I don't think provisional ballots are a universal option. I think progressive states have put these procedures in place to preserve the constitutional right... Other states... meh....

The ultimate answer to absolute ballot fidelity is a national ID. Not sure if you want to trade your notion of civil liberties AND the risk of Identity Fraud for absolute certainty in voting.

I'm pretty liberal about a lot of things, but WOW is that a stretch. Giving up civil liberties to have an ID? What civil liberties?

I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that states you have the right to be anonymous and have access to any other right. The Constitution is for citizens, without an ID, how does anyone prove they're a citizen?

I don't think that anyone passing through the country (or worse) gets the right to vote.

Don't forget, at the time the Constitution was written, physical access to the country was quite difficult.

Mike

I'm not sure who brought up "civil liberties" but is about whether or not you a making an unnecessary barrier to vote for those that do not have an ID.

I fully support needing to register to vote (free) ahead of time so your name will show up on a registry for an extended period (years). This action is easy enough to support/promote with very little burdon on the citizens. The state is responsible to eliminate people from those registration lists upon death, incarceration, or change of citizenship. If you are not registered, i.e. on the list at your polling station, you don't get to vote at your polling station.

There has not been established any concrete (or significant) issue of voter fraud when IDs are not required. From a historical perspective, simply having the ability to posses a photo ID is a relatively modern capability and one that is deeply overshadowed by a long history where such an ID wasn't even a technical possibility.

This country came a long way allowing for voting without IDs for a hell-uv-a long time. Remind me why it needs to change.

Sorry! .... I introduced a new issue in a misguided attempt to make it uncomfortable for the pro photo ID crowd to maintain their support for the silly notion that photo ID helps any actual problem... (other then not stopping the wrong people voting in the first place)

The conservative half of the country goes bonkers at the notion that the Federal government will require all citizens to carry a national ID card (in addition to all of the state ID cards for privileges that you carry).

Of course, If everyone had a national ID card (aka passport) and was required to have one and update it every 10 years.... then the non existent voter fraud due to lack of photo ID problem would diminish further.

I suggested that anyone who wishes not to provide ID just request a vote-by-mail ballot. That goes to the address of the person registered in that precinct. Problem solved, right?

Now, on to those who wish to vote but have no permanent address..

The utility bills can be used to get another form of photo/signature ID, but without some form of ID, the person holding that utility bill cannot prove they are the same.

Perhaps a tangent discussion is that with all the people that are ELIGIBLE to vote, less than 40% actually do. So we're fighting for the few folks that don't have some form of identification while we ignore the vast majority that are too lazy to vote (by mail or in person).

And the other issue is those seasonal residents who may try to register in both locations (north and here).

There are actually 2 separate databases we use at the voting location to verify a person. But that all relies on being able to verify that the person standing in front of us is actually the person they say they are. Hence the requirement for some sort of photo/signature ID.

The thought occurred to me regarding all the transient folks in my particular area... They have to obtain a resident ID card to pick up their paycheck(s). The employer often obtains them (or pays for the fee) for the employees...

but that's back to the "having a job" thing as a form of poll tax.


Those in line at the SSN and/or Gub'ment benefits office already have a form of ID used to prove voter eligibility

So we're talking about those folk with no address and no employment.

I think the "Grahm Stain" ink on the finger can help stop the multiple-vote people...

Perhaps the utility bill can help with the folks with no ID. The database would show if the person on the utility bill voted already or not.

But what of those eligible voters that live in a house where the utility bill is in someone else's name? Like a parent, or perhaps a domestic partner?

Splitting hairs on how to make everyone eligible to vote is a great thought experiment, but I doubt it amounts to a substantial percentage of voters who would otherwise be able to cast ballots?

About 3000 hours if your traveling at an average of 600 mph. Rough numbers.

It was really sort of a rhetorical question, lol...

Mike

but whats the issue you are trying to solve? What are the numbers behind it? Is it worth disenfranchising 3.3 million voters to fix it?

Maybe. How many do you disenfranchise by not cleaning this up?

Again, lots of people already think voting is fixed, I don't think we don't should wait to prove that it is.

Just for the record, I'm not completely convinced that there's a problem where I live (or I would have stopped voting long ago), but I don't assume everything runs as smoothly everywhere.

Mike

Ok..

what is your definition of disenfranchise?

What exactly is there to clean up?

What is the basis for thinking that voting is "fixed"... by whom and how?

I've already covered my thoughts on these questions earlier in the thread...

Mike

How do you, Mike, personally LOSE your franchise to vote... Say, I wander up to your township and find a way to cast a vote?

the notion of franchise is not some zero sum game as you are implying......my action has no effect on your behavior or properly recorded vote. your franchise is not effected.

It is like your franchise to free speech in the public square... I have NOTHING to do with your franchise... Now, i can shout and shout you down but you still have the franchise to free speech. I have disrupted the listeners by my shouting..but your franchise is not impacted. (only the government could shut you down... BUT we have a constitution that protects that right... unlike say the Brits)

You conflate the franchise to vote and to free speech with a preferred result. Your team wins the election OR your listeners get to hear your speech.

Trump makes the same error. The Russians did lots of things to sway the election for Trump.... Trump thinks that people will assume that the russians took away their franchise to vote. Liberals think that the russians took away THEIR franchise to vote.... Both argue that Trumps victory is or is not legit BUT... it doesn't work that way!

In fact... you can make a VERY STRONG case that the republican actions in Florida in 2000 actually took away FLA voters franchise. They argued that hanging chads were not votes and in fact argued that those ballots should not be counted... Now THAT was disenfranchisement.

