I found this over at The Heathen Republican’s blog:
“Arguments that hinge on efficacy, when the real question is over values, are doomed to fail… Debunking the myth of voter fraud doesn’t address the normative point that we ought to protect the integrity of the vote, regardless of whether fraud is likely. At best, liberals offer information that challenges the notion of widespread voter fraud. But that’s not enough… If conservatives could prove that voter fraud was real, then the impetus for voter ID becomes even stronger.”
-Jamelle Bouie, 30-Jul-12
Let’s write this argument out explicitly:
Premise 1: We have a moral obligation to act to protect the integrity of the vote.
Premise 2: The integrity of the vote is in danger whether or not fraud is likely.
Conclusion 1: We have a moral obligation to act to protect the integrity of the vote even when fraud is unlikely.
Premise 3: The best way to protect the integrity of the vote is to establish stricter voter ID laws.
Conclusion 2: We have a moral obligation to establish stricter voter ID laws even when fraud is unlikely.
The First Problem: Premise 2
If fraud has not been a problem and is not likely to be a problem, then one must ask what threatens the integrity of the vote such that we must act to save it. Without a reason to be concerned, there is no reason to act.
Perhaps conservatives believe that any fraud at all threatens the integrity of the vote, such that we must not suffer even one case of fraud. However, that implies that we must make the laws so strict that voter fraud is impossible. The point at which voter fraud becomes impossible is most likely the point at which we all must have identity chips embedded in our bodies, undergo eye scans, etc. I hope that conservatives are therefore willing to forgo their privacy concerns and spend even more money in the defense of the vote’s integrity. After all, we cannot put a price on freedom or justice.
Of course, that is absurd. To solve the problem of voter fraud in that way would be to create more and greater problems, which makes us worse off. According to liberals, however, that is precisely what new voter ID laws do. If they (1) have little effect on fraud because there barely is any and (2) make it more difficult for legitimate voters to vote, then they make our problems worse. The question is not: Should we eliminate fraud? The question is: What price are we willing to pay to eliminate fraud? This is basic cost-benefit analysis. Liberals reject the law because they perceive that the cost is high and the benefits are low. In that case, conservatives have two options: (1) state openly that reducing already negligible fraud is more important than the legitimate votes that will be lost or (2) argue that we will not lose legitimate votes.
But perhaps conservatives are more concerned about the appearance of fraud. That is a legitimate concern, but it cannot be solved by voter ID laws. Suspicion will persist because it is based on distrust of others (particularly liberals) rather than legitimate evidence of fraud. Moreover, voter ID laws address only one type of electoral fraud, so the appearance of corruption will remain.
The Second Problem: Premise 3
Liberals and conservatives ought to be able to acknowledge each other’s concerns and reach a mutually beneficial compromise. If conservatives want to eliminate fraud or the appearance thereof while liberals want to make sure that legitimate voters will still vote, then they should work together to develop laws that do both. The two concerns are not mutually exclusive. New voter ID laws must be accompanied by strong efforts to make sure that those who would face difficulty in getting their IDs would still get them.
If conservatives dismiss liberals’ concerns, then it is unreasonable for them to expect liberals to acknowledge theirs. However, even if conservatives do acknowledge liberals’ concerns, it is still unreasonable to expect liberal support until they offer a compelling reason to change the law. In this case, fraud is a compelling reason. An appeal to some sense of integrity that is divorced from the real world is not.
I think you’ve unintentionally fallen into the same trap as liberals in general: You are debating fraud. My points on Voter ID are never based on fraud; instead I argue that the integrity of the vote is dependent on simply correctly identifying voters.
One reason I pulled the quote from Bouie is that he is on the left. I don’t know if you read his entire article, but he offers liberals another way to argue against voter ID, but expressly rejects the fraud argument as a tactic. His reason is that if the left’s argument hinges on fraud and the right is able to demonstrate considerable fraud (perhaps in some future election), the entire basis for the left’s opposition is eliminated.
