Should voters be required to show ID? (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

So your biggest concern is that 5 votes voting in a way that would not have been stopped by requiring Voter ID would swing an election for city council elections in a town nobody has ever heard of?

ID's typically have an address on them.

So do voter registration forms.

Which prevented what?

 

[17seconds]

Is this thread really 27 pages long? How can a discussion last so long about the simple and reasonable requirement that people show (gasp!) ID to be able to vote?If there is any thread in the FFA that represents how doomed we are in this country, this is the one.

Two people who don't understand the complexity of the issue. The right wing relies on low information voters.

 

[The Commish]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

I get that concern, but shouldn't you also be concerned about how placing additional requirements in place to allow people to vote will also affect the outcome of local elections more?I just find this whole debate a crazy world that shows that most sides really don't care about any kind of ideal. They just want what helps their side better. In any sane world, conservatives and liberals would be on opposite sides of this debate.

What is the ideal though? Wouldn't it be ideal to have a process where we don't have to worry about the validity of the voter coming in the door to vote? What folks seem to want to ignore is the fact that you can do identification of voters in a way that is NOT a burden to them.

The more I think about it, the more it's a dumb point. I can think of many other issues I see each side being hypocritical as well.As far as the ideal, at one time I naively thought that it was obviously to ensure every person that wants to vote and is eligible can and that it would be better for 100s of fraudulent votes to be counted rather than one person be denied their rights. That was obviously a joke. Past that, overall one would think conservatives would be more about limited government and individual responsibility. Yet here they want more government regulation of individuals. The converse is true of liberals.Edit: Also, what's the idea that wouldn't burden people? If that was really true and it didn't cost a lot more money I would be for it. I can think of some ideas that would impose burdens that many might consider acceptable, but nothing that truly places no additional burden on people.

use fingerprints

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Is this thread really 27 pages long? How can a discussion last so long about the simple and reasonable requirement that people show (gasp!) ID to be able to vote?If there is any thread in the FFA that represents how doomed we are in this country, this is the one.

Two people who don't understand the complexity of the issue. The right wing relies on low information voters.

There's nothing complex about this issue. Some people think that getting an ID is easy. Some people don't. Those people tend to be on different sides.

 

[17seconds]

Is this thread really 27 pages long? How can a discussion last so long about the simple and reasonable requirement that people show (gasp!) ID to be able to vote?If there is any thread in the FFA that represents how doomed we are in this country, this is the one.

Two people who don't understand the complexity of the issue. The right wing relies on low information voters.

There's nothing complex about this issue. Some people think that getting an ID is easy. Some people don't. Those people tend to be on different sides.

If it was a federal law and the question was "driver's license or not?" it would be simple. It is complex because there are 50 states that can go from some (or no) form of ID to some other (sometimes multiple) forms of ID. And there are all manner of personal situations affected. Very complex as a national issue.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Is this thread really 27 pages long? How can a discussion last so long about the simple and reasonable requirement that people show (gasp!) ID to be able to vote?If there is any thread in the FFA that represents how doomed we are in this country, this is the one.

Two people who don't understand the complexity of the issue. The right wing relies on low information voters.

There's nothing complex about this issue. Some people think that getting an ID is easy. Some people don't. Those people tend to be on different sides.

Some people would rather disenfranchise 100,000 voters without an ID than to risk that 1 person would say that they're somebody else and vote illegally.

100 guilty men should go free before one innocent man....fool me once....cant get fooled again.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Is this thread really 27 pages long? How can a discussion last so long about the simple and reasonable requirement that people show (gasp!) ID to be able to vote?If there is any thread in the FFA that represents how doomed we are in this country, this is the one.

Two people who don't understand the complexity of the issue. The right wing relies on low information voters.

There's nothing complex about this issue. Some people think that getting an ID is easy. Some people don't. Those people tend to be on different sides.

If it was a federal law and the question was "driver's license or not?" it would be simple. It is complex because there are 50 states that can go from some (or no) form of ID to some other (sometimes multiple) forms of ID. And there are all manner of personal situations affected. Very complex as a national issue.

