CanucksCorner.com Forums

Cornuck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 9:52 am Keep in mind that some states may accept a gun registration as ID, but not accept a student ID.

By definition, commie pinko states that don’t have constitutional carry.

Joking aside, Rats’ point is correct — though to be fair some US universities are state agencies.

Plus, I can’t think of another major institution which contains so many people who are (1) foreign nationals and (2) not residents of the state where the id was issued. (Residency in most cases being defined as including an intent to remain). Though to be fair to this critique, states with photo id laws use those photos for identification at the polls, not for proof of eligibility. Eligibility is determined through the registration process with whatever materials the state requires.

Yeah - I get all that - and for most part, it's something that could easily be fixed if anyone wanted to do it.

But still, the actual occurrence of voter fraud is so low that it is not a concern. Non-Citizens don't risk voting because there are real consequences.

Whereas vote suppression and other tricks used are by far the greatest threats to open elections.

donlever wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 6:39 am Gonna be tough for the "ID less" NY group 5th notates to get the cheap food which is kind of the point of the cheap food no.

and this is the irony of the situation. The folks saying no to voter ID are the ones asking for ID from grocery shoppers. Shoppers of the economic demographic these politicians say are disenfranchised from voting by ID requirements for the polls.

IT'S TOO HARD

IT'S NOT FAIR

kindergarten

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 9:16 am

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 7:35 am So why not enable them to vote? Especially since it does nothing to harm election integrity. Why does everyone have such a hard-on for photo ID which has virtually no benefit?

Let me ask you this -- if you were mistaken about your premises -- if voter id enhanced election integrity and had a net benefit, would you change your position? If not, why not?

(Fyi I restored my quoted text above)

How does one measure the net benefit? Are illegal votes more or less important to deal with than suppressed votes?

For sure if there's widespread voter impersonation and voter ID fixes that, then that safeguard needs to be put in place even if there are negatives to that. As with many things there's a trade-off.

Does that answer your question?

rats19 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 8:08 am

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 7:04 am

rats19 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 3:10 am Are these the votes that would cancel out a hard working tax paying I D voters vote… are these the voters you want voting?

Topper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 4:14 am If someone is too stupid to get on the voters list, do you really want them participating?

These are the attitudes that help marginalise these groups and underpinned voter suppression for many decades. Do you really think your intelligence or your hard work makes your vote more important?

I do… in a lot of cases yes I think voting is a right of privilege earned through following the rules laid out .

If the "rules laid out" included a literacy test, would you be in favour of that?

Topper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 5:44 pm

donlever wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 6:39 am Gonna be tough for the "ID less" NY group 5th notates to get the cheap food which is kind of the point of the cheap food no.

and this is the irony of the situation. The folks saying no to voter ID are the ones asking for ID from grocery shoppers. Shoppers of the economic demographic these politicians say are disenfranchised from voting by ID requirements for the polls.

You can chill Topper. It's just Republican misinformation.

https://apnews.com/article/identificati ... 921272cd9f

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 9:11 am But normatively, I think citizenship in a republic or democracy carries with it a responsibility/duty to exercise the vote conscientiously. To familiarize yourself with a candidate's positions and also to try and understand how those positions will manifest (or have manifested) into public policy and ultimately impacted the common good (or the thing you are hoping to further with your vote). Would you agree with me that an informed voter is better than a button masher, and an informed electorate is likely to yield better results than a randomized selection of candidates?

Intelligence (the ability to process information) and industry (the drive to put in the effort) probably correlate with a more informed electorate. Now would I base the franchise on demonstrating intelligence or industry? Probably not ...

I'm glad you said that UW. Not sure where you were going there.

Certainly an informed and conscientious electorate would be ideal, utopian even, but we are a far cry from that aren't we? Why are certain states/districts/neighborhood reliably red or blue? It seems that place of birth has a high correlation with voting preference (interestingly the same could be said for religion). These are not people who weigh these decisions and consider impact on public policy.

By law… no

It’d be good to understand what and who one is voting for though…

It shows how much they are making this up on the fly, library card type id > loyalty card > membership card

free on line application ...

end of the day

Card Carrying

Have a read of how vague the RFP is.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2026 8:10 pm No, it's not needed. Election fraud due to in-person voter impersonation is incredibly rare. There is no problem to solve.

So photo ID just ends up disenfranchising minorities and the poor. Politicians deliberately use this fake issue to get an edge in elections.

What baffles me is that so many Americans lack a valid ID.

In Sweden you can’t even get a parcel from the post office without a valid ID. Or open a bank account.
And without a bank account you cannot pay your bills. And a driver’s license is valid ID, which means that if you do not have a valid ID, you obviously don’t have a driver’s license, so you cannot drive a car.

Many places here won’t accept cash, so you have to pay with a credit/debit card or by swish, which is an app on your phone.
But you cannot get a credit/debit card without valid ID, and swish is connected to your bank account, and you cannot get a bank account without valid ID. Most public transport you either tap your card or swish thevamount asked for. They won’t accept cash, so without a valid ID you can’t even ride the bus.

I don’t see how anyone could live here without valid ID.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 10:02 pm

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 9:11 am But normatively, I think citizenship in a republic or democracy carries with it a responsibility/duty to exercise the vote conscientiously.

...

Intelligence (the ability to process information) and industry (the drive to put in the effort) probably correlate with a more informed electorate. Now would I base the franchise on demonstrating intelligence or industry? Probably not ...

I'm glad you said that UW. Not sure where you were going there.

Certainly an informed and conscientious electorate would be ideal....

Sometimes there's a purpose to hiding where you are going.

But did you figure out where I went? Where I went...

