> As a sidenote, where I live in New York I also don’t have to show ID to vote, although you do have to show it when you register. And I’ve always found that a bit weird. There are arguments about people who don’t have IDs and how they might be disenfranchised - but surely this is an argument to make it easier to get an ID rather than an argument against IDs for voting?
Yes, well, that's exactly the problem, is historically state governments in America intentionally made it harder for people to get IDs explicitly to prevent them from voting. In particular this was used to enforce Apartheid, which is why Fascists want to bring it back under the veneer of it being normal and uncontroversial. Rather than trust the government to be responsible with this power Americans have pretty strongly built a consensus in favor of depriving the government of it entirely.
Americans, particularly on the left, just don't trust their government to make IDs easy to get, especially if they have something to gain from denying you one.
I don't doubt your first sentence is true. But your second refers to a system used in South Africa, not the USA. The third implies there is a strong consensus in the USA against voter ID, which in terms of current law and polling is pretty clearly not true.
Requiring ID to vote simply isn't necessary. There are systems that are more secure and don't offer bad actors methods of disenfranchisement, such as we use here in Australia. For that reason it shouldn't be considered normal and uncontroversial.
Great post, thank you! Re “arguments as soldiers,” are you familiar with Julia Galef’s “The Scout Mindset”? She opens with a similar metaphor and argues for using your thoughts as scouts, not soldiers (hence the title).
This is the first thing I've read from you, and I thought it was absolutely fantastic. I'm looking forward to looking into some of your previous writings.
Was literally just thinking about this after watching an online argument. The goal is never to change someone's mind or to make a compelling argument for anyone who is watching but to shame people off of the platform.
Here in Illinois they will ask you if you want to register to vote when you are at the SOS (DMV to you folks), but to get to that point you've had to do everything except give DNA to prove your identity. That said, you can also register online.
We do not require ID when you vote. I say "we" because I sometimes work as an election judge. You give your name and address, you sign a little affidavit saying you aren't committing voter fraud, and then the election judge (read: poll worker) compares the signed affidavit against the digital one stored in the system from when you registered to vote. It's pretty remarkable the extent to which even someone who just does a dumb scribble for their signature has basically the same scribble each time.
I always tell people that nothing will ever convince you that large-scale voter fraud would be incredibly difficult to pull off like working a single election day as a poll worker.
It's not a terrible comic, but he should have increased the price to $1/per cup.
That at the end was a rookie mistake by Haus. I learned my first day on Twitter that you don't fuck with Armand. He and I frequently disagree, but he's one of the good guys.
I don't vote anymore because I live in CA and now have things to do with my time, but I think I had to present ID the first time I registered, and then never again. I've moved a few times and I changed my registration through USPS (it was part of changing address) as I recall, but never had to prove identity. Never presented ID to vote.
Eh. Arguments can be soldiers but sometimes the war is about not getting cooked online. Calling your critics Nazis is probably just convenient for someone who doesn't like their critiques.
> As a sidenote, where I live in New York I also don’t have to show ID to vote, although you do have to show it when you register. And I’ve always found that a bit weird. There are arguments about people who don’t have IDs and how they might be disenfranchised - but surely this is an argument to make it easier to get an ID rather than an argument against IDs for voting?
Yes, well, that's exactly the problem, is historically state governments in America intentionally made it harder for people to get IDs explicitly to prevent them from voting. In particular this was used to enforce Apartheid, which is why Fascists want to bring it back under the veneer of it being normal and uncontroversial. Rather than trust the government to be responsible with this power Americans have pretty strongly built a consensus in favor of depriving the government of it entirely.
Americans, particularly on the left, just don't trust their government to make IDs easy to get, especially if they have something to gain from denying you one.
I don't doubt your first sentence is true. But your second refers to a system used in South Africa, not the USA. The third implies there is a strong consensus in the USA against voter ID, which in terms of current law and polling is pretty clearly not true.
Requiring ID to vote simply isn't necessary. There are systems that are more secure and don't offer bad actors methods of disenfranchisement, such as we use here in Australia. For that reason it shouldn't be considered normal and uncontroversial.
Great post, thank you! Re “arguments as soldiers,” are you familiar with Julia Galef’s “The Scout Mindset”? She opens with a similar metaphor and argues for using your thoughts as scouts, not soldiers (hence the title).
Yep, big fan of the book. Did a podcast with her a few years back:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-scout-mindset-ft-julia-galef/id1390384827?i=1000523003248
This is the first thing I've read from you, and I thought it was absolutely fantastic. I'm looking forward to looking into some of your previous writings.
Thanks for the kind words Cameron! Let me know if there's anything in particular you're interested in online, I may have written about it.
Was literally just thinking about this after watching an online argument. The goal is never to change someone's mind or to make a compelling argument for anyone who is watching but to shame people off of the platform.
Here in Illinois they will ask you if you want to register to vote when you are at the SOS (DMV to you folks), but to get to that point you've had to do everything except give DNA to prove your identity. That said, you can also register online.
We do not require ID when you vote. I say "we" because I sometimes work as an election judge. You give your name and address, you sign a little affidavit saying you aren't committing voter fraud, and then the election judge (read: poll worker) compares the signed affidavit against the digital one stored in the system from when you registered to vote. It's pretty remarkable the extent to which even someone who just does a dumb scribble for their signature has basically the same scribble each time.
I always tell people that nothing will ever convince you that large-scale voter fraud would be incredibly difficult to pull off like working a single election day as a poll worker.
Wow, subscribing for this.
It's not a terrible comic, but he should have increased the price to $1/per cup.
That at the end was a rookie mistake by Haus. I learned my first day on Twitter that you don't fuck with Armand. He and I frequently disagree, but he's one of the good guys.
I don't vote anymore because I live in CA and now have things to do with my time, but I think I had to present ID the first time I registered, and then never again. I've moved a few times and I changed my registration through USPS (it was part of changing address) as I recall, but never had to prove identity. Never presented ID to vote.
Eh. Arguments can be soldiers but sometimes the war is about not getting cooked online. Calling your critics Nazis is probably just convenient for someone who doesn't like their critiques.
Have to say, I think you should probably kill yourself for writing this article.
Very astute analysis, subscribed!