SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Daily Northwestern reports
The Illinois Senate voted 38-18 on [November 16] to override Gov. Bruce Rauner's veto of an automatic voter registration bill.
The bill [...] would automatically register voters who are seeking a new or updated license, or who are seeking other services from state departments such as Human Services or Healthcare and Family Services.
[...]The only two things a citizen should need to vote is being 18 years old and a citizen.
[...]The bill received bipartisan support when it passed through the House by a vote of 86-30 and the Senate with a vote of 42-16.
[...]To fully override Rauner's veto, the Illinois House will also have to vote to override, but it will not back in session until Nov. 29.
More information on Automatic Voter Registration can be found here.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by bradley13 on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:49PM
Seems like one half of a good solution. Why should you have to take any extra steps to be allowed to vote? If the local government knows you exist, are of legal age, and are a citizen - that's really all it should take. When you apply for just about any government document or ID, you're done.
The other half Insist on seeing some government document or ID, before allowing someone to vote, just to ensure that the person voting is (a) who they say they are, and (b) qualified to vote. I never have understood the resistance to voter-ID laws.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:23PM
The other half Insist on seeing some government document or ID, before allowing someone to vote, just to ensure that the person voting is (a) who they say they are, and (b) qualified to vote. I never have understood the resistance to voter-ID laws.
It is a simple cost/benefit analysis.
The benefit of checking ID is to prevent an election from being manipulated. But voter impersonation is the least effective way to accomplish that because it is a lot of work for each individual vote: you have to know who is registered for that specific polling station, you have to assure that they do not come out and vote and thus discover the impersonation and you have to do it one vote at a time when you typically need hundreds if not thousands of fraudulent votes to change the result for even a local race. So the benefit to the state is very limited.
However the cost of checking ID is not born by the state, it is born by the citizen. If there is some problem with your ID then your entire vote is at risk. You only get one, so losing it is a big deal to you.
Its a classic libertarian analysis - do not put an undue burden on the citizen for a nominal benefit to the state.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ilPapa on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:51PM
I can help. It's not so much because of the ID laws themselves, but that they are always a capstone to an entire suite of voter-suppression measures, such as closing DMV offices and eliminating polling places in minority neighborhoods, cancelling early voting and limiting the access of students to voting.
I have first-hand knowledge of this phenomenon. My wife and I recently moved from the Northeast to Houston, Texas. We registered as voters at our new address, but when we went to vote, we were told our Connecticut drivers' licenses would not be allowed, even though we had proof of residency in Texas, including my wife's ID as a faculty member at Rice University, our lease and mail from our bank with our new address. We were told that a University photo ID, even for faculty, was not acceptable but a Texas gun registration would be accepted. Isn't that an interesting distinction?
Fortunately, it was early enough that we could go home and get our passports, which strangely were considered acceptable, even though there is no address on a passport. If we were a working class family instead of a couple of semi-retired academics, it wouldn't have been enough to have a legal current drivers license (which is ID). It would have been enough to have a work ID (which is ID). It wouldn't have been enough to have a student ID (which is ID).
By the way, Texas didn't restrict absentee ballots in any way.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @04:22PM
I completely agree that many states make ID laws rather cumbersome, and not just for voting. Establishing residency for even tasks like getting a driver's license, car registration, etc. can often be a hassle too. (I've definitely had to go back home and get other ID stuff in at least two states to do basic stuff like that.)
However, I'm confused by a few of your statements.
We were told that a University photo ID, even for faculty, was not acceptable but a Texas gun registration would be accepted. Isn't that an interesting distinction?
I don't think that's an "interesting distinction" at all. Many if not most states make distinctions between the uses of identification issued by the government vs. ID issued by a private entity. A gun registration is presumably issued by the Texas government, and therefore presumably also carries with it some ID requirements to obtain one (see my note above about car registration, etc.). Thus, by a "transitive" property of ID, the gun registration can be trusted as satisfying the state standards (whatever they are), whereas an ID from a private institution... well how are they supposed to know what standards are used to get one? I don't know what the fact that it was a university or faculty ID or whatever should have to do with it.
Fortunately, it was early enough that we could go home and get our passports, which strangely were considered acceptable, even though there is no address on a passport. If we were a working class family instead of a couple of semi-retired academics, it wouldn't have been enough to have a legal current drivers license (which is ID).
This is where it gets strange. You got me curious, so I looked up the current list of acceptable ID in Texas [votetexas.gov]. A drivers license IS acceptable ID -- if it is issued by the state of Texas. You seem to think the ID laws are about establishing residency or something (since passports don't have address), but in this case they seem to be about establishing IDENTITY. Texas officials know what Texas driver's licenses look like and can presumably validate them. They also apparently know what Texas gun registrations look like, or US passports. They are NOT necessarily trained to know what driver's licenses from all 50 states look like (nor, presumably, what gun registrations, etc. from other states look like).