Closing a polling place early or having half the machines broken are cases of disenfranchisement. NOT YOURS.... its the voter who CAN't vote that is impacted

Your argument

is not an argument... just a complaint that you MIGHT not get your desired result.

I'm an enigma in your fight. I actually don't care who wins (especially this last election), I only care that the results are correct, based on actual citizens voting. Sorry if I didn't somehow make that point clearly enough

Mike

Once again.... fuzzy thinking... What do you mean by "correct" (This is what you are not clear about)

fair? honest? duly recorded? your side wins? Puerto Ricans can vote? Dual citizens can vote? the idiots can't, the mentally incompetent don't vote? ONLY people who can make it to a polling place? slaves don't vote? woman don't vote? non property owners don't vote? uneducated don't vote? You must be able to read to vote? Or... the position you seem to fix on... must have a photo ID.

Some of my possible answers to your request of "correct" are fuzzy eg FAIR... others are specific eg woman can't vote! Some have been rectified and other issues... nominally rectified. (see voting rights act) All have to stand up to the test of... Is this a barrier to YOUR franchise to vote.

The problem you seem unwilling to address is that the gap between "correct" and "franchise to vote in a democracy by citizens" is enormous and the issue is... what are the details?.

I repeat... NO ONE in the debate is saying non citizens should have "no" barrier to voting. Lord knows... they can politic in elections just like citizens and hope to influence your vote. (see Russia and Israel, and many other countries)

The only completely accurate system with integrity would be for EVERY man woman and child in the country to have a single government issued ID card (aka passport) updated every XXX years and show that along with local address documentation to VOTE. This system eliminates the gap between "correct" and "actual citizens" voting

Short of that... what trade-offs do you want to make? and what set of facts supports the need for your system and would explain what you mean by "correct"?

Why does your argument have to include so many negatives. I neither said, nor implied, nor believe any of those horrible things.

If the poor folks volunteering to work at the poll can't figure out if Voter X is a citizen, we have a problem.

If you're happy that the current system can do that, fine. I don't think everyone shares that opinion. Even if it's fake news, or whatever, this is something that we should be able to handle at this point in history.

Mike

This nicely sums up the intelligentsia that have fought tooth and nail against the ACA/Obamacare. The stoopid is strong in this one.

This Image Explains The ACA Debate I Hear Every Day

Mike,

The people at the polls are not Carnac the magnificent... they can't suss out.. who is and who is not a legal voter.. All they can do... is enforce the current set of rules. In this country... each state and locale sets the rules and history has shown that many tilt the playing field against some classes of voters. I have seen NO evidence that Poll workers are raising alarm bells about illegal voters and their inability to run an election by the letter AND spirit of the law. However, politicians and power brokers use the issue to gain power.

So... we DON'T have a problem at the polls experienced by poll workers ...... we have lots of noise about an unproven problem... that nobody can measure the amount of or ID the actual perps and then prosecute them. Moreover, these states put in place barriers that disenfranchise legitimate voters. A true Flim Flam.. The federal courts have tossed many of these rules out the window. The fight continues because its just about power and money.

I am not arguing that you in fact believe many of those issues. Don't throw up a red herring...
Of course you recognize American History and these were issues that faced the country... and slowly but surely (major war involved for one of them ...) we resolved most of these issues. Again, history shows that the arguments against members of the community being granted full CITIZENSHIP were mostly self serving power grabs by the powers in charge. Of course,they wrapped their crap argument in nice words to justify their position as fair, reasonable and of course... all American.

So, is history repeating itself? ..

Is the current noisy campaign about the supposed lack of integrity in the voting system... and the FRAUD we supposedly suffer... a legit issue... or just the usual trojan horse for yet another power grab.

the problem you have is... You take as evidence that "many people are of the OPINION that there is a problem of in person voter fraud.

I have one friend who argues... well... OK... in North Carolina... it's clearly racist actions to cut the blacks out.. BUT in Southern CAl... his cousins tell him how bad the mexican voter fraud problem is... and THAT is where the real problem is... and well... you can't prove it.. (for some reason) His "logic" is identical to yours. So, the rules to stop it are "justified".

Opinions are not facts, evidence, or proof.... When you base your stand on opinion and look the other way at the evidence for disenfranchisement... you are in the same boat as all those citizens who argued that... blacks should not vote, ditto woman, etc etc etc. Doesn't really matter if you believe that crap or not. You are in the boat with all of the others.

Yours is not a principled argument (that is OK)... its just an expression of majority rules politics wrapped in face saving rhetoric that shows that you are "fair minded" and "really" a proponent of common sense solutions.
Is that where you want to be?

I challenge all the posters on the subject of voting to go to the classes and become a poll worker and then report on what they have seen.

Mark, you make sense until you start wrapping the hatred and problems of the past and bigger "power players" into the argument. Now I can't have an opinion that our system could use enhancement without being accused, or at least associated with, evil and second-handedness?

And I'm the one with the problem?

I have no secret agenda, and generally despise politics. The only votes I don't want counted are fraudulent ones.

I already told you what they do in my town, and I don't think it's fair. Send in a census by mail, walk right in, give your name and address and vote. No census, go show your ID to a separate desk and get back in line. Sure, this is better than nothing, and probably eliminates most fraud, but seems like a double standard (some show IDs, others don't).

Again, I don't think we have a problem yet (at least not enough to actually change a result), but why wait until we can prove an election was rigged? That would be a mess from which we'd never want to have to recover.

Mike