We agree that it isn't sensible policy to bar people from voting on the basis of intelligence or industriousness: though I will entertain extreme cases like advanced Alzheimer's.

We agree that a democratic electorate that has some industry and intelligence in exercising their votes will produce better results than an electorate of people who don't put any effort into the duties of citizenship (lack industry) or lack basic intelligence.

If public policy barred people from voting, I think we'd agree that is vote suppression (at least compared to an open franchise of all adult citizens).

Now to get to where I am going: Would you agree with me that preventing a person from voting (having, say, an "intelligence" or "industriousness" test) is different in kind than having voting requirements that impose some burden, but do not prevent, voting? An example of a hypothetical burden -- you have to register to vote.

Cornuck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 12:04 pm Yeah - I get all that - and for most part, it's something that could easily be fixed if anyone wanted to do it.

But still, the actual occurrence of voter fraud is so low that it is not a concern. Non-Citizens don't risk voting because there are real consequences.

Whereas vote suppression and other tricks used are by far the greatest threats to open elections.

What kind of vote suppression does not have a "real consequence?" Trying to understand what you mean by the term.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 8:41 pm (Fyi I restored my quoted text above)

How does one measure the net benefit? Are illegal votes more or less important to deal with than suppressed votes?

For sure if there's widespread voter impersonation and voter ID fixes that, then that safeguard needs to be put in place even if there are negatives to that. As with many things there's a trade-off.

Does that answer your question?

The primary reason I asked the question was to determine whether your disposition against a seemingly modest election integrity measure (have an id to vote) was based on an idealistic principle (e.g., the right to vote is so important there should be no barriers ever to its exercise) or whether that position is subject to change based on the facts (and presumably reason) because there are tradeoffs at stake. I wrote and then deleted the very question you raised -- how does one measure net benefit (I used benefit because that's the word you used), but I didn't ask that question because I thought your answer might elucidate what you meant by benefit.

And it kind of did. For you to entertain a voter integrity measure, there must be a prerequisite problem to be addressed: here, widespread voter impersonation. Absent that threshold, you have an idealism rationale for rejecting the policy. If that threshold is reached, you appear to be pragmatic -- the policy must be effective to its ends -- though your response also indicates another principles question that hints at "benefit": What's the relative "harm" of a fraudulent vote vs. a suppressed vote.

More on this later -- but I'll tell how I look at "benefit," or at least the principle goal: People eligible to vote should be able to vote, be able to mark their ballot in a manner that is countable, have it accurately counted, and not have their vote diluted by illegal votes or election administration incompetence.

In terms of a fraudulent vote vs. a suppressed vote, I don't know what you (or Corn) mean by voter suppression. It strikes me as a term people used to use for government or nongovernmental action that prevented or strongly coerced a voter from voting or voting in the manner that they would freely choose (e.g., intimidation, Tamany has to have its votes....). And that's still how I understand the term. But some people use it to describe it for the state having any requirement to vote (restrictive mail in/absentee rules; pre-registering to vote; etc.). And still others use it to describe election policies that may have the indirect effect of enabling traditional voter suppression (e.g., the secret ballot vs. a ballot traceable to the individual voter).

UWSaint wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2026 8:40 am

Cornuck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 12:04 pm Whereas vote suppression and other tricks used are by far the greatest threats to open elections.

What kind of vote suppression does not have a "real consequence?" Trying to understand what you mean by the term.

I think that by saying 'vote suppression (on a state level)...are by the greatest threats...', I'm saying there are real consequences.

Voter 'fraud' on an individual basis, does not impact elections.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2026 8:37 am Would you agree with me that preventing a person from voting (having, say, an "intelligence" or "industriousness" test) is different in kind than having voting requirements that impose some burden, but do not prevent, voting? An example of a hypothetical burden -- you have to register to vote.

See, this is another thing I don’t understand. Why register to vote? Afaik the USA is the only country that does that.

Here in Sweden, the authorities know quite well who is eligible to vote. All citizens who are at least 18 years old on the day of the election can vote in the national/regional and local elections and all immigrants with a permanent resident status, plus all EU citizens that are registered residents can vote in regional and local elections.

We always hold elections on the third Sunday of September, and the government will issue lists based on your residence status on August 31 and send to the polling stations. This means that if you move in the first weeks of September you may have the inconvenience of either going back to where you lived last month to vote or vote by mail. At the polling stations you have this book of the 1500 or so voters that are supposed to show up at your polling stations, sorted by date of birth. I’ve often volunteered to work a polling station and it’s always fun to look if there are any voters that turn 18 on the day of the election and also to see how old the oldest eligible voter is and how old the oldest voter to show up is.

Anyway, no need to register. If you are eligible you are on the list. Unless you moved in the last two weeks.
We always have elections on Sunday, as that is the day when most people do not work, which facilitates voting.
No more than 1500 voters per polling station, to avoid excessive lineups.
The polling stations are open from 08.00 to 20.00 so that even people who work on that day should be able to find the time to vote.
Before you declare that the voting has ended, you need to go to the door and look outside. Any person seen heading to the polling station should be let in and given a chance to vote, even if they're a few minutes late. But once the door is closed, it’s too late.

Regarding voter ID, we basically require it, but with two exceptions.
If a voter does not have a valid ID, but is accompanied by someone with a valid ID who is willing to sign an affidavit confirming that the voter is who they claim to be, this is accepted. The affidavit is then added to the voting records.
The other exception is if the voter without ID is known by someone working the polling station. In that case you write a comment that the voter is known and write your signature next to their name in the register.

If it should turn out the person who voted without ID was not who they claim, charges could be pressed against the person who signed the affidavit or the polling agent who confirmed the identity. Both these individuals are known, so they shouldn’t be willing to take that risk just to add one fraudulent vote.