I agree with you that it's annoying and somewhat stupid that they won't accept official ID issued from other states. On the other hand, if they are strictly trying to verify your identity from a TRUSTED source, their list is consistent -- official IDs issued by the state of Texas or the federal government. We can argue about their list and whether such restrictions are necessary, but it doesn't seem as arbitrary or capricious as you seem to claim.
It would have been enough to have a work ID (which is ID). It wouldn't have been enough to have a student ID (which is ID).
Huh? I don't see a "work ID" listed on that page. And are you seriously claiming that "working class" folks can use their work IDs, but college profs can't? If that were true, I'd agree there was something fishy going on. But whatever you were told, I highly doubt that actually is official policy... and if they were accepting "work iD" at your poll, I would submit a complaint to the state elections board because they weren't following their own procedure.
As for your claims "(which is ID)" after each -- no, they are NOT ID for all purposes. They wouldn't get you on an airplane. They wouldn't serve as ID to get you a passport. They might not even be accepted as ID to get alcohol or at a bank for a transaction. In all of those cases, they may be rejected because organizations have varying standards for issuing ID, and even if Rice University had super-high identity standards before issuing ID, random people at banks or liquor stores can't be expected to recognize whether yours looks legitimate. So why exactly should they be ID for voting purposes?
Again, personally I don't think all the concern about voter fraud is warranted, and if we require voter ID, I agree it should be easy to obtain the necessary ID and there should be an option at no cost available. But specifying that the ID be issued by a state government or the federal government? That's the ONLY way these laws make any sense. Accepting your Rice University card that gets you into the faculty club (or somebody's country club card or whatever) is pointless.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:20PM
Yeah, except we weren't trying to use it to establish identity, but rather to establish residency.
Further, an ID issued by the University of Texas is also not accepted. Last time I checked, the University of Texas is run by the state.
Not at all. i'm saying, "Why wouldn't a work ID be accepted as evidence of residency?" Remember, to vote you already have to be registered. When you go to the poll, you're not trying to establish whether or not you are eligible to vote, but only whether or not you are the person who has already registered to vote.
Actually, my Connecticut drivers license would absolutely be accepted to get a passport or to buy alcohol or to board a plane or at a bank for a transaction. So why is it not accepted as ID for voting purposes? Remember, whether or not a registered voter votes is a public record, so people trying to vote in more than one place are already dead easy to catch.
Why doesn't the great State of Texas recognize the great State of Connecticut when it comes to issuing basic identification? Is this some sort of antebellum holdover or just trying to make it harder for people to vote?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:57PM
Yeah, except we weren't trying to use it to establish identity, but rather to establish residency.
False. From the page I linked:
Election officials will still be required by State law to determine whether the voter’s name on the identification provided matches the name on the official list of registered voters
No mention of address or residency. Furthermore:
10. Does the address on my ID have to match my address on the official list of registered voters at the time of voting in order for it to be acceptable as ID?
No. There is no address matching requirement.
I agree with you that it is odd that you apparently don't have to actually prove residency in Texas at any point in the process -- to register to vote, you apparently can just say you don't have Texas ID, and then apparently just show up with your passport. Nevertheless, the ID law is clearly about proving your identity (i.e., that your name matches voter rolls) rather than residency. Perhaps disallowing out-of-state licenses and IDs is one way they actually place a "check" in the system to try to verify MOST voters are residents.
Not at all. i'm saying, "Why wouldn't a work ID be accepted as evidence of residency?" Remember, to vote you already have to be registered. When you go to the poll, you're not trying to establish whether or not you are eligible to vote, but only whether or not you are the person who has already registered to vote.
Yep. And, since I have to repeat myself, how does the "Great State of Texas" know that your work ID is legit, rather than something you had printed up at Kinkos or whatever? Are the Texas poll officials supposed to know what every business in their district's IDs look like?
Why doesn't the great State of Texas recognize the great State of Connecticut when it comes to issuing basic identification? Is this some sort of antebellum holdover or just trying to make it harder for people to vote?
Please read what I wrote. Here it is again:
I agree with you that it's annoying and somewhat stupid that they won't accept official ID issued from other states.
Obviously when I was saying you can't use your ID at a bank or to get liquor I was referring to the previous quotation I had just listed from your previous post, i.e., referring to work ID and student ID. Yes, you can generally use state ID (even out of state) for such purposes, which is again why I said "it's annoying and stupid" that they won't accept it.
