Post #265,407
8/19/06 2:01:00 PM
|
An ID isn't "ABSOLUTE" proof.
I think you missed Ashton's point. :-)
While there are reasonable reasons for having verified voter roles and ways of verifying that someone who presents themselves at the polls are who they say they are, there are also easy ways of creating unconstitutional barriers to the franchise.
Requiring a birth certificate as proof of ID might seem reasonable, and in most cases it might be, as the story indicates it can be a hardship for people who don't have that particular proof handy.
IOW, a particular requirement can be onerous or reasonable depending on how flexible it is and it depends on who is enforcing the rules. Uniform, national voter standards would probably be less subject to potential abuse, but the devil's in the details.
Finally, I'm sure you realize that just because you have a piece of paper or a card that matches your person biometrically 12 ways to Sunday doesn't mean that it's absolute proof that you're who you say you are. ID cards can have errors (talk to a set of adult twins sometime to find out how easy it is for ID information to be messed up), and ID cards can be faked. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks that low participation is probably more of a danger to our democractic republic than voter fraud.)
|
Post #265,409
8/19/06 3:06:38 PM
|
And we try to create these extremes
to validate someone's position that since "we can never be sure" that "we shouldn't even try"...or that trying somehow becomes partisan politics.
Sorry, my BS-o-meter is way off the charts on this topic.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #265,411
8/19/06 3:51:04 PM
|
Sure.
"Where you stand depends on where you sit." - Miles' Law. My position isn't that it's too tough a problem. My position is that voting restrictions can be used by the unscrupulous to restrict voter participation. History shows that it has been. If one goes to the organization pointed to in the Salon story, [link|http://www.projectvote.org|Project Vote] one can find things like [link|http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/pdfs/Project_Vote_Key_Election_Administration_Policy_Recommendations.pdf|Key Recommendations to Improve Election Administration] (3 page .pdf): Voter ID Requirements for Voting
Project Vote opposes ID requirements for voting because they raise barriers to voting while failing to solve any existing problem. While the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires first-time registrants who register by mail to show ID before voting, several states now require all registered voters to show ID before voting. Some even require photo ID. While typically the stated motivation is to prevent voter fraud, the reality is that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Cases of individuals impersonating a registered voter in order to vote at the polls\ufffdthe only kind of fraud that an ID requirement would help to prevent\ufffdare unheard of in recent times.
The arguments against ID requirements are straightforward:
1. They are not needed. ID requirements do not solve any real voter fraud problem.
2. They can be prohibitively expensive for low-income people, especially strict photo ID requirements, which may amount to a poll tax, as was the recent case in Georgia.
3. Voter ID discriminates against minorities, rural voters, the homeless, Native Americans, low income people, the elderly, people with disabilities and persons in large ouseholds, all of whom are less likely than white or affluent voters to have ID. All of those sound like good arguments to me. Those who want to require additional IDs and so forth need to present evidence of why its needed and address the cited problems. [link|http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/pdfs/Our_Vote__Our_Voices.pdf|Our Vote, Our Voices] (30 page .pdf): Yet every vote was not counted, nor was every eligible citizen able to vote. In 2004, thousands of eligible Americans were denied their right to register and vote in local, state, and federal elections. In Ohio, party officials unfairly attempted to have the state purge 37,000 voters from the rolls. In Pennsylvania, polling places ran out of provisional ballots before noon. In Louisiana and Michigan, poll workers turned away voters with legal forms of identification that the workers had not been trained to accept. In Washington, officials refused to register applicants who failed to check one box. In Arkansas, election officials rejected applications from seventeen-year-olds who would be eighteen on or before November 2nd. In Iowa and Florida, elections officials refused to open early voting sites in locations easily accessible to all voters.
Violations of this sort were not confined to one or two states and, collectively, disenfranchised thousands of Americans. Some violations were intentional, political moves to curb voter power, but many were the result of insufficient resources, inefficient practices or ignorance. Intention aside, these barriers were civil rights violations. Whatever the reasons, the problems should be fixed - especially when the country is apparently so divided. If the people don't have confidence that all votes are treated equally, then our whole system of government is at risk. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #265,414
8/19/06 4:48:47 PM
|
And perhaps the only..