I don't think that makes the problem any more complex. So different states run their elections a little differently? It's like that now.

 

[17seconds]

Is this thread really 27 pages long? How can a discussion last so long about the simple and reasonable requirement that people show (gasp!) ID to be able to vote?If there is any thread in the FFA that represents how doomed we are in this country, this is the one.

Two people who don't understand the complexity of the issue. The right wing relies on low information voters.

There's nothing complex about this issue. Some people think that getting an ID is easy. Some people don't. Those people tend to be on different sides.

If it was a federal law and the question was "driver's license or not?" it would be simple. It is complex because there are 50 states that can go from some (or no) form of ID to some other (sometimes multiple) forms of ID. And there are all manner of personal situations affected. Very complex as a national issue.

I don't think that makes the problem any more complex. So different states run their elections a little differently? It's like that now.

You aren't the kind of guy to feign ignorance and I'm pretty sure you know what I mean, so I'm puzzled by your response. A discussion at the national level (and a 27-page FFA thread) is understandable because the issue has many facets (50 states, different ID laws, ...).

 

[RCon]

Is this thread really 27 pages long? How can a discussion last so long about the simple and reasonable requirement that people show (gasp!) ID to be able to vote?If there is any thread in the FFA that represents how doomed we are in this country, this is the one.

Two people who don't understand the complexity of the issue. The right wing relies on low information voters.

There's nothing complex about this issue. Some people think that getting an ID is easy. Some people don't. Those people tend to be on different sides.

If it was a federal law and the question was "driver's license or not?" it would be simple. It is complex because there are 50 states that can go from some (or no) form of ID to some other (sometimes multiple) forms of ID. And there are all manner of personal situations affected. Very complex as a national issue.

I don't think that makes the problem any more complex. So different states run their elections a little differently? It's like that now.

You aren't the kind of guy to feign ignorance and I'm pretty sure you know what I mean, so I'm puzzled by your response. A discussion at the national level (and a 27-page FFA thread) is understandable because the issue has many facets (50 states, different ID laws, ...).

Who is discussing this at the national level?

 

[parasaurolophus]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

So your biggest concern is that 5 votes voting in a way that would not have been stopped by requiring Voter ID would swing an election for city council elections in a town nobody has ever heard of?

ID's typically have an address on them.

So do voter registration forms.

Which prevented what?

Them not disclosing where they lived?

So how did the people that live outside the district get past?Do you honestly think that required voter ID wouldn't have prevented at least a couple of those votes? Please keep in mind before you answer that driver's licenses were involved in proving people lived outside Vernon.

 

[Rayderr]

Link.

 

[pantagrapher]

Link.

I don't have my abacus handy. Can you count up all the cases of voter fraud in that link?

 

[Rayderr]

Link.

I don't have my abacus handy. Can you count up all the cases of voter fraud in that link?

A Democrat campaign manager talks about faking documents like utility bills to vote as others and that's your response?

 

[Short Corner]

Link.

I don't have my abacus handy. Can you count up all the cases of voter fraud in that link?

Seriously?

 

[pantagrapher]

Link.

I don't have my abacus handy. Can you count up all the cases of voter fraud in that link?

A Democrat campaign manager talks about faking documents like utility bills to vote as others and that's your response?

You're letting yourself be O'Keefed.

 

[pantagrapher]

Link.

I don't have my abacus handy. Can you count up all the cases of voter fraud in that link?

Seriously?

Well, no. Obviously you'd have to use a calculator.

 

[Rayderr]

Link.

I don't have my abacus handy. Can you count up all the cases of voter fraud in that link?

A Democrat campaign manager talks about faking documents like utility bills to vote as others and that's your response?

You're letting yourself be O'Keefed.

So head in the sand it is.

 

[pantagrapher]

Link.

I don't have my abacus handy. Can you count up all the cases of voter fraud in that link?

A Democrat campaign manager talks about faking documents like utility bills to vote as others and that's your response?

You're letting yourself be O'Keefed.

So head in the sand it is.

I'm sure campaign workers across the country are routinely approached by guys pretending to want to vote twice. Not sure why you guys are so eager to believe this mularkey.