My point is that while there may actually be some "voter suppression" of out-of-state folks who can't be bothered to get an official Texas-issued ID (which again may be deliberate since it seems to be the only place in the process where they actually try to verify residency), your complaining about student and faculty and workplace IDs is irrational and doesn't seem to me to be very good evidence of "voter suppression." They can't be used for official ID in many other purposes, and I don't see how a voter ID law does ANYTHING useful if it accepts a bunch of random unverifiable cards with a picture on them.
(And, once again, to be clear -- I'm NOT arguing in favor of such strict voter ID laws. But if they are going to exist, your suggestion that they accept my "Athanasius Kircher's House of Bait and Tackle" work ID card for my non-existent business at the polls to verify my identity doesn't make a lot of sense. It basically loosens the ID criteria to a point that the verification step is useless.)
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:12PM
But the name on my Connecticut license is the same as the one on the official list of registered voters, so you're going to have to find some other straw man.
As I said, the ID laws themselves are not the problem so much as the suite of other voter-suppression laws that always accompany them.
Don't take it from me, ask someone who's actually passed some voter ID laws:
Georgia:
https://thinkprogress.org/georgia-state-senator-complains-that-voting-is-too-convenient-for-black-people-updated-a040b94bf160#.v5odiprc2 [thinkprogress.org]
Ohio:
https://www.thenation.com/article/ohio-gop-admits-early-voting-cutbacks-are-racially-motivated/ [thenation.com]
Florida:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/dxhtvk/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-suppressing-the-vote [cc.com]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:19PM
But the name on my Connecticut license is the same as the one on the official list of registered voters, so you're going to have to find some other straw man.
Again, I have to agree with the other poster here -- you seem to be deliberately obtuse here. I offered a number of reasons why Texas might not want to deal with accepting out-of-state licenses as official ID (viz., less familiarity of poll officials with them, more training or resources required to verify their validity -- I've been to at least one DMV where I had moved, and I noticed the clerk consulted a list of licenses from other states with photos to verify mine looked valid, or perhaps because there's not really a strong residency requirement in voter registration otherwise...), but you choose not to debate those, instead just calling this a "straw man," even though I explcitly and repeated have said I think such a policy of denying out-of-state licenses is "annoying and stupid."
Why would I be employing a "straw man" to try to speculate on the justification for a policy I don't even agree with?!? I'm just pointing out the clear and obvious criteria behind the system.
None of this changes the fact that Texas clearly has its standards for IDs (which are posted clearly at the link), and you showed up without any of the satisfactory ones. Deal with it.
As I said, the ID laws themselves are not the problem so much as the suite of other voter-suppression laws that always accompany them.
So this whole discussion was about nothing then? The voter ID laws "are not the problem"? I thought it was the fact they wouldn't take your faculty cards or student ID cards or working class "work IDs," but yet have the "interesting" feature of accepting gun registration ID?? That is a litany of groups of "liberal" voters whose votes you implied were being suppressed, while the gun-toting (presumably conservative) folks walk right through the line.
Sorry, professor, but your argumentation strategy was clear at the outset, and now you've completely changed your tune.
I should also qualify that I am definitely NOT a "conservative" by any stretch of the word (and have repeatedly noted my objection to overly restrictive laws), but I cannot stand poor argumentation. This sort of faulty logic is what gives liberals a bad name.
Anyhow, I'm done with this, but I'll leave you with a final anecdote:
Back when I was a college student, I needed to get some cash quickly one day. Although it wasn't ideal, the easiest way for me to do it was to take out a cash advance on a credit card (which I held jointly with my parents back then). I went to the closest bank, and they requested current photo ID.
Here's where it gets a bit weird. So, back then, my state actually would issue drivers licenses that said "VALID WITHOUT PHOTO" with no photo if you were absent from the state temporarily and couldn't come in to get a photo taken at the DMV for your renewal. My license was still where my parents lived (since I didn't drive while I was in college), and I was surprised when I received one of these photo-less licenses upon renewal in the mail. I think there was some instruction to carry your previous license with you to verify ID if needed.
So, I handed the bank teller my current license with VALID WITHOUT PHOTO on it, as well as my old expired license, which had my photo. She couldn't accept this -- they needed a current photo ID. So, I said, okay -- here's my student ID with my photo. (I'll note at this point that the bank in question was actually located within the student center of the university in question.) Nope, sorry. I started pulling out other credit cards and other stuff with my name on it... no dice. I was most disturbed by the fact that they wouldn't accept my bank card with my name on it that had actually be issued by that bank (though when it had a different name before a merger; I had since closed my account). Nope -- the bank card wasn't valid anymore AND it had no photo.
