re: #14 Sergey Romanov

I don’t see why it wouldn’t be, except in exceptional circumstances. However, see below for a general question about this.

General skepticism isn’t an argument.

Yes, the key word is “legal”. The point is how to prove you’re legal. It should be proven somehow, no?

I’m coming from the position that the goal is every person who is has the standing to vote should be able to vote. Is that the goal for you?

If they can prove that they’re legal voters in any other way, they shouldn’t be prevented from doing so. However if they cannot prove that they’re legal voters, why should they be allowed to vote? On what basis? You’re eligible if you can prove it, not if someone cannot disprove it.

No, this is wrong. You’re eligible to vote if you’re a citizen. This has been repeatedly held up in US law. It’s never, ever illegal to vote without proving your identity, at most it just means you are marking a provisional ballot that may be discarded. It is in no way, even under the harshest and stupidest voter ID laws, illegal to vote without an ID.

So the question of proving eligibility for an ID or voting is a more general question: how does an average American prove that he is who he claims he is in any other situation requiring such proof? Suppose a person who has no ID is arrested. How does the police know who he is? Etc.

You’re not legally required to carry papers. If someone with no ID is arrested, the cops may not know who they are. You do have to prove your identity to get out of jail (if you’re actually charged with a crime), but not in it.

But again, you’re begging the question when you say ‘situations requiring such proof’. What we’re arguing is whether there should be a requirement to prove your identity when voting. You seem to be taking it as a given that you should, but that is the actual matter we’re arguing.

I don’t see it as an issue at all. All countries which require ID to vote have absentee ballots. Somehow they manage. No problem.

Your argument is continually boiling down to “It’s okay”, without actually explaining how.

As an example, I have an internal passport which is not insecure at all and always works as an identification. It wasn’t a hassle to get it first when I was 16. I guess I don’t see a problem here because I come from a different background, but I just wonder how it works out in the US, hence my question above.

Would it be a hassle to get if there had been some sort of fire, moving disaster, or other event that destroyed the documentation chain?

The problem is you seem to be making a case based on the marginal, and, to my mind, purely hypothetical situation of spite-voting, but ignoring that, even if IDs were easy and free to obtain, there’s still going to be people who are legitimate voters who happen to not have an ID. Unless you can get an ID on that very day, some people may have lost them and not be able to replace them in time.

So, for some reason, to you the marginal situation of spite-voting is important, but the marginal situation of having lost your ID isn’t. I don’t understand why.