 

[Rayderr]

Link.

I don't have my abacus handy. Can you count up all the cases of voter fraud in that link?

A Democrat campaign manager talks about faking documents like utility bills to vote as others and that's your response?

You're letting yourself be O'Keefed.

So head in the sand it is.

I'm sure campaign workers across the country are routinely approached by guys pretending to want to vote twice. Not sure why you guys are so eager to believe this mularkey.

Do those campaign workers then tell the people how to go about doing it?

 

[parasaurolophus]

This has always been my biggest concern regarding voter fraud - small elections where a handful of ballots can affect the outcome. It's why I don't give weight to the argument about minimal proven voter fraud.

So your biggest concern is that 5 votes voting in a way that would not have been stopped by requiring Voter ID would swing an election for city council elections in a town nobody has ever heard of?

ID's typically have an address on them.

So do voter registration forms.

Which prevented what?

Them not disclosing where they lived?

So how did the people that live outside the district get past?Do you honestly think that required voter ID wouldn't have prevented at least a couple of those votes? Please keep in mind before you answer that driver's licenses were involved in proving people lived outside Vernon.

Yes. Establishing domicile is something more than just what address is your driver's license. It's a question of where you live and have no plans to leave in the immediate future. It's an analysis which is wholly inappropriate for a poll worker tending a desk not to mention that someone could have moved and not updated their license yet and there is no state where a driver's license is the only required ID. Heck, in Texas I think you can use your gun permit.Voter ID is a very specific requirement to "fix" problems which nobody can seem able to find at the cost of resulting in millions of Americans not being able to vote to stop people who are so gung-ho about elections that they're willing to commit a felony to add 1 vote but so cheap, stupid, and disorganized that they're not willing to get fake IDs printed for themselves or commit fraud in a way which actually adds up such as just dumping a whole bag of ballots into a dumpster somewhere.

so they used their drivers license to prove they werent residents, but you still think requiring ID wouldnt have mattered here because of course they would have still committed voter fraud no matter what obstacle was put in front of them. Do you lock your car doors?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

This Moran guy has to be an idiot to not know what was going on here. But the video seems to make fairly evident that Moran hasn't done anything like this before, thinks that it would be a better use of time to just do normal get-out-the-vote stuff, and is just making #### up off the top of his head. So this isn't really evidence that it actually happens, it might be evidence of the opposite.

 

[Rayderr]

This Moran guy has to be an idiot to not know what was going on here. But the video seems to make fairly evident that Moran hasn't done anything like this before, thinks that it would be a better use of time to just do normal get-out-the-vote stuff, and is just making #### up off the top of his head. So this isn't really evidence that it actually happens, it might be evidence of the opposite.

or evidence that they are open to it if they think they can get away with it.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

This Moran guy has to be an idiot to not know what was going on here. But the video seems to make fairly evident that Moran hasn't done anything like this before, thinks that it would be a better use of time to just do normal get-out-the-vote stuff, and is just making #### up off the top of his head. So this isn't really evidence that it actually happens, it might be evidence of the opposite.

or evidence that they are open to it if they think they can get away with it.

I don't think integrity in politics is the reason that in-person voter fraud is rare. There are lots of dirty political operatives who will bend and break the law to advantage their candidates. The reason it is rare is because it's a stupid and inefficient way to try to influence an election. The Moran video seems to support that.

 

[Rayderr]

This Moran guy has to be an idiot to not know what was going on here. But the video seems to make fairly evident that Moran hasn't done anything like this before, thinks that it would be a better use of time to just do normal get-out-the-vote stuff, and is just making #### up off the top of his head. So this isn't really evidence that it actually happens, it might be evidence of the opposite.

or evidence that they are open to it if they think they can get away with it.

I don't think integrity in politics is the reason that in-person voter fraud is rare. There are lots of dirty political operatives who will bend and break the law to advantage their candidates. The reason it is rare is because it's a stupid and inefficient way to try to influence an election. The Moran video seems to support that.

But the fact that his response wasn't "Get out of here. We will not have anyone who wants to commit voter fraud working on our campaign" troubles me a bit.