Finally, I ended up trekking back to my dorm room and returning with my passport 30 minutes later -- luckily I had a passport to be able to use. And this was just for a (relatively small) cash advance on a credit card.
I was annoyed about the whole experience that day, but they had their policies and rules to prevent fraud, and they had some logic behind them (even if I didn't agree with it). I really don't think they were trying deliberately to "suppress" my ability to get a cash advance.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:56PM
Yes, that was my original comment here. You're the one who went off about how Texas election officials aren't smart enough to see that a drivers license from another state, all of which have holographic fraud protection is really a drivers license.
My drivers license has a photo on it, but nice try to make some false equivalence.
And I still haven't heard a word about why states that have these voter suppression laws don't restrict absentee ballots.
Banks have evidence of people trying to commit bank fraud. There are still no meaningful statistics that show voter fraud.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:25PM
I'm truly sorry that you can't understand logical argumentation and can't seem to see how you have switched argumentation strategies repeatedly. I understand that you don't agree with the system, but your failure to recognize that it has a very logical and clear set of criteria baffles me. And the fact that you could not understand my anecdote as simply a story about how bureaucratic ID laws can fail in edge cases, but rather claimed that I was attempting to make "false equivalence" -- that also baffles me. I have tried repeatedly to put forth "olive branches" of agreement -- in hopes that we might come to a common understanding. But to no avail. In the process, I may have occasionally been a bit forceful in my argument, and I do apologize for any part I played in escalating the rhetoric.
I've never before been deliberately insulting to another poster on this site. However, as one academic to another, in this case, I'm actually a bit relieved to find out that you're "semi-retired" from teaching at colleges... I hope you move that to full retirement as soon as possible, or perhaps audit a logic course in the philosophy department. I say that sincerely, as someone who values reasoned discussion foremost.
Feel free to mod me down, if it makes you feel superior! Cheers!
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday November 21 2016, @04:11AM
You still haven't answered why states instituting these very logical voter ID laws have left such a gaping hole in the absentee ballot system.
Judging by your most recent reply, I assume you are one of the newer breed of academics that are easily-triggered and simply ignores any argument for which you do not have an answer. I'm a little more old-school, as it were.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:35PM
Yep. And, since I have to repeat myself, how does the "Great State of Texas" know that your work ID is legit, rather than something you had printed up at Kinkos or whatever? Are the Texas poll officials supposed to know what every business in their district's IDs look like?
Yes.
If the state of Texas feels entitled to put a burden on all of its ~10 million voters to obtain identification, then they should make some effort to develop an infrastructure which makes it reasonably easy to obtain said identification.
The only reasonable conclusion is that the law was written to hamper voters who would likely support opponents of the legislators who wrote it. Every detail of the law is written in such a way that would support that claim. Arguing otherwise is being deliberately obtuse.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:51PM
If the state of Texas feels entitled to put a burden on all of its ~10 million voters to obtain identification, then they should make some effort to develop an infrastructure which makes it reasonably easy to obtain said identification.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure I said something like that -- it should be easy, quick, and there should be an option available at no charge. (Otherwise, it's a de facto poll tax, which is illegal by the 24th amendment.)
The only reasonable conclusion is that the law was written to hamper voters who would likely support opponents of the legislators who wrote it.
Agreed. Which is generally why I'm against most voter-ID laws. Not because I think it's a bad idea to show ID when you vote -- I actually think it's a reasonable suggestion -- but because the motivation behind these laws and the way they are formulated seems to be about voter suppression. Many other democratic countries require some form of voter ID, but they generally have more lenient standards and/or make getting a standard ID much easier.
Every detail of the law is written in such a way that would support that claim. Arguing otherwise is being deliberately obtuse.
Did I argue that the law was good? No -- in my discussion with OP, I was merely arguing that there seems to be a very clear set of criteria that the state of Texas came up with for their criteria... one that I don't necessarily agree with, but which is consistent nonetheless. Actually, I'm pretty sure I have repeatedly been critical in this thread of Texas's refusal to accept official ID from other states (like a drivers license). But I do think that if we are going to have voter ID laws then there's a good rationale to ask for the list of acceptable IDs to be official and standardized, rather than accepting any card with a name on it in your wallet. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes a pointless exercise... which perhaps it is anyway given negligible levels of in-person voter fraud.
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Monday November 21 2016, @12:41AM
I'm glad we agree. But my issue with this point:
I was merely arguing that there seems to be a very clear set of criteria that the state of Texas came up with for their criteria
The rules are very consistent only in a very narrow sense - in fact, they were tailored to a degree of narrowness to maximize benefit for the writers of the law. Surely, whenever the frame of perspective is made sufficiently narrow, it will be easy to justify. So the rules themselves are therefore inherently illegitimate, which makes any consideration of consistency irrelevant in my opinion.
