News Voter disenfranchisement - in 2014?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Voter disenfranchisement has become a significant issue, particularly for elderly citizens who may struggle to obtain the required identification due to new restrictive voting laws. Many participants express concern that these laws disproportionately affect those who have voted for decades without needing photo ID, highlighting the irony of needing more identification to vote than to engage in other activities, like flying or cashing checks. The discussion also touches on the inefficiencies of government processes, particularly the DMV, which can be burdensome for older individuals seeking ID. Despite claims of widespread voter fraud, evidence suggests it is rare, raising questions about the necessity of stringent ID requirements. Overall, the conversation underscores the challenges faced by vulnerable populations in maintaining their voting rights.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
22,343
Reaction score
7,150
Physics news on Phys.org
Wait for the future when they'll say you need a facebook page and to get it you'll need a drivers license or valid passport so facebook knows who you are.
 
She even said, “How do I know you’re not an illegal alien?!”
Sorry, but that is a valid point. How do you distinguish between illegal immigrants and US citizens without any official documents or registration?

Here in Germany, as an adult you have to have either ID or passport. If you lose ID and/or passport and your birth certificate at the same time, your home town still has a database entry about you, and if you come with witnesses that you are the corresponding person to this entry you can get new documents, but it is still a tricky procedure.
 
Astronuc said:
Kind of amazing in this day and age.
... that some simple id rules have not been put in place before in a country this size with such high physical mobility. Many other countries have them.

CRAWFORD v MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD said:
There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U. S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election. The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo identification cards currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important." Commission on Federal Election Reform, Report, Building Confidence in U. S. Elections §2.5 (Sept. 2005), App. 136-137 (Carter-Baker Report) (footnote omitted).10

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...l=000&invol=07-21&friend=public#FNopinion1.10

Anecdote for anecdote:
http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/be-informed/news-stories/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I agree with the comments made, and I've had the experience in presenting a 'government-issued photo ID' in entering the secured area at an airport, in various Federal buildings and other secure or regulated areas, and cashing a check, I reflect on the minority of cases like that of Ruthelle Frank.

That really hurt. I’d lived in the same house for 85 years, I’d served on the village board for 18 years, and then they told me that I wasn’t going to be allowed to vote.
I always voted. I’ve been registered to vote since I was 21 (the voting age wasn’t 18 until later), and I have never missed a presidential election.
It used to be that one's signature was sufficient - probably about 40 or so years ago.

I was wondering why not err on the side of protecting the right to vote. In the case of Ms. Frank, ostensibly there is a record of her residence and voting record. Besides, how many 85-year old illegal aliens show up to obtain a mandatory photo-ID?
 
I've got a feeling that's a cultural stuff. It's some kind of irony that GOP here actually tries to enforce rules that are quite normal in the EU (In my country I vote with passport, to express my opinion about quality of governance).

One simple rule - if whole legitimacy of gov is based on being the rightful heir, than you must have paranoiac procedures to guarantee that the queen did not have an affair and the new born baby was not replaced by midwives. If you have democracy, you must very carefully count the votes, as if it they were something important.

Just to provide unquestionable transition of power and to silent all conspiracy theorist.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
Astronuc said:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/25/another-elderly-woman-gets-caught-gops-war-voting/

Kind of amazing in this day and age.

Whoever said dealing with the government was going to be easy, whether you're 100 years old or 25 years old?

While I sympathize with Mrs. Frank, a check of the Wisconsin state Dept. of Health Services, which keeps track of vital records for the state, shows that you can request that a birth certificate search be made. The non-refundable fee of $20 for the search includes furnishing a copy of the BC to the applicant if one is found and additional copies can be furnished at $3/copy, so IDK where this $200 figure for a BC search comes from.

http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/vitalrecords/birth.htm

Yes, there is a form which must be filled out and submitted, but Mrs. Frank has a daughter to help her. When my elderly father was alive and had to fill out lengthy forms, I was glad to be able to assist him. If one doesn't want to go thru the hassle of getting a certified copy of the BC, Wisconsin also permits an applicant for an ID to furnish two other forms of identification: these include a current health insurance card, a utility bill, or a current bank statement.

I'm sure that Mrs. Frank is a recipient of SS and Medicare, so that's one form of ID. Since the article states she has lived at the same address for 85 years, there must be a utility bill of some sort. When the monthly SS check comes nowadays, the SSA is always urging recipients to sign-up for direct deposit, to prevent theft of the checks, so there may be a bank account in Mrs. Frank's name.

I always take what Bill Moyers has to say with a grain of salt. He is a long-time Democratic party activist, going back to at least his days working in LBJ's administration.
 
