Easy solution. When you register to vote (which should need to be done prior to election day), you fill in your full SSN. When you show up to vote, you have to verify your name and last 4 of your SSN (lots of places do that now anyway).
That would cut down on the problem of saying you're someone you're not, as it would be harder to do that. Makes it harder to register if you're not a citizen, and is effectively a voter ID, just not requiring any physical identification (securing a system can be done with something you know, instead of something you have).
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with voter ID if you can get the ID to the voters fairly and without cost to them if they can't afford it. In that case, then dealing with the 0.01% of voter fraud we see (or something like that) would be worth doing. However since a method to do that doesn't really exist it's not fair.
The only way you could do it would be to pass a law saying that in 8 years you would need a government issued photo ID to vote, so that people would have 8 years to sort it out. The ID's would be issued at all polling places for the preceding 2 elections and at DMVs, post offices etc, or by mail.
We could mail out 300 million IDs. OR how about we do away with voting booths and instead make it so the entire election is done online. Every registered voter is emailed a unique PIN which can be used at any internet-connected computer come election day. Well, logging in would make maintaining a secret ballot tougher, especially if you're doing it at a public library ... but it would save on gas!
How on earth is that easier than just getting a damn ID?
I don't have to wait in line for four hours to have something emailed to me.
Plus, this way, we shut the old out of voting, which is more beneficial to Democrats. Win-win!
So, out of over eight million voters in Florida, you've got... what, assuming all of those hits are actual non-citizen voters, and that all of them vote, maybe a couple of thousand people voting who shouldn't be? .025%?
And so now they want to shut out tens or hundreds of thousands of people who should be able to vote because of that tiny, tiny fraction?
Even after all the shit that went down in FL in '00, Bush won by ~500 votes. If there are 2k voters in FL who are not legal voters, and they had not voted, the vote could have changed either way (probably further against Gore, but who knows).
That people want elections to be done right, and that people do not want people who cannot legally vote to vote is not a bad thing. However small the margin, it is not bad to want to shrink it. Pursuit of accuracy and perfection is a noble goal.
So let's not attack the very concept of what's going on. Let's stick to the point- that the people claiming to be in favor of it are full of shit, and the methods they're trying to implement to "fix" the problem will either not be good solutions.
Even after all the shit that went down in FL in '00, Bush won by ~500 votes. If there are 2k voters in FL who are not legal voters, and they had not voted, the vote could have changed either way (probably further against Gore, but who knows).
That people want elections to be done right, and that people do not want people who cannot legally vote to vote is not a bad thing. However small the margin, it is not bad to want to shrink it. Pursuit of accuracy and perfection is a noble goal.
So let's not attack the very concept of what's going on. Let's stick to the point- that the people claiming to be in favor of it are full of shit, and the methods they're trying to implement to "fix" the problem will either not be good solutions.
There were a shitload of mostly black people denied the vote in 2000 because Texas gave Florida a bunch of names of felons, and Florida told anyone with names vaguely resembling those names to fuck off.
While I certainly don't like the idea of people who are not legally entitled to vote getting the opportunity to do so, it is not what should be the number one priority in regards to voting. Making sure that everybody who does have the right to vote is allowed to vote is far more important, and also involves a lot more people. I don't think it's a good trade to stop a thousand people from voting illegally while also stopping ten thousand people from voting when they are legally entitled to.
No one will realize it because nobody has time to realize it.
I've got a bunch of friends living in Flint. I had to tell them the details of the government takeover thing because they were so busy trying to work their 3 jobs and educate their kids on the side of what school was failing to do that they didn't know anything about the government of their town.
They'll get away with it because nobody who is being abused by the laws has the time or energy to pay attention.
It's pretty ingenious if you think about it.
