriminate against minorities in that way.

[Svartalf]

Technically, vote specific ID is not necessary... I know for fact that my voter's card's only real use is to supplement the fact that voters in the registy are not arranged by alphabetical order... the polling station has a copy of the register, and can verify my identity just from the data on my ID card (which I have to show anyway), and I have to sign the register before they'll let me cast vote, which prevents multiple voting.

However, reliable ways to identify voters are needed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, there have been examples here in the US of dead people voting.

34 cases in the last forty years. The need is dire.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In Missouri you get a card in the mail. That's all you need to vote. You don't need it if you have picture ID from the state.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, there have been examples here in the US of dead people voting.

34 cases in the last forty years. The need is dire.

Well, it tipped the scales in 1960, apparently (which, granted, is more than 40 years ago).

And, I'd like to see your source.