So you show a map that says Pennsylvania doesn’t require any ID. Perhaps you should be aware that it requires me presenting myself to election officials and signing a book where they compare my signature to the one on file. The election officials do this for every voter. In my ward they are ethical but I could see where this system could be scammed.
Thank you for clarifying. Let’s just remove the possibility of being able to scam the system to restore peoples faith in the institution of voting. I will say I just early voted in Georgia this past weekend and I was very impressed with the process and found it to be professional here. I did need to show ID.
New Jersey has the same signature requirements. It is a form of voter ID in a sense, but not as reliable as requiring photo ID since signatures change over time. Most poll workers are reluctant to turn anybody away based on suspicious signatures. In Jersey the poll worker can ask the voter to sign again and if still suspicious, ask other poll workers. If they agree the signatures don't match, they can then ask for ID.
This is so silly. In 2024 we should not have humans reviewing signatures to vote. Lets just require IDs, hopefully in the further future I’d even support people voting at home the blockchain on some other immutable ledger. Let’s invest in the security of our elections, it does not mean we need to make it harder to vote, we could make it more secure and EASIER. Saying we need to choose between the two is a false dichotomy.
I am not a US citizen (so you might ignore my opinion) but still very in favour of federalism and local governance. As such, I am against federal laws in general, besides there is a very compelling need to legiferate. In this case, it would just be for the states to ensure that only citizens can vote. Wether it is through photo id document, fingerprint, eye recognition, voter card, whatever, that's for each individual state to decide.
You can argue that about most things, like federal smoking and drinking laws. Or the age you can drive a car. The federal government already sets minimums on these types of activities so there's consistency. I would argue some states are infringing on the basic rights of citizens to participate in free and fair elections and they should absolutely be required to implement basic common sense minimum regulations to ensure voting integrity. In a perfect world, they would do it on their own, but it does not seem we live in that world.
These votes without identification are indeed "on open door to all windows" in term of frauds, that's why in this case there is a compelling case for a federal minimal bar, agree.
If no one is in favor of voter fraud then why are dozens of states unwilling to implement basic common sense regulations to prevent it from happening? I agree that in the past that Gerry Mandering and limiting polling stations etc, have inhibited peoples ability to vote and disenfranchised voters. I oppose those measures as well.
Voting should be Secure, Easy, and Fast. In that order.
I do not necessarily disagree with you however, why is it that the states that require voter ID'S are the states with lax gun laws? Conversely, why is it that the states that don't require voter ID'S are the states with stricter gun laws? Obviously, some states think guns are more important than voting and some states think voting is more important than guns. Given that the incidence of voter fraud is miniscule, which states have their priorities aligned with the common good?
I fail to see the correlating between voting laws have to do with gun laws. This shouldn't be a tribal Red/Blue issue. Voting integrity should be bipartisan. The fact we are debating the merits and benefits of secure elections to stick it to the other side is a huge part of the problem.
We can debate gun laws separately. Here's an essay on I wrote on that topic if you'd like to check it out.
I’ve received numerous DMs asking about my stance on mail in votes. Here’s what I think. In most places it takes 5 to minutes to vote, and it should everywhere where it doesn’t. Unless you’re in the military stationed abroad, or you’re physically disabled, you should be required to vote in person and show an ID. Early voting is fine, but it should be done in person. There is zero excuse to have Americans faith in elections undermined. Leave the house to vote if you’re physically able. No more complaining tribal politics BS, common sense must once again reign in America.
So you show a map that says Pennsylvania doesn’t require any ID. Perhaps you should be aware that it requires me presenting myself to election officials and signing a book where they compare my signature to the one on file. The election officials do this for every voter. In my ward they are ethical but I could see where this system could be scammed.
Thank you for clarifying. Let’s just remove the possibility of being able to scam the system to restore peoples faith in the institution of voting. I will say I just early voted in Georgia this past weekend and I was very impressed with the process and found it to be professional here. I did need to show ID.
New Jersey has the same signature requirements. It is a form of voter ID in a sense, but not as reliable as requiring photo ID since signatures change over time. Most poll workers are reluctant to turn anybody away based on suspicious signatures. In Jersey the poll worker can ask the voter to sign again and if still suspicious, ask other poll workers. If they agree the signatures don't match, they can then ask for ID.
This is so silly. In 2024 we should not have humans reviewing signatures to vote. Lets just require IDs, hopefully in the further future I’d even support people voting at home the blockchain on some other immutable ledger. Let’s invest in the security of our elections, it does not mean we need to make it harder to vote, we could make it more secure and EASIER. Saying we need to choose between the two is a false dichotomy.
I am not a US citizen (so you might ignore my opinion) but still very in favour of federalism and local governance. As such, I am against federal laws in general, besides there is a very compelling need to legiferate. In this case, it would just be for the states to ensure that only citizens can vote. Wether it is through photo id document, fingerprint, eye recognition, voter card, whatever, that's for each individual state to decide.
You can argue that about most things, like federal smoking and drinking laws. Or the age you can drive a car. The federal government already sets minimums on these types of activities so there's consistency. I would argue some states are infringing on the basic rights of citizens to participate in free and fair elections and they should absolutely be required to implement basic common sense minimum regulations to ensure voting integrity. In a perfect world, they would do it on their own, but it does not seem we live in that world.
These votes without identification are indeed "on open door to all windows" in term of frauds, that's why in this case there is a compelling case for a federal minimal bar, agree.
Historically, voter ID requirements have been associated with illegal impediments to voter registration. That said, no one is in favor of voter fraud.
I think that a Federal voter ID law would go a long way to easing fears of both illegal voting, and deliberate voter suppression.
If no one is in favor of voter fraud then why are dozens of states unwilling to implement basic common sense regulations to prevent it from happening? I agree that in the past that Gerry Mandering and limiting polling stations etc, have inhibited peoples ability to vote and disenfranchised voters. I oppose those measures as well.
Voting should be Secure, Easy, and Fast. In that order.
I never understood why anyone would be against it. You have clarified that, as well as pointing out the absurdity of their clams. A+
Thank you Liba for reading.
Thank you Definitely Voter 🆔 w photo.
Well put...
I agree with you 100% Mr. Crystal. This is a well written and much needed article.
I do not necessarily disagree with you however, why is it that the states that require voter ID'S are the states with lax gun laws? Conversely, why is it that the states that don't require voter ID'S are the states with stricter gun laws? Obviously, some states think guns are more important than voting and some states think voting is more important than guns. Given that the incidence of voter fraud is miniscule, which states have their priorities aligned with the common good?
I fail to see the correlating between voting laws have to do with gun laws. This shouldn't be a tribal Red/Blue issue. Voting integrity should be bipartisan. The fact we are debating the merits and benefits of secure elections to stick it to the other side is a huge part of the problem.
We can debate gun laws separately. Here's an essay on I wrote on that topic if you'd like to check it out.
https://maccabeenation.substack.com/p/why-most-jews-should-buy-a-gun
I’ve received numerous DMs asking about my stance on mail in votes. Here’s what I think. In most places it takes 5 to minutes to vote, and it should everywhere where it doesn’t. Unless you’re in the military stationed abroad, or you’re physically disabled, you should be required to vote in person and show an ID. Early voting is fine, but it should be done in person. There is zero excuse to have Americans faith in elections undermined. Leave the house to vote if you’re physically able. No more complaining tribal politics BS, common sense must once again reign in America.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/29/california-outlaws-local-voter-id-rules-00181608 also denials that states are doing this. Meanwhile, here's a recent article confirming states are indeed banning voter ID