-Destroy the schools -> Less political education
-Destroy the economy -> Less time for those with interest or political education to do anything
-Blame the democrats
Repeat
The idea of fixing voter fraud to make sure the right person wins is laughable. People make mistakes both filling out and counting ballots- hundred and hundreds, and with larger elections, tens of thousands of mistakes- and voter fraud is occurring at a level lower than that margin of error. If an election with 50,000 voters comes down to 300 votes, that's likely smaller than the margin of error of the vote counters even with a recount, and so having 100 fraudulent votes in there is just noise. You're flipping a coin to see who wins anyway (the metaphorical coin is the pseudorandomness in the way the vote counting errors work out) so who cares?
E: Tox, what you said is exactly what I am trying to address with this. Bush didn't beat Gore. Statistically it was a tie- the vote difference was well within the margin of error expected for vote-counting (actually much, much smaller than the margin of error)- and through various partisan tricks both sides tried to play, Bush came out of a head. Legally, it should have been settled by a coin toss because it was mathematically a tie.
Even if you're living here, if you're not a citizen you shouldn't be able to vote.
But I'm still not convinced that there is a problem that will be solved by the Voter ID laws that we currently see floating around.
Agreed. An ID law isn't going to fix that - it's a problem of people not reading/caring about the "I swear I am a citizen" part of the registration form.
In some places non-citizens can vote in local elections. But I do agree you should have to be a citizen to vote in statewide/federal elections.
Then why not go back to the idea pitched early on in this thread - you need to know your social security number when you're filling in a voter registration form?
The only problem that I instinctively reacted to this suggestion was the question of accessibility to those numbers.
the people who work the elections are mostly volunteers, and they would have access to everybody's social security numbers if this process were in place. And you don't have to be told what the wrong person could do with a social security number.
Not saying that the people who are volunteering for elections are criminals or anything, but it's still a bit... chancy.
At first glance, that's my reaction. I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Very chancy. Pretty much everything to do with local elections and politics is heavily volunteer based, and they're always hurting for people.
I would hope they would set up the system to not give out SSN to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that volunteers, but you never know.
Does the register monkey at the corner shop get your bank PIN when you swipe your card?
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Even if you're living here, if you're not a citizen you shouldn't be able to vote.
But I'm still not convinced that there is a problem that will be solved by the Voter ID laws that we currently see floating around.
Agreed. An ID law isn't going to fix that - it's a problem of people not reading/caring about the "I swear I am a citizen" part of the registration form.
In some places non-citizens can vote in local elections. But I do agree you should have to be a citizen to vote in statewide/federal elections.
Then why not go back to the idea pitched early on in this thread - you need to know your social security number when you're filling in a voter registration form?
The only problem that I instinctively reacted to this suggestion was the question of accessibility to those numbers.
the people who work the elections are mostly volunteers, and they would have access to everybody's social security numbers if this process were in place. And you don't have to be told what the wrong person could do with a social security number.
Not saying that the people who are volunteering for elections are criminals or anything, but it's still a bit... chancy.
At first glance, that's my reaction. I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Very chancy. Pretty much everything to do with local elections and politics is heavily volunteer based, and they're always hurting for people.
I would hope they would set up the system to not give out SSN to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that volunteers, but you never know.
Does the register monkey at the corner shop get your bank PIN when you swipe your card?
Well, to my knowledge the guy at the corner shop doesn't have a printed out spreadsheet of every possible customer's name and address who might be shopping there. Whereas the pool workers at my local precinct in Delaware check my registration card against a giant block of paper that has the information (name, address, registration number, party affiliation) of every registered voter in the district. They then use a marker to make a mark next to my name on this giant folding piece of spreadsheet to show that I did in fact show up to vote. If we were going to be switching over to using SSNs as ID for voting, that would also be on this ream of paper, and would be accessible to anybody who was working the polling place, or had access to those tomes of district knowledge.
I am aware that other places probably have a different set up for checking your registration, but in the 2 districts that i've ever voted in (delaware and Maine) it was done in this fashion. Not the most elegant or even technologically advanced, but it was effective.