..group I can agree with in the "discimination" category is the homeless...or maybe with the addition of the >extreme< rural.
And in order to solve one problem, you leave the process wide open to other abuse.
I disagree with the need to show a mass of id at the poll, the voter registation should be enough. To get registered, ID of some description should be required and verified..and it should be standard between the states what that requirement is.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #265,416
8/19/06 5:50:34 PM
|
call bs on these points
"In Washington, officials refused to register applicants who failed to check one box." check the box, you are in
"In Arkansas, election officials rejected applications from seventeen-year-olds who would be eighteen on or before November 2nd." Come back when you are 18 and entitled to vote
"In Iowa and Florida, elections officials refused to open early voting sites in locations easily accessible to all voters." Dunno about Iowa but early voting sites in florida were at the county seat. These are generally in a downtown location therefore easy to get to by alternate transportation.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #265,419
8/19/06 6:14:11 PM
|
Hmmm. On #2.
[link|http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections_voter_arkansas_absentee.html|Arkansas voting rules]: To Apply to Register to Vote in Arkansas :
* You must be a U.S. citizen and an Arkansas resident 30 days prior to an election.
* You must be age 18 before the next election within the county.
* You must not presently be adjudged mentally incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction.
* You must not have been convicted of a felony without your sentence having been discharged or pardoned.
* You must not claim the right to vote in another county or state. Someone who is 17 but will be 18 the day of the election is entitled to register to vote (assuming they meet the other requirements), and entitled to vote on election day. [link|http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/pdfs/States_of_Disarray1.pdf|States of Disarray] (10 page .pdf): Challenges for Future Elections [in Arkansas]
Election administration offices rejected the applications of new voters who would turn 18 by the Presidential Election, but after an intervening local election. Some of these rejected voters received
blank applications with their rejection notices, instructing the voters to submit the application after their 18th birthday, but federal law requires only that people be 18 on election day. Requiring young voters to submit duplicate applications leaves more room for error and is an additional administrative barrier to maximizing their opportunity to vote. Proper administrative systems should be able to
remedy these problems so that new voters aren\ufffdt required to submit duplicate applications. If people were told they had to be 18 to register, they were given incorrect information. Mistakes like this shouldn't happen. They should have been told that they needed to register after the local election day if they would turn 18 after that day. Even if there's no possibility of two forms causing errors or confusion, the election officials should always give people correct information. One of the purposes of the national HAVA act was to minimize problems like these. There doesn't have to be nefarious intent for there to be problems that should be remedied. The PDF goes into more details on the problems they found in other states. It's not simply a matter of "do the right thing and you're OK". Some people apparently were never told the proper way to fill out the forms or were never given the opportunity to correct the forms and thus were later denied their right to vote. Of course, there will always be problems. But we should be able to come up with ways to give everyone the legal franchise and not have 10s of thousands of people excluded for reasons like these. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #265,447
8/20/06 9:46:11 AM
|
You know...I have to call BS on this as well...
"In Washington, officials refused to register applicants who failed to check one box." check the box, you are in Frankly, I don't give a damn. I seem to recall that I have to produce my drivers license and voters registration when I go to vote. But if we're going to follow the rules about filling in a stupid box, shouldn't we follow the rules on abstenee ballots and postmarks?
|
Post #265,539
8/21/06 1:46:09 PM
|
I call BS on your BS
Uhhh, Box- You entitled to vote if you have become 18 at the time of the election, not at the time of registration. If you are denied registration for the reason you are not 18 when registered but will be 18 when the first election for which the registration is valid is held. It is a violation of Federal law and one's civil rights. Period.
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
Post #265,542
8/21/06 1:56:57 PM
|
But, what if one can vote before official Election Day?
There would be a possibility of someone "early voting" before they are of age.
Of course, the votes would not be counted until election day.
Alex
When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
|
Post #265,547
8/21/06 2:05:45 PM
|
Doesn't matter. The vote isn't official until election day
Besides, we all know what happens to votes that are cast absentee....
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