Astronuc said:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/25/another-elderly-woman-gets-caught-gops-war-voting/

Kind of amazing in this day and age.
Indeed, in today's world, to not have ID is mind-boggling...that's what you meant, right? ;)
While I agree with the comments made, and I've had the experience in presenting a 'government-issued photo ID' in entering the secured area at an airport, in various Federal buildings and other secure or regulated areas, and cashing a check, I reflect on the minority of cases like that of Ruthelle Frank.
I went to a bar the other night and was insulted when I was asked for an ID. I'm 38 and don't look 21. Don't they trust mey? They said they have to card everyone. How can that be when I can vote without showing an ID? Something far more important is far less secure. Seems contradictory, doesn't it? Meh -- I had my ID in my pocket, so I declined to sue...after all, I wanted a beer now!
It used to be that one's signature was sufficient - probably about 40 or so years ago.
Last time I voted, a signature was all I needed.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
edward said:
The ultimate insult is that they were sending people who haven't driven in years to the DMV to verify identification.
Why is that an insult? The DMV has the capability of verifying ID, taking pictures and printing out ID cards. Seems like a logical place to go. Where would you have people go to get a government issued ID?
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
Why is that an insult? The DMV has the capability of verifying ID, taking pictures and printing out ID cards. Seems like a logical place to go. Where would you have people go to get a government issued ID?

The DMV typically is also so jokingly noted for their inefficiency that they are frequently brought up by comedians. In this case it isn't funny. The people in the OP had not been there in years and had little or no access to them.

On the other hand these same people have been voting for years, and most of them at the same place. Older people also have either a Medicare or Medicaid card with the date of issue. Only a group who would perceive a significant number of the health cards held by older people to be fake would raise such a stink. Come to think of it this is just another insult to the elderly.

7 PAPERS, 4 GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES, 2 NEWS INVESTIGATIONS AND 1 COURT RULING PROVING VOTER FRAUD IS MOSTLY A MYTH

Links to each of the above are in the link below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-ruling-proving-voter-fraud-is-mostly-a-myth/
 
  • #12
edward said:
The DMV typically is also so jokingly noted for their inefficiency that they are frequently brought up by comedians.
Yes, government-run offices are often terribly inefficient. So what? Again: How is that an insult? And what is your alternative?
The people in the OP had not been there in years and had little or no access to them.
"Access"? Is that what you really meant to say? Clearly, they did have "access", since they went there and didn't say they had any trouble getting there.
Older people also have either a Medicare or Medicaid card...
I would be in favor of making those cards photo-IDs if it makes things easier. Sound good to you?
Only a group who would perceive a significant number of the health cards held by older people to be fake would raise such a stink. Come to think of it this is just another insult to the elderly.
Huh? They aren't being asked to show those cards, so you're just making all of that up. But as above: if you are suggesting making that a photo ID so they can show it at a voting place, I'd be in favor of it.
7 PAPERS, 4 GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES, 2 NEWS INVESTIGATIONS AND 1 COURT RULING PROVING VOTER FRAUD IS MOSTLY A MYTH
"Mostly"? So to put it another way: votor fraud happens.
 
  • Like
Likes edward
  • #13
russ_watters said:
Yes, government-run offices are often terribly inefficient. So what? Again: How is that an insult? And what is your alternative?

It is an insult because these people have voted for many years. many of them were voting before some forum members were even born. The Medicare and Medicaid cards with a picture ID would be a great alternative.

"Access"? Is that what you really meant to say? Clearly, they did have "access", since they went there and didn't say they had any trouble getting there.

Access was a poor choice of words only because it doesn't apply to ALL older people. Of course some can get there, the ones in the link did, but someone has to take them there. Not everyone has that someone, so obviously there is no access for them. Not everyone lives close to a DMV. Older handicapped and disabled people are especially burdened.

It looks like this issue may go to court in Wisconsin.

Brief filed in Wisconsin Voter ID case points out limited DMV access.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/jessie-opoien/brief-filed-in-wisconsin-voter-id-case-points-out-limited/article_45c2d51e-4b67-5a50-8b2f-bd24763450e1.html

I would be in favor of making those cards photo-IDs if it makes things easier. Sound good to you?

That sounds great to me !

Huh? They aren't being asked to show those cards, so you're just making all of that up. But as above: if you are suggesting making that a photo ID so they can show it at a voting place, I'd be in favor of it.

Why aren't they asking for the forms of government ID that most older people have in hand? Because they aren't a photo ID? Why aren't they a photo ID? Could it be because this is the type of red tape issue that is usually against Republican ideology?..Sorry I am getting off topic. OK OK I confess that was intentional. <(@^@)>

I agree that getting a photo ID on Medicare and Medicaid cards would be the answer to several problems. Many medical labs will not do the tests ordered by a doctor unless the patient shows a photo ID along with their government insurance cards. I know that from personal experience.

