[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm at a loss as to what your argument is here. ID is helpful for other things? OK. I agree.

No, you have no idea how many more people would keep their ID. Firstly, how do they recieve it? Mail? Lots will not get then as where do you mail it to? Their last known address? How many people that don't have IDs still reside at their last known address? Then you're assuming that when people get them they'll just keep them or replace them when they've lost them. Many won't. If you're allowing a separate way to vote if you've lost your ID, why wouldn't these devious double voters do that?

I already responded to this in a different post. Getting an ID to people is not a problem in Canada. You can send the ID's to general delivery at a nearby post office, to city offices, police stations, social services locations, and many other places.

Why would they not replace them when they lost them? They are useful after all.

I'm proposing that, in the event the photo IDs cannot be made on location (likely), they would issue a paper temporary ID, like when you get a drivers license.

When you present such a paper instead of your actual photo ID, you can fill out a form and vote.

This is the way it already works here. It's a pain, but generally workable.

Also, I'll grant you that double voters are very small, probably nearly nonexistent. In general though, voter Id laws, at least the American ones, are justified as making sure only citizens can vote, not as a crusade against double voters.

The decision to enact or not enact voter id laws is a dichotomy. What's the third option? The impact is on a spectrum.

Even if you're down to hundreds (which would still be in the hundred thousands in Canada, but I'll accept your numbers) is still vastly higher than the number of fraudulent votes. So it's still an awful idea. The most common voter fraud (double voting at multiple stations) wouldn't even be solved by your elaborate mail order id proposition.

You are correct that the decision to enact voter id is a dichotomy. However, you presented the impact as a dichotomy, not the decision. Because there are multiple related decision beyond implementing voter id laws, the impact can vary from massive, as it is today, to relatively minor, as it could be.

Nobody said that most poor people are lazy. Most lazy people are poor though, no? Are you suggesting that we tell them if they don't stop being lazy we take away their right to vote?

Someone did just a few pages back in this thread.

However, the idea that people won't bother getting one or signing up for social security services because it requires too much effort implies they are lazy.