I'll probably regret constructing this analogy, but to me, it's like arguing that a car is good at steering when it doesn't have wheels to turn.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Sunday November 20 2016, @06:05PM
It seems to me that the parent post already answered your questions. Texas requires a Texas government ID or a federal ID. No, an ID from a university is not a government ID for this purpose. It seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse. I also work for a state-run university, and I would never try to use my university ID for anything official. For that, I have a driver's license or a state-issued identity card.
Why not accept out-of-state driver's licenses? If you are voting where you are resident, the normal case is for you to have a locally issued driver's license. The only group I know of that regularly does not get a local license are members of the military, and I am quite certain that a military ID would be accepted as proof of identity. For civilians, if you truly *just* moved, this policy is inconvenient. However, that is very much an edge case - we are talking about a tiny fraction of voters.
More to the point, this has absolutely nothing to do with your original contention that voter ID laws are part of a conspiracy to prevent poor minorities from voting. To the contrary: poor minorities are less mobile, i.e., less likely to move between states.
There's also likely a certain amount of Texas pride in the way those rules are written. If you're living in the university community, you are probably insulated from local Texan culture. Speaking as an "expat" Texan, let me clue you in: you're "not from around here" - worse, you're a damned yankee. The general Texan attitude is pretty simple: There's no reason to make your life harder, but also no reason to make it any easier either. If you live in Texas for a few years, you may come to understand...or not.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:04PM
I don't know how familiar you are with Texas, but it is a state that's full of people who've moved here from somewhere else. Upon meeting someone new in Houston, the first thing they ask you is, "So, where you from?"
And still you haven't addressed the issue of absentee ballots. If this whole exercise is to eliminate non-existent voter fraud, then why are absentee ballots accepted without question and without verification? How do you know the person who filled out the ballot and sent it in is the actual voter?
And in Texas, being a "damned Yankee" is all that's required to impede voting in a US election. Or if you're black. Or Hispanic. Or a student.
I think you just made my point for me.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday November 21 2016, @05:01AM
Texas has more people registered as residents that live else where than any other place in the US. They go out of their way to make it easy to be a snow bird resident, and then go out of their way to make it difficult to vote other than by mail. Arizona does the same thing. It is actually a low level felony to take someone else's signed, and sealed ballot to the polls in Arizona. Even though it has a voter ID number that is matched to the name on the voter list and requires a signature In Arizona it is a 20 minute drive to my polling place and they cut the number even more this year. Having come from California where I could walk to my last 3 polling places it was a real change. I went to the polls and waited in line for more than an hour to get to vote. It is no joke that several states have passed laws to make it difficult for those with limited mobility and time to vote.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @01:03PM
I have lived in Texas, and they like to tell themselves that just like how midwesterners like to feel like they are "real" people, not like them outsiders (especially those "coastal elites"!). They lap that stuff up when they're pandered to in country songs and such, but people across the country are basically the same. If there is something about you that I don't like, or am not sure about, then you will always be an "outsider". However, if you have qualities that I want to associate with, especially if you are famous, then we welcome you with open arms. Look at how warmly the Bush family was adopted by Texas. G.H.W. Bush was more Yankee than your stereotypical Yankee, upper-crust rich Northeast family of privilege, Ivy League school, etc., etc. But when he got into the oil game with his Texas oil cronies, somehow he and his family are not "damn yankees", but true blue Texans. The worst part of living in Texas wasn't constantly hearing this self-congratulatory patting on the back, because I like local pride if it is done right, it was the hypocrisy of the blatant refusal to be consistent in its application.
(Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Monday November 21 2016, @12:35AM
They accepted the passports because they have to by federal law. The same thing applies to military IDs. The states that tried to disallow them got a smackdown in federal court.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday November 21 2016, @04:13AM
Do you disagree with such rulings? Do you believe US military IDs and US passports should NOT be allowed as legal identification for purposes of voting?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 21 2016, @02:26AM
but that they are always a capstone to an entire suite of voter-suppression measures, such as closing DMV offices and eliminating polling places in minority neighborhoods,
Nonsense.
I've never lived in a state that did not have some requirement for Id in order to vote.
And polling places were pushed into every area of these states.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday November 21 2016, @04:06AM
https://projects.propublica.org/electionland/national/report-fewer-polling-places-in-key-states/ [propublica.org]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by Desler on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:28PM
Because their only purpose is to supress the votes of the poor and minorities. Despite what old, white GOP people claim there is not some vast amount of voter fraud.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:31PM
This. Those people who -claim- that there are vast amounts of voter fraud could easily prove their point with a list of names of perps.