Easy solution. When you register to vote (which should need to be done prior to election day), you fill in your full SSN. When you show up to vote, you have to verify your name and last 4 of your SSN (lots of places do that now anyway).
That would cut down on the problem of saying you're someone you're not, as it would be harder to do that. Makes it harder to register if you're not a citizen, and is effectively a voter ID, just not requiring any physical identification (securing a system can be done with something you know, instead of something you have).
Based on residency(public records), and/or if you know area of birth, giving out your last 4 of your social is as good as giving out the full thing. If the concern is still giving volunteers private information. It works in reverse too, if you know first 5, sex and some other minor characteristic( thats basically public info) you can get down to like 2 people in an entire county using public records.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Have part of the voter registration process be the registering a PIN for the voter, just like my ATM card has.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
It's still a good idea. If someone can't be fucked to remember it that's their business.
Preventing people from voting because they can't remember what 4-digit code they entered a year ago isn't "their business." It's not a good idea, because unless you have some sort of recovery system in place, you're interfering with their Constitutional right to vote. And if you've got a recovery system in place, now you're spending millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in technology and labor in order to solve a problem that doesn't fucking exist in the first place.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's still a good idea. If someone can't be fucked to remember it that's their business.
Preventing people from voting because they can't remember what 4-digit code they entered a year ago isn't "their business." It's not a good idea, because unless you have some sort of recovery system in place, you're interfering with their Constitutional right to vote. And if you've got a recovery system in place, now you're spending millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in technology and labor in order to solve a problem that doesn't fucking exist in the first place.
I mean, you could always keep your pin on a card. Or have a simple "I forgot my pin" system at the voting booth.
If Amazon can give me a .5 second turn around when I forget my password I'm not seeing what the problem is.
It's still a good idea. If someone can't be fucked to remember it that's their business.
Preventing people from voting because they can't remember what 4-digit code they entered a year ago isn't "their business." It's not a good idea, because unless you have some sort of recovery system in place, you're interfering with their Constitutional right to vote. And if you've got a recovery system in place, now you're spending millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in technology and labor in order to solve a problem that doesn't fucking exist in the first place.
I mean, you could always keep your pin on a card. Or have a simple "I forgot my pin" system at the voting booth.
If Amazon can give me a .5 second turn around when I forget my password I'm not seeing what the problem is.
The problem is that you are creating a barrier to the execution of a core right at the heart of our democracy to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Voter suppression is a vastly bigger problem than nonexistent forms of vote fraud.
It's still a good idea. If someone can't be fucked to remember it that's their business.
Preventing people from voting because they can't remember what 4-digit code they entered a year ago isn't "their business." It's not a good idea, because unless you have some sort of recovery system in place, you're interfering with their Constitutional right to vote. And if you've got a recovery system in place, now you're spending millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in technology and labor in order to solve a problem that doesn't fucking exist in the first place.
I mean, you could always keep your pin on a card. Or have a simple "I forgot my pin" system at the voting booth.
If Amazon can give me a .5 second turn around when I forget my password I'm not seeing what the problem is.
Having a huge infrastructure and labor force in place for the one-to-three days a year when they'd actually get used doesn't seem like a problem to you...?
We don't even have enough people or money to support the fucking polling locations we need, and you're proposing something that's going to be way more labor-intensive than that. Where do you plan on getting the money? Where do you intend to find the people? How do you intend to keep them from gaming the system?
Or just put a barcode on the state ID that can be scanned. So long as you have a valid ID. Most recent vote overwrites older ones in the case of someone using passport and driver's license at two locations. If someone steals it, void the vote ID from the stolen one, reissue the ID with new barcode, allow them to vote.
Voila your problem is solved.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Or just put a barcode on the state ID that can be scanned. So long as you have a valid ID. Most recent vote overwrites older ones in the case of someone using passport and driver's license at two locations. If someone steals it, void the vote ID from the stolen one, reissue the ID with new barcode, allow them to vote.
