@SteveBellovin @karlauerbach Indeed, this is one of the reasons a federal ID mandate (passed by Congress) isn't *obviously* possible. In general, states with voter ID mandates have to have some mechanism for eligible voters to obtain the required documents for free. If the mandate comes from the federal government, would that obligate the federal government to issue voter IDs? And how would proof of residence be handled? Etc.

But in any case, Trump can't create such a mandate, only Congress.

@SteveBellovin I am far from having expertise in the art of issuing IDs. So I do not understand when you say "Providing IDs to every voter is a really hard problem."

??

(I do remember back when Dave Kaufman and I were trying to figure out operating system access control matrices that we always seemed to back into the question of "how do we know who the actor is?" [Especially when a person or thing was acting as an agent with delegated authorities from another.])

I also keep bumping into the old national ID card issue - and the fears that a person could be "vanished" by a government agency. But then again, we seem to be moving pretty close to a national ID card with things like SecureID driver's licenses.

@aarbrk @karlauerbach This is the key point: lack of what are known as "breeder documents"; error handling is the other big point. I outline some of the issues in cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/ag…, with a more complete analysis in Section §V.C of scholar.smu.edu/scitech/vol26/…. There's a very good analysis of the ID card issue in Crawford v. Marion Count Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), especially the dissents. For a general discussion of what questions would have to be answered (in the U.S.) by anyone proposing a national ID card before the question could even be discussed intelligently, see the National Academies report "IDs Not Easy", nap.nationalacademies.org/cata… (I was on the committee). I should add: one of the things I learned while on that committee was that while the US has a pretty good national registry of deaths (the Social Security Administration's Master Death File), birth records are decentralized and are of varying quality and accuracy.

The problem falls disproportionately on certain groups: the poor, the elderly, the disabled, the homeless, etc. Quoting Justice Souter's dissent in _Crawford_: "The need to travel to a BMV branch will affect voters according to their circumstances, with the average person probably viewing it as nothing more than an inconvenience. Poor, old, and disabled voters who do not drive a car, however, may find the trip prohibitive, witness the fact that the BMV has far fewer license branches in
each county than there are voting precincts." Corruption can be a problem—in Hudson County in New Jersey, birth certificates from the county office were not accepted by the state because a scheme to issue fraudulent documents (hudsoncountyview.com/after-nea…). Malice can be an issue: Alabama closed almost half of its motor vehicles offices, mostly in poor, Black counties (aclu.org/news/voting-rights/al…), and I have exactly one guess why.

RealID doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse: you need more documents to show your identity and address (and if you're poor and unlikely to fly somewhere, you don't actually need it). I just went through this when I went to get a Maryland license after moving: how do I demonstrate that I live where I said? Proving my identity was easy, for me—I have a passport (though only about half of Americans do, and that's up sharply from not long ago; see apolloacademy.com/48-of-americ…), NY license, Social Security Card (though it's a replacement I had to get not all that long ago because I thought I'd lost mine), New York City ID card, etc. But my address? For various reasons, I wanted to get my new license very soon after I moved. I hadn't received any bank statements, credit card bills, etc., at my new address yet. Cable TV is included here, so I had no cable bill. I did have an electric bill, and I suppose I could have brought the purchase deed for my condo (though that only shows ownership, not residence). Now translate all of that to someone who's very poor or is living on the streets. Passport? Hah. Electric bill for your park bench or homeless shelter? Etc.

Yes, some of these issues can be worked around, especially in states with good will. In Massachusetts, staff at a homeless shelter can sign affidavits of residence. But a lot does depend on state politics. In Texas, you can vote with a state firearms license—but not with an ID from a public university, even though legally those are government-issued IDs. (Aside: ~20 years ago, I had a Homeland Security ID card for my service on an advisory committee. When I got to the airport the first time after received that ID, I asked the TSA agent if I could use it. "You can, but we won't like it." I took the hint and dug out my driver's license instead…)

I could go on—as you can see, this is an area where I have worked professionally. The bottom line, though, is that while it's not a problem for the majority of Americans (the issues are very different in other countries)—and that likely includes the overwhelming majority of Americans reading this post—for a significant number of people it is quite difficult.

48% of Americans Have a Passport - Apollo Academy

Forty-eight percent of Americans have a passport, up from 3% in 1989, see chart below. Source: US Department of State,...

^{Torsten Sløk (Apollo Academy)}

@Dss @SteveBellovin @aarbrk For UBI magnitude of erroneous or fraudulent overpayments will probably not break any bank. And the world will not explode if a poor or homeless person gets an extra payment. That's better than someone not getting paid at all.

So in the UBI case, erring on the side of overpaying or over-coverage is probably safe for our society. Perfection in that system is not necessary.

I have long railed against the risking tide of abandoning human-based one-person-one-vote democracy to membership in group based "stakeholder" decisionmaking. That trend rather moots the need for individual IDs and replaces it more with claims that one is a member of one (or more) enfranchised "stakeholder" groups.

That trend towards "stakeholders" who can get multiple votes because they have multiple kinds of "stake" tends to slightly anesthetize me against the risk of an individual human having multiple votes due to fake IDs.

@karlauerbach @SteveBellovin @aarbrk It's a very difficult problem. I spent a lot of yesterday arguing the details of a UBI system versus a "lowest 50% of income" model. The UBI proponent had no idea how to prevent basic issues, like the rentier economy simply increasing all rents by the UBI, causing a massive wealth transfer to the richest in society, nor whether (illegal?) immigrants, children, etc would get it, nor could answer questions about the unbanked in society. The only answer they had was "taxes".
UBI could be a total disaster for the homeless or un/poorly documented - how would they even claim? And then rents have all jumped by +$ubi, leaving them even worse off.

It's an idea that needs careful work.