Without the list, this is just blowing smoke.
It doesn't happen in any significant numbers.
This fraudulent act would be a FELONY.
The risk is simply not worth the gain.
Those perps would be arrested and convicted and jailed.
If it was happening, the prisons would be full of those folks.
The rate at which it happens is WAY down in the noise.
Interestingly, when it **is** attempted, it's Republicans who are doing it (and they are NOT arrested).
http://www.google.com/search?q=voter.fraud+intitle:Gingrich+11100+1500 [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=voter.fraud+Ann.Coulter+Palm.Beach [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=voter.fraud+Mitt.Romney+sold+home [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=voter.fraud+Charlie.White [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:49PM
Not a Democrat or Republican, but I can see how thin this logic is. Voter fraud largely isn't looked for, so of course there's not many stories about it. Taking my local county as example, we're stuck with those horrendous eSlate voting machines. Pure electronic, no paper trail at all. The votes are stored in an Access database with no logging and essentially no authentication. Literally any insider can change the vote totals without any traces, leaving statistical analysis of the results as the only possible method of catching fraud. Which is never done. Under the circumstances, of course no fraud is found.
Sorry, but you need to learn that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:32PM
I agree with your thesis but your conclusion is faulty:
If they're going to make the charge, they need to show the evidence.
I'm an enthusiast of this guy's work Brad Friedman [google.com]
Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting deserves a shout-out here too.
In California, if you request a paper ballot[1], they have to give you one.
I thought this was a thing nationwide.
[1] They're still counted via a scanning machine, however.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:50PM
Here's a short list of voter registration problems
1) In theory we don't require ID cards to vote, only to register. Yes jump thru ten hoops and you can register without a free state ID card. Of course free state ID cards require sometimes expensive registered birth certificates. The point is registration is a "stealth" voter-ID required law, you just don't show it at the polls. So people can LARP that the same system simultaneously requires and doesn't require voter ID.
2) See above if you let lazy people register at the polls you have 95+ year old volunteers making all kinds of judgment calls about adequate identification papers but if you register then my local municipal clerk takes her time crossing all the t and dotting all the i to make sure I'm properly registered in the state system exactly one time, in the 10 overlaid gerrymandered districts at all levels of government. There's a nice paper trail, you can involve the judiciary when necessary, she's theoretically a bonded well paid professional, etc. Much less likely to be F'd up than having rando 95+ year old election day volunteers attempting and failing to handle it.
3) See above part of having 10 or whatever layers of government is I believe this feeds into the gerrymandering machine along with decade-level census figures to try and organize districts. I think federal congress is gerrymandered only with once a decade census records, but my municipal aldermanic district is I believe they try to allocate 2000 people per municipal alderman and it changes on a shorter term (like annually?) I suppose it depends how fast your city is growing (or for democrat controlled areas, shrinking)
4) See #2 above if every casual thing I do, spams the local municipal clerk, I'm going to be quite a nuisance and there are likely to be registered voters at my house named ULM, VLN, VlM, VIM, who knows how many. Yes theres only one VLM drivers licensed 123456789 but see #1) above what do you do about Jose the illegal alien and his bro Jose and kid Jose and dad Jose all living in the same illegal micro-favela, sure illegals can't vote for federal elections but the more corrupt or anti-american or anti-white cities do allow foreigners to rule over the locals via voting, they've been cucked. Aside from debating that issue, it exists as a thing and spamming the muni-clerk office as punishment is inadvisable because its just going to mess up the records. Even worse, if I submit a form that's almost correct, I'm now open for felony voter fraud, "jon" vs "jonathon" "ben" vs "benjamin", here's proof he's trying to register two people, when in reality he's just trying to get a fishing license. Also spamming the clerk means more chance for her to F up, so now I'm no longer registered in "hometown" but I've been moved to "nowheresville" and I'm unable to vote. And of course the registered voter list is where muni court jury lists come from, so having ten records of which nine are false and I never use just bumped my odds of jury duty up by ten.