Voila your problem is solved.
Or, we could treat this nonissue appropriately, and not do anything!
It's still a good idea. If someone can't be fucked to remember it that's their business.
Preventing people from voting because they can't remember what 4-digit code they entered a year ago isn't "their business." It's not a good idea, because unless you have some sort of recovery system in place, you're interfering with their Constitutional right to vote. And if you've got a recovery system in place, now you're spending millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in technology and labor in order to solve a problem that doesn't fucking exist in the first place.
I mean, you could always keep your pin on a card. Or have a simple "I forgot my pin" system at the voting booth.
If Amazon can give me a .5 second turn around when I forget my password I'm not seeing what the problem is.
Having a huge infrastructure and labor force in place for the one-to-three days a year when they'd actually get used doesn't seem like a problem to you...?
We don't even have enough people or money to support the fucking polling locations we need, and you're proposing something that's going to be way more labor-intensive than that. Where do you plan on getting the money? Where do you intend to find the people? How do you intend to keep them from gaming the system?
Or just put a barcode on the state ID that can be scanned. So long as you have a valid ID. Most recent vote overwrites older ones in the case of someone using passport and driver's license at two locations. If someone steals it, void the vote ID from the stolen one, reissue the ID with new barcode, allow them to vote.
Voila your problem is solved.
Or, we could treat this nonissue appropriately, and not do anything!
I really like that idea.
We could do that too. I'm okay with this.
But if we want to be non-retarded about a new system and maybe modernize voting, it would work fine. Far better than the other way with PINs and all that.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It's still a good idea. If someone can't be fucked to remember it that's their business.
Preventing people from voting because they can't remember what 4-digit code they entered a year ago isn't "their business." It's not a good idea, because unless you have some sort of recovery system in place, you're interfering with their Constitutional right to vote. And if you've got a recovery system in place, now you're spending millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in technology and labor in order to solve a problem that doesn't fucking exist in the first place.
I mean, you could always keep your pin on a card. Or have a simple "I forgot my pin" system at the voting booth.
If Amazon can give me a .5 second turn around when I forget my password I'm not seeing what the problem is.
Having a huge infrastructure and labor force in place for the one-to-three days a year when they'd actually get used doesn't seem like a problem to you...?
We don't even have enough people or money to support the fucking polling locations we need, and you're proposing something that's going to be way more labor-intensive than that. Where do you plan on getting the money? Where do you intend to find the people? How do you intend to keep them from gaming the system?
I'm still not seeing any evidence we need to do anything
We're fussing over a statistically nonexistent problem
This is also a thing. I just mean that if we wanted to do something, a PIN system is one of the better solutions.
The point is that there is no reason to do anything. The proper response to someone fretting over the one specific form of vote fraud that voter ID would solve is not to think up solutions, it's to mock and shame the silly goose mercilessly.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
-Yawn-
Everyone agrees with the two of you, get off the horses already. Us bullshitting about possible ways to enact something that will literally never happen isn't hurting anyone.
It's like discussing potential solutions to how zombie vulnerable my apartment is. Actually, zombie proofing apartments would be a far better use of tax dollars, at least local contractors would get some work.
It's like discussing potential solutions to how zombie vulnerable my apartment is. Actually, zombie proofing apartments would be a far better use of tax dollars, at least local contractors would get some work.
Clearly the best thing to discuss.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Or just put a barcode on the state ID that can be scanned. So long as you have a valid ID. Most recent vote overwrites older ones in the case of someone using passport and driver's license at two locations. If someone steals it, void the vote ID from the stolen one, reissue the ID with new barcode, allow them to vote.
Voila your problem is solved.
Or, we could treat this nonissue appropriately, and not do anything!
I really like that idea.