 

[pantagrapher]

This Moran guy has to be an idiot to not know what was going on here. But the video seems to make fairly evident that Moran hasn't done anything like this before, thinks that it would be a better use of time to just do normal get-out-the-vote stuff, and is just making #### up off the top of his head. So this isn't really evidence that it actually happens, it might be evidence of the opposite.

or evidence that they are open to it if they think they can get away with it.

I don't think integrity in politics is the reason that in-person voter fraud is rare. There are lots of dirty political operatives who will bend and break the law to advantage their candidates. The reason it is rare is because it's a stupid and inefficient way to try to influence an election. The Moran video seems to support that.

But the fact that his response wasn't "Get out of here. We will not have anyone who wants to commit voter fraud working on our campaign" troubles me a bit.

Why does it trouble you? You think O'Keefe was actually going to try to forge a utility bill and try to vote twice?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

But the fact that his response wasn't "Get out of here. We will not have anyone who wants to commit voter fraud working on our campaign" troubles me a bit.

Sorry to hear that you are troubled to learn that politics is often sleazy.

 

[pantagrapher]

The fact that the ridiculous voting twice nonsense now involves the extra step of forging a utility bill makes it even more ridiculous. Vote fraud paranoiacs should find this reassuring.

 

[Rayderr]

The fact that the ridiculous voting twice nonsense now involves the extra step of forging a utility bill makes it even more ridiculous. Vote fraud paranoiacs should find this reassuring.

Other forms of mail can be used in place of a utility bill.

 

[Rayderr]

This Moran guy has to be an idiot to not know what was going on here. But the video seems to make fairly evident that Moran hasn't done anything like this before, thinks that it would be a better use of time to just do normal get-out-the-vote stuff, and is just making #### up off the top of his head. So this isn't really evidence that it actually happens, it might be evidence of the opposite.

or evidence that they are open to it if they think they can get away with it.

I don't think integrity in politics is the reason that in-person voter fraud is rare. There are lots of dirty political operatives who will bend and break the law to advantage their candidates. The reason it is rare is because it's a stupid and inefficient way to try to influence an election. The Moran video seems to support that.

But the fact that his response wasn't "Get out of here. We will not have anyone who wants to commit voter fraud working on our campaign" troubles me a bit.

Why does it trouble you? You think O'Keefe was actually going to try to forge a utility bill and try to vote twice?

You don't find it troubling that a campaign manager wants to look into how to vote multiple times? I can only assume it's your blind partisan support that is preventing you from saying that Pat Moran was absolutely wrong and that no campaign should even entertain the idea of committing voter fraud.

 

[pantagrapher]

This Moran guy has to be an idiot to not know what was going on here. But the video seems to make fairly evident that Moran hasn't done anything like this before, thinks that it would be a better use of time to just do normal get-out-the-vote stuff, and is just making #### up off the top of his head. So this isn't really evidence that it actually happens, it might be evidence of the opposite.

or evidence that they are open to it if they think they can get away with it.

I don't think integrity in politics is the reason that in-person voter fraud is rare. There are lots of dirty political operatives who will bend and break the law to advantage their candidates. The reason it is rare is because it's a stupid and inefficient way to try to influence an election. The Moran video seems to support that.

But the fact that his response wasn't "Get out of here. We will not have anyone who wants to commit voter fraud working on our campaign" troubles me a bit.

Why does it trouble you? You think O'Keefe was actually going to try to forge a utility bill and try to vote twice?

You don't find it troubling that a campaign manager wants to look into how to vote multiple times? I can only assume it's your blind partisan support that is preventing you from saying that Pat Moran was absolutely wrong and that no campaign should even entertain the idea of committing voter fraud.

Troubling? No. The thought probably never crossed his mind before the O'Keefer came and asked him how someone could do such a thing. Had he gone out recruiting people for some vote fraud conspiracy, you'd have a story. But that would never happen, because it would be so incredibly stupid no one would ever attempt it. And why do you keep calling him a campaign manager?