5) My state heavily disenfranchises voters for crazy-ish reasons "having resided at the above residential address for at least Z consecutive days immediately preceding this election, with no present intent to move. I am not currently serving a sentence including incarceration, parole, probation, or extended supervision for a felony conviction, and not otherwise disqualified from voting." Now the problem with registering everyone with a drivers license is I move here and rent an apartment month-to-month till I find my permanent place and immediately get a new drivers license because where-ever I end up it'll be around here, they give me a stack of shit to sign and suddenly I'm a felon having only resided here 3 days and I'm planning on moving in two weeks to my official house/apartment. You could technically imprison students or "migrant farm workers" on a regular basis with this as a means to discourage voting for democrats. Or I get out of prison on parole and immediately get a valid drivers license to get my stuff together so I can drive to my job and they give me a pile of shit to sign and whoops I'm back in prison for trying to register to vote as a parole violation. Generally speaking "crossing the streams" when you don't have to is just a dumb idea. "Lets involuntarily register everyone to vote who buys property" sounds oh so progressive and forward thinking until every out of state landlord is now a felon. Ditto registering everyone buying a car or getting a fishing license or a marriage license or all kinds of ideas that sound so nice but are actually pretty dumb and are going to create a lot of legal drama and trouble for people who never deserved it.
6) Lets say I want to stop black people from voting, because supposedly the only reason anything is regulated beyond a complete free for all is because "racists". Once voting registration is linked to irrelevant forms, all I need to do is crack open a phone book, old fashioned "white" pages (bet that term offends special snowflakes today) and pick any ethnic sounding name or segregated neighborhood address, and buy a fishing license under the name Tabi-beth-sheeba Washington at an address two counties away. Now she can't vote in the next election (well, unless she figures out where she's been "moved" because someone bought her a hunting license and she actually drives there...). So now you have to "federalize" really dumb stuff that should never be trusted around voting records, for example applying for a credit card, merely applying for a drivers license change of address, merely applying for a boat registration, all kinds of ways to really mess with people and abuse the system.
7) The federal census has to be filled out and one data source is, I'm told, voter registrations, so now VM and VLM have to fill out a census form and now I get more congressional representation. This doesn't matter for me as an individual but once its accepted the records will be F'd up then it'll become a political football to decide which areas should and should not be cleaned up.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:13PM
Are you saying that people in Texas are dumber than people elsewhere? In Minnesota, you have to be registered to vote, but you can register at the polls. The election worker who registers you (we call them "election judges" and they are trained and paid) has a handbook that spells out precisely what ID is ok. In the OP's case, CT DL even if expired would serve to prove their identity (so would a passport or a specified variety of other governmental or semi-official documents), but they would still need proof of where they lived (utility or phone bill or bank statement with their name and address). Or they'd need another already-registered voter to swear to their identity and address. If the poll worker can't figure it out, they call for help from the head judge. I've been working elections for a decade, and yet to see a 95+ year old election worker, it's a grueling day, though maybe that's a Texas thing too. Though if we let them gut social security and medicare, I suppose there will be some who need that $100 to buy something to eat more upscale than dog food.
BS. Name one such city that you've got a reliable cite for (that is, a cite from somebody more reliable than Rash Scumbaugh). It's true we've got a few corrupt cities (and states like NJ), but that's mostly about stealing money. Illegal aliens want to stay off the government radar so they won't get deported, they're not stupid enough to walk into the jaws of government and be documented committing a felony in front of multiple witnesses.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:51PM
I don't think my arguments are an "Oceans Eleven" blueprint for precisely how to commit fraud or even observations of specific events, but more along the lines of given a blank sheet to design, here are some often proposed ideas that lead to scenarios that are just dumb and can be trivially designed out of the system.
For example, yes I'm sure your average "law enforcement officer" has the skills and training to administer field tests of the ability to drive. So we could scrap the DMV, tell people to just drive around, and once they run into a cop the cop can test them for ability to legally drive and then the cop can issue them a same day license. That sounds completely ridiculous, because it is. Its infinitely more efficient to have DMV centrally issue licenses according to a small number of testers who specialize and standardize and are very closely supervised and monitored. Thus it just seems to make sense to have one municipal clerk specialize in registering voters. If she does it right she'll be faster and cheaper than any other method and if she screws up the full weight of the judiciary lands right on her. It actually works very well for people who are more interested in politics than some sort of "well, it was the McDonalds drive thru or voting, and I guess its voting this time, now I want a supersized candidate number 1 with extra zingy sauce" or whatever. Are we missing anything important by disenfranchising people who by their very actions prove they don't think voting is very important? I mean there's a traditional straw dog of people who want to participate but can't, but I don't think they actually exist.
I think that's cool that you volunteer for elections, no sarcasm or nuthin. We need people who are not 95+ yrs old doing important work like that. Or if you are 95+ yrs then you get a free pass for being with it enough to respond. Cool either way. None the less, the design of the system you're stuck in sounds... badly designed, like what were they thinking... Yes in a rich country we can afford to implement badly designed systems and they'll "work". However, mere working most of the time does not imply a well designed system. So why not have a system that doesn't suck?
