Apple Introduced Digital ID in Apple Wallet

You have to show ID to vote in my country, I thought that was the normal thing.

It is, many states in the US are abnormal in this way.

In the United States, leftists fight as hard as they can for an insecure and unverified voting process.

No party in the US seem to fight for a secure (end-to-end auditable) voting process. I've yet to hear any politician talk about anything like that, a process where no voter has to trust the system and can be still confident (assuming they understand the underlying math) their vote was counted and counted correctly.

It is true that every scheme out there (that I've read about) has some flaws. But I'd rather have NSA spending their budgets and talent working on this kind of stuff, than spying on citizens or whatever they do.

The current discourse is all about identification during registration vs when voting. Which is meaningful but feels like avoiding the actual issue, as it is still not really secure either way.

Very very few people actually fundamentally disagree with the core idea of identification to vote.

The problem is the act of getting the ID itself. In most (all?) states getting an ID is not free, takes time, and if you lost everything will require jumping through a lot of hoops.

If getting an ID was actually simple, free, and not time consuming than we could have a genuine discussion about ID requirements. But until that point it is very thinly veiled classism and racism.

Also the numbers just simply don't back up this being a serious issue to begin with.

TLDR: Fix the fundamental issues with having identification in the first place and we can talk.

The reason is nobody trusts a single party to implement that honestly.

Last time I checked, Party X only cared about Party Y’s voters who are voting illegally. They’re perfectly fine with their voters doing it.

Technology is a tool against corruption not a cure for it.

In the United States, getting an ID is expensive and time-consuming and is often inaccessible to many people, particularly those who don’t speak English, are poor, or work service jobs. These people are the same people who are historically marginalized and oppressed. This is why voter ID laws in the United States are fundamentally anti-democratic and disenfranchising.

If IDs were free and incredibly easy to get, I wouldn’t care about a voter ID law.

I hear this a lot, can you give me any examples of how these IDs are inaccessible? Can you please give concrete examples of what is asked for that feels onerous, or any specific cases where people aren't able to get IDs?

For example, I know that Maryland DMV will even offer a translator to help you with your driving test. I'm not sure why, because all signs are in English.

I have seen exactly the opposite, that at least in Maryland and bigger states, they go out of their way to make things convenient.

We don't have a national ID here in the US. Passports can be quite expensive. Local state ID cards don't prove citizenship.

> Passports can be quite expensive.

It's $165 per 10 years if you don't lose it or $65 if you just need in place of national ID (i.e. no international travel). I think anyone can save up that much in 10 years, renewals a bit cheaper btw.

> Local state ID cards don't prove citizenship.

No, but to get a Real ID in any state you have to prove you're in the country legally, and in some states to get any form of ID you have to prove that.

Sure, but that's the point of an end-to-end auditable system so you don't have to trust whoever implements it. The whole idea is that no crooks can make math work any differently than it does.

How do they buy alcohol?

> In the United States, getting an ID is expensive and time-consuming and is often inaccessible to many people, particularly those who don’t speak English, are poor, or work service jobs.

No to all of that? Passport book (which you don't need unless you travel internationally) cost 165 USD per 10 years.

Time-consuming...it's a one short trip to local-ish post office (not every post office has passport services). Sure, it's appointment only and only M-F, but you need to do it once every 10 years.

Non-English speakers... You have to pass a basic English test for naturalization, and if you're born here, you probably should speak at least basic English. It's one form as you have to fill out online.

Objectively, it's easier for a service worker to get shit done during the workweek than for 9-5 salaried.

Anyway, California got it right: applied for Real ID? Want to register to vote or update your registration while you're at it? And it cost like $40 (depending on state)

IDs are cheap and easy to get, and I wouldn't want a person who can't figure something that simple to have any voice on the federal level.

What Democratic policies are geared towards disenfranchising Republican voters? I don't believe there are any. Unlike Republican-enacted policies, which have been found in court to have discriminatory intent.

I don’t have a say here… but wouldn’t allowing potentially illegal votes be exactly disenfranchising the side that illegal votes do not benefit?

Allowing “potentially illegal votes” is a hypothetical. Actual disenfranchisement is not hypothetical, it is measurable.

To date, every audit, recount, signature review, and court case has found illegal voting rates so low they have no statistical impact. Meanwhile, multiple Republican-backed laws have been struck down by federal courts for intentionally or disproportionately disenfranchising specific groups of eligible voters.

So one side is dealing with documented, court-verified disenfranchisement. The other is raising a theoretical scenario that has no evidence behind it. Hypotheticals do not outweigh the real, observed effects of restrictive voting laws on lawful voters.

Leftists fight as hard as they can for an insecure and unverifiable voting system, so it's not surprising that audits, cases, etc. find little fraud. That's the entire idea, to make it difficult if not impossible to find!

This is the MAGA playbook: make an allegation, produce no evidence, then claim the lack of evidence proves the cover-up. It’s two fallacies at once.

1. Unfalsifiable claim.

2. Reversed burden of proof.

If fraud is real at meaningful scale, you show it. You don’t assume it, declare the system rigged, and treat every failed audit or court case as part of the conspiracy. That’s not analysis. It’s a closed loop designed to protect the claim from scrutiny.