 

[Rayderr]

This Moran guy has to be an idiot to not know what was going on here. But the video seems to make fairly evident that Moran hasn't done anything like this before, thinks that it would be a better use of time to just do normal get-out-the-vote stuff, and is just making #### up off the top of his head. So this isn't really evidence that it actually happens, it might be evidence of the opposite.

or evidence that they are open to it if they think they can get away with it.

I don't think integrity in politics is the reason that in-person voter fraud is rare. There are lots of dirty political operatives who will bend and break the law to advantage their candidates. The reason it is rare is because it's a stupid and inefficient way to try to influence an election. The Moran video seems to support that.

But the fact that his response wasn't "Get out of here. We will not have anyone who wants to commit voter fraud working on our campaign" troubles me a bit.

Why does it trouble you? You think O'Keefe was actually going to try to forge a utility bill and try to vote twice?

You don't find it troubling that a campaign manager wants to look into how to vote multiple times? I can only assume it's your blind partisan support that is preventing you from saying that Pat Moran was absolutely wrong and that no campaign should even entertain the idea of committing voter fraud.

Troubling? No. The thought probably never crossed his mind before the O'Keefer came and asked him how someone could do such a thing. Had he gone out recruiting people for some vote fraud conspiracy, you'd have a story. But that would never happen, because it would be so incredibly stupid no one would ever attempt it. And why do you keep calling him a campaign manager?

Because it's quicker to type than Campaign Field Director (his official title.) Noticing that you are still avoiding saying that Pat Moran was wrong, and that no one in politics should entertain the notion of committing voter fraud.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Noticing that you are still avoiding saying that Pat Moran was wrong, and that no one in politics should entertain the notion of committing voter fraud.

Well, because none of this seems very relevant to whether we should have voter ID laws. I think all of us are willing to stipulate that there are people like Pat Moran around who might be willing to entertain the notion of cheating in an election, if the idea weren't so stupid.

 

[Rayderr]

Noticing that you are still avoiding saying that Pat Moran was wrong, and that no one in politics should entertain the notion of committing voter fraud.

Well, because none of this seems very relevant to whether we should have voter ID laws. I think all of us are willing to stipulate that there are people like Pat Moran around who might be willing to entertain the notion of cheating in an election, if the idea weren't so stupid.

I would contend that if someone has thought about doing it, that someone probably has done it.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Noticing that you are still avoiding saying that Pat Moran was wrong, and that no one in politics should entertain the notion of committing voter fraud.

Well, because none of this seems very relevant to whether we should have voter ID laws. I think all of us are willing to stipulate that there are people like Pat Moran around who might be willing to entertain the notion of cheating in an election, if the idea weren't so stupid.

I would contend that if someone has thought about doing it, that someone probably has done it.

Hopefully my wife doesn't think the way you do.

 

[Jewell]

The link is a video of Barack Obama voting early in Chicago. The woman in charge of giving him his ballot says, "I need some ID", and Obama responds, "You're right." He then shows his ID.

This polling lady must be super racist or something...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/25/obama_asked_to_show_id_while_early_voting_in_chicago.html

 

[Tybeeman]

Absolutley

 

[The Commish]

In light of Sandy, New Jersey to allow e-mail voting. I'm curious where people come down on this.

Not any worse than just being able to walk in and tell someone you are X and them letting you vote

 

[Sarnoff]

I'm curious on where people come down on North Dakota's system:

The state is the only one with no voter registration.

Any North Dakotan who arrives at a polling place (or early-vote location) with an ID card showing him or her to be over 18 years old and a resident of the local precinct is handed a ballot approved by a judge of elections. Anyone who does not have ID, or one with a local address on it—or is challenged by an election monitor—can complete an affidavit ballot attesting to his or her eligibility. While the state retains a central file of who has participated in past elections, voters’ IDs are not checked against it or any other external data source.

But these affidavit ballots are not segregated, as provisional ballots are elsewhere. Like standard ballots, they are filled out by hand and then run through an optical scanner on the spot, according to Cass County auditor Mike Montplaisir, and counted immediately. Even though recounts are automatically triggered when a North Dakota election is determined by a margin of less than one-half of 1 percent—or within 2 percent if requested by the losing candidate—they have never in the past involved questions of individual eligibility. “It’s never got into challenging voters, because if a vote has been cast and a vote has been counted you can’t determine which votes have been cast which way," says Montplaisir, who oversees elections in the state's largest county.