Its telling that the voter registration system is like nothing else the government does. Why can't we have volunteers collect real estate tax money? Or replace the IRS? Why not license dentists doctors and lawyers by volunteer office? Building codes should be enforced by industry volunteers exactly once a year? Once a year volunteer air traffic control and FAA pilot licensing. DoT can have volunteers fix the roads, some kind of libertarian paradise LOL.
The best counterexample to my making fun of this is volunteer fire departments. I donno if a fire department is a good analogy to elections. Oh and volunteer park rangers the "friends of the park" fundraising groups, again, they don't actually scale and don't seem a close analogy to an election.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Monday November 21 2016, @02:56AM
No, you missed something. We don't "volunteer", in Minnesota we're paid. $13.30/hr in my city (registration specialists and the head judges for each precinct get a little more; pay isn't uniform in the state and we're probably toward the high end, some places might be as low as minimum wage, but rural areas are more likely to pay mileage too). There is a place on the timesheet to check if you don't want the money, but I've never seen anyone check it. We have training classes (also paid). We swear an oath. Ok, nobody makes a living at it, not with one and a half day's work a year, but we are paid. I do understand that some states are too cheap to pay workers, which sounds crazy to me. Then you're more at risk of staffing with people who have other reasons to work for free, like an ax to grind or they're getting "reimbursed" by a candidate or party (the 95 year olds aren't so much the problem, it's too grueling for them anyhow.. unless you're one 'o them young whippersnappers who thinks everybody with grey hair is 95).
I'd agree that voter registration should probably be a paid job, especially if, as here, you can vote two minutes after registering. At the polling place I work, that's me. About 10% of our voters register on election day, though a lot of those are people who skipped voting in the last couple of elections, or moved (even to a different apartment in the same building), and need to re-register. About 2% of those trying to register were not registered because they didn't qualify.
The judges do tend to skew toward retired people, since those are the ones who don't have day jobs (or be taking care of children), at least until we can make election day a national holiday.
Volunteer fire departments might be a good analogy. Or church rummage sales. Staffing for events that happen rarely, where a full-time paid staff doesn't make sense.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday November 21 2016, @01:23PM
Huh, thats pretty cool. Interesting way to run an election. I imagine operations are quite different when its a trained job vs all volunteer.
Likely a part of the reason we only have volunteers is we have the expensive (for their time, decades ago) optical scan readers. When its plugged in do the lights turn on, now does it eat ballots, if not call support, now you're fully trained on the mechanical aspects of the job. They spend a lot more time memorizing streets so they can instantly tell you your district and find you in the registration binder, and of course ballot handling processes are probably very formal and complicated. Do you all have fancy electronic voting machines? I would imagine every $ spent on fancy machines is a $ not spent on election workers. The extreme of that would be people voting at home over the internet.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Tuesday November 22 2016, @03:49AM
We've got both. The machines (there is one per voting place), stuff your ballot in and it reads and counts it. If it notices a screwup (e.g. an overvote, where you checked too many boxes) it tells you and offers to give the ballot back so you can get another and do it right. (If you decline, it voids that particular election, but counts the rest, some voters don't want to deal with redoing it.) It's got some kind of (proprietary, boo) computer and optical scanner, and can figure out which side is up. For a precinct where there were about 1500 voters in the recent election, there were about 15 workers, all paid. Most of the jobs aren't rocket science, and don't take much training (everybody gets a 2 hour class and a handbook to study). Registration specialist gets an extra hour of class, and I think the head judges get extra. Being supervisor types, they have some work before the election as well. They try to return workers to the same precinct in successive elections (I've been doing that one for the last 6) so there's a core of workers with experience who know each other.
For streets, we've got binders that index all the streets in the precinct, and tell what range of house numbers. To vote, people who say they're already registered need to know their name (signin judge looks it up) and address (ditto). If they get those both right and are in the book, then they sign in (attesting that they're of age, live at the address, not incompetent, etc.) and get a ballot.
I don't know what it all costs, the numbers seem buried in various budgets. In 2012 they reported the election cost about $7500 per polling place (about 1800 registered voters), covering rent, machines, staffing, materials, etc. So, a little over $4 per registered voter, maybe $6 per vote (turnout varies year to year, and primary to general).
Like I said, in other towns or rural areas the details may be different, and the pay scale definitely varies. But state law requires paying at least the minimum wage.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday November 21 2016, @05:27AM
Voting is a fundamental right. Getting a state ID enters you into an FBI biometric database. The theoretical reasoning is that no one has a right to drive/have a state ID.
Lots of people, especially the underprivileged don't have an ID, or the requisite documentation to get one.