[/QUOTE"]Mostly"? So to put it another way: votor fraud happens.[/QUOTE]

It has been proven to be very rare. Are the new steps required to get a voter ID really necessary for the elderly? Disenfranchisement for the elderly is the whole point of the OP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
SteamKing said:
Looks like another unicorn or sasquatch has been sighted:

http://www.nhregister.com/governmen...ed-on-19-voting-fraud-charges?fb_locale=id_ID

That is an interesting article about one state politician and voter fraud, albeit it goes on to get a bit tacky.

She was fined $350 for a hit-and-run car accident shortly after winning the 2012 Democratic primary for the House seat. She later got into a fight with her boyfriend and faced domestic violence charges, which were dropped after she completed counseling.

So does the mud slinging start now? OK this republican has 13 felony voter fraud charges.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06...-supporter-charged-13-felonies-wisconsin.html

I doubt if either of these [fruitcakes) people were disenfranchised elderly Americans.

I see a big problem as being in the quote below:

Thirty-three states introduced 92 restrictive bills last year. Eight states passed new restrictive voting laws. They were able to do so thanks in part to the " "Supreme Court decision to overturn part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, which meant states no longer had to submit new election laws to the federal government.""

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/01/voter-id-laws

We most likely all agree that there is noting wrong with requiring proper voter identification. It does have to be done without affecting the elderly, the fox can not be in charge of the hen house, and no one should be disenfranchised.

What we have so far is everything from sensible to totally ridiculous. There are new voter laws being struck down by the courts only to be appealed Ad nauseam.

Below is a link to the various state voting laws:

http://ballotpedia.org/State_by_State_Voter_ID_Laws
 
  • #16
That's the problem with voter fraud (at least in the US): Voter fraud is real if the other party does it; it's a myth if your own party gets caught.
 
  • Like
Likes jz92wjaz
  • #17
Voting should be free and convenient. If it requires an ID, the ID should be 100% free and easily accessible.

Citizens have a right to vote and a right to a fair election that isn't impacted by fraud. If elected officials pass laws that are negligent in protecting those two rights, I will vote them out, regardless of their party affiliation.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #18
SteamKing said:
That's the problem with voter fraud (at least in the US): Voter fraud is real if the other party does it; it's a myth if your own party gets caught.

Ok so I have stayed on topic about as long as I can stand it.

Even if the Identity of individual voters could be scrutinized to the point where no fraud could ever exist, we still have to deal with electronic machines that many people, myself included , do not trust because they are too easy to rig. To make things worse the separate machines that actually count the votes can also be rigged.

Below is a good article if you want to read ten pages (short) on the history of election fraud. Most of the article focuses on more recent elections and points the finger at the folks on the right to the extent of calling machine fraud "red shift". It really digs deep.

http://harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/

Why did I always think that Harpers was about women's issues??
 
  • #19
The DMV is not the only source ofhttp://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/publication/137/acceptable_photo_ids_2014_pdf_48683.pdf in Wisconsin. A passport will also do, and that is available using so called "secondary evidence", i.e. credit card plus social security card, etc, along with a sworn witness.
http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/information/secondary-evidence1.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
  • #21
SteamKing said:
That's the problem with voter fraud (at least in the US): Voter fraud is real if the other party does it; it's a myth if your own party gets caught.
Same operates in other countries. In my country (Poland), nationalistic leaning voters trained thousands of people to monitor voting. When they failed to find anything except usual mess they claimed that it was because some serves located in Russia were used for counting votes.

May I behave like annoying foreigner, who gives a theoretically reasonably sounding suggestion which might be hard from political reasons? Would it be a problem to issue on federal level all citizens who don't have a driving license an ID card? Not even do it for free, but make a free photo and be so nice to give $5 to each person who takes it and demand local gov to honour those cards? (and start to phase out other gov issued cards)
 
  • #22
Up until a couple of years ago, I was able to visit my doctor's office without having to produce ID. Can't do that anymore. IDK if it's because of insurance fraud or what, but if you don't have some kind of picture ID, you're going to find a lot of trouble getting to do other things than casting a ballot.
 
  • #23
How do they intend to eliminate voter fraud for absentee ballots?

Voting by mail is becoming so popular that many voters vote by mail, even if they don't plan to be absent on election day (who wants to stand in line at polling centers). Some elections in off years are entirely by mail ballot, as it's cheaper than opening polling places in years with such a small turnout.

There's a trade off between election security and convenience. Usually, voters want just enough security not to inconvenience them. If it inconveniences voters from the opposite party without inconveniencing them personally, it's even better.
 
  • #24
BobG said:
How do they intend to eliminate voter fraud for absentee ballots?

You are still required to submit a copy of your photo ID along with the completed absentee ballot in some places. Also, the application to vote absentee requires that the applicant give full details of their name, address, and regular place of voting. If you, or someone else, shows up at your regular polling place wanting to vote, and the name they give matches someone who received an absentee ballot, you've got yourself a case of voter fraud. You're not supposed to be able to grab a bunch of blank absentee ballots and stuff the ballot box with them.
 