...“If you are challenged at the time, all you need to do is sign something saying you are a qualified elector,” says one Democratic operative familiar with the party’s plans in case of a post-election legal battle. “If we can prove that an affidavit ballot was inappropriately cast we have no recourse.”

Basically, anyone can walk in and demand a ballot. Even if their eligibility is challenged by an election monitor, all they have to do is sign a letter stating they are eligible, and they're handed a ballot that is immediately counted and cannot be separated out later if it's found they were indeed ineligible.

I don't think I'd want to see this everywhere. I think ND should think about revisions to that system.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Basically, anyone can walk in and demand a ballot. Even if their eligibility is challenged by an election monitor, all they have to do is sign a letter stating they are eligible, and they're handed a ballot that is immediately counted and cannot be separated out later if it's found they were indeed ineligible.I don't think I'd want to see this everywhere. I think ND should think about revisions to that system.

I'd make one small change to the system - take a digital photo of anybody signing one of those affidavits. That would reduce the likelihood of voter impersonation to close to zero.

 

[Rayderr]

In light of Sandy, New Jersey to allow e-mail voting. I'm curious where people come down on this.

chunkylover53@aol.com of Springfield, NJ is voting Obama.

 

[pantagrapher]

I'm curious on where people come down on North Dakota's system:

The state is the only one with no voter registration.

Any North Dakotan who arrives at a polling place (or early-vote location) with an ID card showing him or her to be over 18 years old and a resident of the local precinct is handed a ballot approved by a judge of elections. Anyone who does not have ID, or one with a local address on it—or is challenged by an election monitor—can complete an affidavit ballot attesting to his or her eligibility. While the state retains a central file of who has participated in past elections, voters’ IDs are not checked against it or any other external data source.

But these affidavit ballots are not segregated, as provisional ballots are elsewhere. Like standard ballots, they are filled out by hand and then run through an optical scanner on the spot, according to Cass County auditor Mike Montplaisir, and counted immediately. Even though recounts are automatically triggered when a North Dakota election is determined by a margin of less than one-half of 1 percent—or within 2 percent if requested by the losing candidate—they have never in the past involved questions of individual eligibility. “It’s never got into challenging voters, because if a vote has been cast and a vote has been counted you can’t determine which votes have been cast which way," says Montplaisir, who oversees elections in the state's largest county.

...“If you are challenged at the time, all you need to do is sign something saying you are a qualified elector,” says one Democratic operative familiar with the party’s plans in case of a post-election legal battle. “If we can prove that an affidavit ballot was inappropriately cast we have no recourse.”

Basically, anyone can walk in and demand a ballot. Even if their eligibility is challenged by an election monitor, all they have to do is sign a letter stating they are eligible, and they're handed a ballot that is immediately counted and cannot be separated out later if it's found they were indeed ineligible.I don't think I'd want to see this everywhere. I think ND should think about revisions to that system.

It doesn't sound that different from Minnesota's Same Day Voter Registration. You can register at the polls with bank statement/utility bill sent to you at an address in the precinct or with someone who has already registered to vote in that precinct vouching that they know you and that they know that you live in the district.Not coincidentally, Minnesota consistently has one of the highest voter participation rates in the nation. It's a good thing imo.

One thing that I'll hand it to when it comes to the self-styled rugged individualists is they don't tolerate some government flunkies telling them they can't cast their vote.

 

[Sarnoff]

I'm curious on where people come down on North Dakota's system:

The state is the only one with no voter registration.

Any North Dakotan who arrives at a polling place (or early-vote location) with an ID card showing him or her to be over 18 years old and a resident of the local precinct is handed a ballot approved by a judge of elections. Anyone who does not have ID, or one with a local address on it—or is challenged by an election monitor—can complete an affidavit ballot attesting to his or her eligibility. While the state retains a central file of who has participated in past elections, voters’ IDs are not checked against it or any other external data source.