Anyway, I find voter ID to be axiomatic. We live in a democratic republic. One person one vote. To ensure the integrity of one person one vote, we must know who votes, which requires proper identification. I don’t care if there is zero fraud today. Photo ID to vote is not an unreasonable requirement to maintain the basic integrity of our republic.
You are debating fraud.
I am debating the need for stricter laws in the absence of a reason for them:
“If fraud has not been a problem and is not likely to be a problem, then one must ask what threatens the integrity of the vote such that we must act to save it. Without a reason to be concerned, there is no reason to act.”
If there is no fraud, then the system’s integrity is not in danger. Therefore, developing and implementing stricter laws is a waste of time. If those laws also make voting more difficult for some people, then they are actually harmful instead of just a waste of time.
The system’s integrity is not divorced from the prevalence of fraud. If we based it entirely on the possibility of fraud, then we would end up in the reductio ad absurdum case of microchips and eye scanners that I presented.
His reason is that if the left’s argument hinges on fraud and the right is able to demonstrate considerable fraud (perhaps in some future election), the entire basis for the left’s opposition is eliminated.
The Left has two reasons to oppose stricter voter ID laws:
1.) If there is no fraud, then there is no need for new laws.
2.) Stricter laws make legitimate voting more difficult.
When the Right can demonstrate considerable fraud, then the Left will have a compelling reason to consider stricter voter ID laws.
When the Right is also willing to work with the Left to make sure that stricter laws do not make legitimate voting more difficult, then the Left will have a compelling reason to vote in favor of stricter voter ID laws.
Why should the Left oppose stricter voter ID laws if the Right satisfies both conditions?
To ensure the integrity of one person one vote, we must know who votes, which requires proper identification.
A violation of “one person, one vote” is a case of fraud.
If there is no fraud, then there is no violation of “one person, one vote.”
If we have not discovered cases of fraud, then we have not discovered violations of “one person, one vote.”
To claim that we must nevertheless make the laws stricter is to claim either that (1) there is or is likely to be fraud or (2) we cannot know if there is fraud. If you are not making either argument, then you are not offering a reason to change the law.
You have denied that your argument is based on the existence of fraud, so that leaves the second claim. Do you claim that we are unable to determine if fraud takes place in the current system? If so, then you should state it that way. If not, then I do not understand your argument.
Anyway, I have already expressed support for voter ID laws, provided that they be accompanied by measures to ensure that legitimate voters who would have a more difficult time obtaining ID would still get ID. I am not convinced that this type of fraud is prevalent, but it is a political bone that I would be willing to throw to Republicans as long as they accounted for the entirely legitimate concerns of the Left.
I can’t help but think you’re arguing not to build a fence until the horse runs away. If the horse hasn’t run away before, there’s no reason to build a fence.
For the integrity of my home and to protect the horse I just bought, I’m going to build a fence to make sure my horse stays home. It’s a protective measure. I don’t need a history of this horse or any horse running away to know that building a fence is a smart move.
In the same way, enacting voter ID laws are a protective measure for democratic elections. It’s not necessary to have a history of vote fraud and it isn’t necessary to have evidence of existing fraud. It makes sense to ask each voter to demonstrate their eligibility to vote irrespective of current or past fraud. Like building a fence before the horse runs away, it’s also a smart move.
There are a few problems with that analogy.
1.) Comparing having a fence to not having a fence suggests that we have no measures in place to stop fraud. Comparing the horse’s escape to fraud suggests that fraud is as simple as a horse running off.
2.) If the horse represents voting and we have had voting for centuries, then we must have had the horse for centuries. If we neither had nor needed a fence before, why do we suddenly need one now?
3.) If we perceive a need for a fence now, why stop there? Let’s go further to make sure that it is impossible for the horse to escape. That’s the goal, after all, so let’s chain him up.
4.) The horse isn’t really hurt by the fence. In contrast, it will be more difficult for some legitimate voters to vote.
