Not a requirement in Australia, but makes it easier for the election officers to find you if you show your driver's licence or something. IIRC, one year, many years back, they mailed everyone something with their details on to show election officers to make things go faster, but it wasn't required.
Why? Does a system have to be broken to be updated or improved? Are elections uniquely immune to the opportunity for improvement over time?
So much for innocent until proven guilty.
People are dying because they're voting without ID?
Prove that what you're proposing is actually an improvement. Burden's on you for that one.
You know, I can understand the desire for "voter ID's". Actually I think the US just needs a better ID system altogether. The problem though is that you don't start by imposing ID's specifically to go voting. First you need to implement a Federal ID which is mandatory to have regardless of whether you want to vote or not and than make that ID mandatory for voting. I have always been amazed by the US and its lack of decent identification cards. Over here you have a national ID you are legally obligated to have on you when you are in public spaces (to allow the police to formally identify you). That ID is also necessary for pretty much anything related with the state (changing your address, acquiring a driver's license, passport, ...) and even whn dealing with banks that ID will be necessary. So off course it is also necessary for voting. But as everyone needs to have it anyway you don't end up disenfranchising anyone.
To many Americans, that brings forth the image of the Gestapo agent stopping people on the street and saying "Papers, please".
But "stop and frisk" policies didn't?
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard in only specifically criminal cases. The presumption of innocence doesn't even extend to civil cases, more or less general government policy.
Proof is too high a standard for this. You can't prove what will happen if you try something different, it's not logically possible. You can justify a change by what you think my happen: voter ID laws could present an additional barrier to fraud and increase people's confidence in elections, which seem to be reasonable goals. There's also the potential to speed up voting, rather than verifying someone's identity by cross-referencing information, which I think is a goal worth pursuing. You can test your hypothesis out at a smaller scale, and some states have voter ID, and the general consensus is that it had no statistically significant impact on voter turnout. None of this is proof of improvement, but it's potential improvement, which is worth consideration.
Funny how many people forget that the instant a white guy stands accused of sex crimes, but that's another conversation. You're still assuming that a crime is taking place, but you have no evidence to point to.
Nope. All you have to do is demonstrate a single election that was swayed by fraud. You can't, which is why you're bullshitting.
Ok, this one: https://www.northjersey.com/story/n...rges-paterson-nj-attorney-general/4577142001/
Ok, this one: https://www.northjersey.com/story/n...rges-paterson-nj-attorney-general/4577142001/
New Local Election Ordered in N.J. After Mail-In Voter Fraud Charges (Published 2020)
A judge ruled that the election in Paterson had been irreversibly tainted. The president has used the case to assail mail-in voting as dangerous, though election experts disagree.www.nytimes.com
So much for evidence. If the best you can lead with is an allegation, not an actual proven case of election fraud effecting the outcome, then you don't have much of a case.
But the actual allegations remain unproven. So you're still demanding I take this on faith. Sorry dude, but if that's the best you've got, your best isn't good enough.
I guess my example was too current:
www.justice.gov
If you have to go into examples that happened before I was born, then it clearly isn't a pressing concern. You lead with your best and it wasn't good enough. Take the L.I guess my example was too current:
Agema will tell you, I'll go all the way back to Lyndon Johnson if you want.Former Philadelphia Judge of Elections Convicted of Conspiring to Violate Civil Rights and Bribery
A former Judge of Elections has been convicted for his role in accepting bribes to cast fraudulent ballots and certifying false voting results during the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections in Philadelphia.
Voter id would not have prevented that crime.....I guess my example was too current:
Agema will tell you, I'll go all the way back to Lyndon Johnson if you want.Former Philadelphia Judge of Elections Convicted of Conspiring to Violate Civil Rights and Bribery
A former Judge of Elections has been convicted for his role in accepting bribes to cast fraudulent ballots and certifying false voting results during the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections in Philadelphia.
You brought up LBJ, that's what I was responding to. Also Avnger is right that voter ID wouldn't have accomplished shit. Now quit whining and take the L.
No just an extreme example of the "Well it's not a big enough problem to try and prevent" idea.
Ironically, the GA law would allow the state senate to overthrow local elections officials without evidence, which in any other case *should* get "election security" advocates in a tizzy.