But these affidavit ballots are not segregated, as provisional ballots are elsewhere. Like standard ballots, they are filled out by hand and then run through an optical scanner on the spot, according to Cass County auditor Mike Montplaisir, and counted immediately. Even though recounts are automatically triggered when a North Dakota election is determined by a margin of less than one-half of 1 percent—or within 2 percent if requested by the losing candidate—they have never in the past involved questions of individual eligibility. “It’s never got into challenging voters, because if a vote has been cast and a vote has been counted you can’t determine which votes have been cast which way," says Montplaisir, who oversees elections in the state's largest county.

...“If you are challenged at the time, all you need to do is sign something saying you are a qualified elector,” says one Democratic operative familiar with the party’s plans in case of a post-election legal battle. “If we can prove that an affidavit ballot was inappropriately cast we have no recourse.”

Basically, anyone can walk in and demand a ballot. Even if their eligibility is challenged by an election monitor, all they have to do is sign a letter stating they are eligible, and they're handed a ballot that is immediately counted and cannot be separated out later if it's found they were indeed ineligible.I don't think I'd want to see this everywhere. I think ND should think about revisions to that system.

It doesn't sound that different from Minnesota's Same Day Voter Registration. You can register at the polls with bank statement/utility bill sent to you at an address in the precinct or with someone who has already registered to vote in that precinct vouching that they know you and that they know that you live in the district.Not coincidentally, Minnesota consistently has one of the highest voter participation rates in the nation. It's a good thing imo.

What's wrong with segregating the ballot to be counted later, after eligibility is officially determined? I don't see any risk of disenfranchisement there. Like instant replay, I have no problem with taking a little time to make sure the right call is made. I've filled out a provisional ballot and didn't feel there was anything wrong about it.

 

[the moops]

I don't have an issue with voter ID. I do think it is going a bit too far to have a constitutional amendment on the issue. I think a legislative passed law is more appropriate. MN has a amendment that says "government issued ID". I heard a decent complaint that a more appropriate wording would be "government approved ID". With gov't issued, students at public universities probably could vote with their college ID, privare university students would not. It is also likely that military ID and passports would not be acceptable for they do not have addresses on them which would show residence requirements.

A law can be changed and updated. An amendment has no such luxury.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Lucky for America the Republican Party is on the job to try to keep Americans from voting.

 

[pantagrapher]

Lucky for America the Republican Party is on the job to try to keep Americans from voting.

I dunno. They've been doing their part to make sure democrats get out and vote this Wednesday.

 

[The Commish]

In light of Sandy, New Jersey to allow e-mail voting. I'm curious where people come down on this.

Not any worse than just being able to walk in and tell someone you are X and them letting you vote

I don't know about "worse" or "better" but you're joking that you don't see a difference, right?

It's less effort to hack away this way, but that's about it. It's still a hole in the process, but if we go by the prevailing attitude of "well, it's not been a problem yet, so what's the point in fixing it?" I don't see why this would be different to those holding that POV.

 

[saintsfan]

I have to present my ID. I don't know why others shouldn't.

 

[pantagrapher]

I have to present my ID. I don't know why others shouldn't.

Not everyone has a valid ID.

 

[Jewell]

I don't have an issue with voter ID. I do think it is going a bit too far to have a constitutional amendment on the issue. I think a legislative passed law is more appropriate. MN has a amendment that says "government issued ID". I heard a decent complaint that a more appropriate wording would be "government approved ID". With gov't issued, students at public universities probably could vote with their college ID, privare university students would not. It is also likely that military ID and passports would not be acceptable for they do not have addresses on them which would show residence requirements.

A law can be changed and updated. An amendment has no such luxury.

The bolded is probably why some people prefer a constitutional amendment over a law. A party in power, should they have a majority, could alter or even repeal an existing voting law should they believe it suits their interest. Repealing an amendment is much more onerous.

 

[saintsfan]

I have to present my ID. I don't know why others shouldn't.

Not everyone has a valid ID.

I don't understand why. Had one since I was 15. You need it to do everything. Open a bank account. Cash a check. Drive a car. Vote.