I don't know, I don't see the harm in trying to preempt the issue a few decades from now with things we could start soon on licenses and IDs. A good portion of the problem with the current incarnation of voter ID laws is the disproportionate political pain they inflict by being required immediately, if we could deal with it intelligently down the road it may be worth it just to avoid this kind of political drama all over again.
Everyone agrees with the two of you, get off the horses already. Us bullshitting about possible ways to enact something that will literally never happen isn't hurting anyone.
Actually it is. Because the discussion helps give the nonissue legitimacy. And if you haven't noticed, there are people trying to legitimize this nonissue so that they can use it to legally disenfranchise people.
Everyone agrees with the two of you, get off the horses already. Us bullshitting about possible ways to enact something that will literally never happen isn't hurting anyone.
Actually it is. Because the discussion helps give the nonissue legitimacy. And if you haven't noticed, there are people trying to legitimize this nonissue so that they can use it to legally disenfranchise people.
Look, if the PA forums are giving anything legitimacy our civilization has much bigger problems.
Or just put a barcode on the state ID that can be scanned. So long as you have a valid ID. Most recent vote overwrites older ones in the case of someone using passport and driver's license at two locations. If someone steals it, void the vote ID from the stolen one, reissue the ID with new barcode, allow them to vote.
Voila your problem is solved.
Or, we could treat this nonissue appropriately, and not do anything!
I really like that idea.
I don't know, I don't see the harm in trying to preempt the issue a few decades from now with things we could start soon on licenses and IDs. A good portion of the problem with the current incarnation of voter ID laws is the disproportionate political pain they inflict by being required immediately, if we could deal with it intelligently down the road it may be worth it just to avoid this kind of political drama all over again.
No, you simply do not understand the issue. Voter ID laws are designed to cause disproportionate political pain. This is their entire purpose, because voter fraud is not an actual thing.
This is in good faith arguing about how laws to keep minorities and poor people from voting could be implemented in a way that harms minorities and poor people less
Everyone agrees with the two of you, get off the horses already. Us bullshitting about possible ways to enact something that will literally never happen isn't hurting anyone.
Actually it is. Because the discussion helps give the nonissue legitimacy. And if you haven't noticed, there are people trying to legitimize this nonissue so that they can use it to legally disenfranchise people.
Look, if the PA forums are giving anything legitimacy our civilization has much bigger problems.
As one of my favorite demotivators says, "no one drop thinks itself responsible for the flood."
Alone, we're a drop in the zeitgeist bucket. But we're not alone, and our addition just goes to help terrible people do a terrible thing. So I'd rather be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
It's like discussing potential solutions to how zombie vulnerable my apartment is. Actually, zombie proofing apartments would be a far better use of tax dollars, at least local contractors would get some work.
Posts
That would cut down on the problem of saying you're someone you're not, as it would be harder to do that. Makes it harder to register if you're not a citizen, and is effectively a voter ID, just not requiring any physical identification (securing a system can be done with something you know, instead of something you have).
I can go with the last 4 digits.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
And so now they want to shut out tens or hundreds of thousands of people who should be able to vote because of that tiny, tiny fraction?
Fucking assholes.
That people want elections to be done right, and that people do not want people who cannot legally vote to vote is not a bad thing. However small the margin, it is not bad to want to shrink it. Pursuit of accuracy and perfection is a noble goal.
So let's not attack the very concept of what's going on. Let's stick to the point- that the people claiming to be in favor of it are full of shit, and the methods they're trying to implement to "fix" the problem will either not be good solutions.
That is a much bigger problem.
-Destroy the schools -> Less political education
-Destroy the economy -> Less time for those with interest or political education to do anything
-Blame the democrats
Repeat
E: Tox, what you said is exactly what I am trying to address with this. Bush didn't beat Gore. Statistically it was a tie- the vote difference was well within the margin of error expected for vote-counting (actually much, much smaller than the margin of error)- and through various partisan tricks both sides tried to play, Bush came out of a head. Legally, it should have been settled by a coin toss because it was mathematically a tie.