The standard for determining whether or not our system has integrity is how often fraud occurs–not whether or not it is possible. Even with stricter voter ID laws, it would undoubtedly be possible. Therefore, we need to decide how many cases of fraud per election are permissible. If that number is 0, then we will either never be satisfied or end up with a system of implanted computer chips and eye scanners. If that number is 1000, then liberals would argue that we have already met that standard, so there is no need for new laws. If that number is 50, then liberals would expect some reason to prefer that number over another.
Fraud is already illegal. There are already punishments that greatly outweigh the benefits of an individual getting in an extra vote for his preferred candidate. You are suggesting that this is not enough–but what is enough? If you do not have a standard, how can you claim that existing laws are insufficient whereas your proposals are sufficient? If you do have a standard, how can you avoid the question of how much fraud takes place?
But this is not a big issue. If you want stricter voter ID laws regardless of the extent to which they actually prevent fraud, then I am willing to support you for the sake of pleasing you and other conservatives. The big issue is whether or not you acknowledge and wish to compensate for the negative consequences of such laws. If you do not, then I cannot support you.
“The big issue is whether or not you acknowledge and wish to compensate for the negative consequences of such laws. If you do not, then I cannot support you.”
I feel like I’ve just been asked for 10 years of tax returns and need to defend myself against a charge that has no merit. Of course I appreciate that there can be negative consequences to stricter voter laws. The entire point of a voter ID law is to limit who votes to only those allowed to vote, so fewer voters is a natural consequence.
I realize there are examples of people, particularly the elderly, who would not be able to vote under a simple voter ID law. I think the left ignores the basic problem of college students voting when they are out of their home state. What’s to prevent them from voting once in their college town and again when they visit mom and dad over election weekend (o mailing an absentee). I think all of these consequences can be worked out in a reasonable way and are not sufficient reason to reject voter ID laws in general.
My principle on this is simple: I want everyone who is eligible and wants to vote to be allowed to vote, and no one that shouldn’t. I don’t want to suppress Democrat votes. I want to trust the system, which, as a conservative, is hard for me to do anyway. Knowing that every vote cast on election day was backed by a photo ID would make me feel better about the election result, even if my guy doesn’t win.
Oh, and I think my horse and fence analogy was pretty good. Your rapid dismissal is based too much on reading it literally.
For example, this rebuttal “2.) If the horse represents voting and we have had voting for centuries, then we must have had the horse for centuries” was completely unconvincing. With such a rebuttal, you appear to have completely misunderstood the analogy, and I know that you didn’t.
Your rapid dismissal is based too much on reading it literally.
I simply used your analogy to point out how the horse and elections are not really comparable, which served to present my arguments in a different way. While it is reasonable to fence in an animal that probably wants to escape even though we have not seen it try, it is less reasonable to (1) ignore existing measures to prevent fraud and the lack of incentives to engage in fraud in the first place; (2) demand a sudden change in laws that appear to have served us well already; (3) try to completely eliminate fraud, which will persist; and (4) ignore the harms involved in stricter laws.
I wouldn’t call it a rapid dismissal. With four separate and significant points, I clearly put some thought into it. However, your analogy did serve to present your basic point: just as you would be uneasy about a free-roaming horse, you are uneasy about elections without these stricter laws. So, I proceeded to question this uneasiness and the value of new laws outside the context of the analogy.
I think all of these consequences can be worked out in a reasonable way and are not sufficient reason to reject voter ID laws in general.
Then, if you want liberals to agree with you, I suggest that you explicitly acknowledge these consequences and ways to avoid them. They want to know that their concerns are understood and taken seriously. To them, it seems like conservatives are ignoring their obvious concerns, so they immediately assume that conservatives have nefarious motives like the desire to suppress Democrat votes. Assumptions like that are standard for either side when it perceives that it is ignored.
I want to trust the system, which, as a conservative, is hard for me to do anyway.
I’m curious to hear your own reasons for this.