Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast.
Voter ID laws are back in the news once again.
Part of this litigation — and any rational debate about the issue generally — hinges on two things: costs and benefits.
The costs of these sorts of laws vary, because the laws themselves differ from state to state (some are far more burdensome than others).
The ostensible benefits, though, are all the same. And in addressing these purported benefits, the Court blew it.
First, the idea that ID laws enhance public confidence--that is, in theory, the laws might make us feel better about elections, is hard to spot.
People in states with restrictive ID laws don’t generally feel better about their elections than people in more permissive states.
People who think elections are being stolen, and people who think they’re not, each hold on to that opinion no matter what the governing ID rules in their area.
The factor that really influences whether people think the elections are fair?
Whether their preferred candidates win.
A supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was recently charged with 13 counts of election fraud, including "registering to vote in more than one place, voting where he didn't live, voting more than once in the same election, and providing false information to election officials,".
ID laws would not likely have prevented any of the alleged violations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
Voter ID laws are back in the news once again.
Part of this litigation — and any rational debate about the issue generally — hinges on two things: costs and benefits.
The costs of these sorts of laws vary, because the laws themselves differ from state to state (some are far more burdensome than others).
The ostensible benefits, though, are all the same. And in addressing these purported benefits, the Court blew it.
First, the idea that ID laws enhance public confidence--that is, in theory, the laws might make us feel better about elections, is hard to spot.
People in states with restrictive ID laws don’t generally feel better about their elections than people in more permissive states.
People who think elections are being stolen, and people who think they’re not, each hold on to that opinion no matter what the governing ID rules in their area.
The factor that really influences whether people think the elections are fair?
Whether their preferred candidates win.
A supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was recently charged with 13 counts of election fraud, including "registering to vote in more than one place, voting where he didn't live, voting more than once in the same election, and providing false information to election officials,".
ID laws would not likely have prevented any of the alleged violations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