Does the register monkey at the corner shop get your bank PIN when you swipe your card?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Well, to my knowledge the guy at the corner shop doesn't have a printed out spreadsheet of every possible customer's name and address who might be shopping there. Whereas the pool workers at my local precinct in Delaware check my registration card against a giant block of paper that has the information (name, address, registration number, party affiliation) of every registered voter in the district. They then use a marker to make a mark next to my name on this giant folding piece of spreadsheet to show that I did in fact show up to vote. If we were going to be switching over to using SSNs as ID for voting, that would also be on this ream of paper, and would be accessible to anybody who was working the polling place, or had access to those tomes of district knowledge.
I am aware that other places probably have a different set up for checking your registration, but in the 2 districts that i've ever voted in (delaware and Maine) it was done in this fashion. Not the most elegant or even technologically advanced, but it was effective.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/newsroom/clips?id=0560
Based on residency(public records), and/or if you know area of birth, giving out your last 4 of your social is as good as giving out the full thing. If the concern is still giving volunteers private information. It works in reverse too, if you know first 5, sex and some other minor characteristic( thats basically public info) you can get down to like 2 people in an entire county using public records.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
And how many people are going to remember that code they use once every 4 years (yeah, yeah, but a lot still only vote for the big election)
I mean, you could always keep your pin on a card. Or have a simple "I forgot my pin" system at the voting booth.
If Amazon can give me a .5 second turn around when I forget my password I'm not seeing what the problem is.
We're fussing over a statistically nonexistent problem
This is also a thing. I just mean that if we wanted to do something, a PIN system is one of the better solutions.
The problem is that you are creating a barrier to the execution of a core right at the heart of our democracy to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Voter suppression is a vastly bigger problem than nonexistent forms of vote fraud.
We don't even have enough people or money to support the fucking polling locations we need, and you're proposing something that's going to be way more labor-intensive than that. Where do you plan on getting the money? Where do you intend to find the people? How do you intend to keep them from gaming the system?
Voila your problem is solved.
Or, we could treat this nonissue appropriately, and not do anything!
I really like that idea.
Me, like, ten minutes ago:
We could do that too. I'm okay with this.
But if we want to be non-retarded about a new system and maybe modernize voting, it would work fine. Far better than the other way with PINs and all that.
The point is that there is no reason to do anything. The proper response to someone fretting over the one specific form of vote fraud that voter ID would solve is not to think up solutions, it's to mock and shame the silly goose mercilessly.
Everyone agrees with the two of you, get off the horses already. Us bullshitting about possible ways to enact something that will literally never happen isn't hurting anyone.
Clearly the best thing to discuss.
I don't know, I don't see the harm in trying to preempt the issue a few decades from now with things we could start soon on licenses and IDs. A good portion of the problem with the current incarnation of voter ID laws is the disproportionate political pain they inflict by being required immediately, if we could deal with it intelligently down the road it may be worth it just to avoid this kind of political drama all over again.
Actually it is. Because the discussion helps give the nonissue legitimacy. And if you haven't noticed, there are people trying to legitimize this nonissue so that they can use it to legally disenfranchise people.
Look, if the PA forums are giving anything legitimacy our civilization has much bigger problems.
No, you simply do not understand the issue. Voter ID laws are designed to cause disproportionate political pain. This is their entire purpose, because voter fraud is not an actual thing.
This is in good faith arguing about how laws to keep minorities and poor people from voting could be implemented in a way that harms minorities and poor people less
As one of my favorite demotivators says, "no one drop thinks itself responsible for the flood."
Alone, we're a drop in the zeitgeist bucket. But we're not alone, and our addition just goes to help terrible people do a terrible thing. So I'd rather be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
I don't know what to tell you, man. I wish we didn't have three "What About Men's Rights?" threads, but they're there.