  • #25
SteamKing said:
Up until a couple of years ago, I was able to visit my doctor's office without having to produce ID. Can't do that anymore. IDK if it's because of insurance fraud or what, but if you don't have some kind of picture ID, you're going to find a lot of trouble getting to do other things than casting a ballot.

The photo ID for medical care issue started a few years ago. I do know that Illegals were using the Medicaid cards of relatives to receive medical care here in AZ.

The clinic below claims it is to make sure the right patient gets the right treatment.

By correctly identifying our patients we know what medications, tests and other health services are needed. Everyone getting non-emergency health care services at any of our facilities must show photo patient identification (ID). You must bring a photo ID with at least two of the following on it:
•Name
•Address
•Date of Birth
•Social Security Number

http://www.scvmc.org/patients/prepare/Pages/patientid.aspx

This was discussed earlier in the thread. Why isn't there a picture on a person's insurance or government issued health care card? With the cost of a health care policy it seems to me the insurance companies could afford to supply a picture on the ID card.

With inexpensive equipment available it is certainly easy to do, then again it would be easy for scammers and fraudulent card sellers to do.

DMV employees in a number of states have been caught selling documents to illegals.

Good Grief: California DMV Employees Arrested for Selling Fake IDs, Licenses, & Car Titles to Illegal Aliens

http://community.aarp.org/t5/Politi...ployees-Arrested-for-Selling-Fake/td-p/782904
 
  • #26
The courts notice and take action - Courts block voter ID laws in Texas, Wisconsin
http://news.yahoo.com/courts-block-voter-id-laws-texas-wisconsin-050359994.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
BobG said:
How do they intend to eliminate voter fraud for absentee ballots?

Voting by mail is becoming so popular that many voters vote by mail, even if they don't plan to be absent on election day (who wants to stand in line at polling centers). Some elections in off years are entirely by mail ballot, as it's cheaper than opening polling places in years with such a small turnout.

There's a trade off between election security and convenience. Usually, voters want just enough security not to inconvenience them. If it inconveniences voters from the opposite party without inconveniencing them personally, it's even better.

Oregon has been voting exclusively by mail for the past 16 years. I don't think fraud has been a problem here. And according to the following article, it's not really a problem anywhere else:

New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed
August 2012
A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.
​
I made a sarcastic joke yesterday about the 49 cent stamp required to mail it being the equivalent of a "Poll tax", but we can drop our ballots off in one of the 30 boxes located around the city, for free. No ID required.

I hear Washington state also votes exclusively by mail.
​
 
  • #28
It would seem the balance is between disenfanchising people who find it difficult to get a photo ID and enfranchising people who commit some kinds of electoral fraud. Either way, individual anecdotes are unhelpful. There is always going to be someone who should not be restricted a law, and someone else who definitely should.

NZ does not have ID required to vote ... though registering to vote can be a little involved.
OTOH: small population and rapid turnover of governments, and your name is checked against a list of registered voters.
I have no idea what would happen if someone showed up to vote only to find their name already crossed off... someone could, in principle, show up to many polling stations and so get more than their standard 2 votes ... which may have an effect if the voting is very close. I suspect that would be discovered should the lists get correlated.
 
  • #29
Royal births in those days were often protracted, painful and far from private. It was common practice for witnesses to attend a birth, to encourage the woman in labour and to swear there had been no foul play if the child died.

At a birth of a potential heir to the throne, witnesses were considered essential and the room would be crowded with ladies-in-waiting, midwives, servants and doctors, with the male courtiers hovering in the background. There were fears that unscrupulous monarchs would replace a dead baby with another newborn male, carried to the birth bed concealed in a warming pan. After the Reformation, Protestants were afraid that the Catholic Stuarts would cheat to divert the succession away from the Protestant Hanoverians.

Ministers and privy counsellors had been present with the ladies-in-waiting until 1894, when Queen Victoria decided that for the birth of the future Edward VIII, the home secretary would be enough. Princess Margaret kept the home secretary waiting for her birth at her grandparents' Scottish castle, Glamis, in August 1930. Home secretaries attended until the birth of Prince Charles at Buckingham Palace in 1948 when it was announced that the practice would be discontinued.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/23/royal-births-protracted-painful-public

Do you think that there was a serious problem with baby swapping? ;)
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
  • #31
SteamKing said:
Except to serve as a plot device in several fairy tales, not sure what royal baby swapping has to do with voter fraud or requiring an ID to vote.

You really don't see analogy?

Whatever is source of legitimacy of government, has to be be guarded with procedures that are technically speaking excessive (I consider as somewhat funny putting so many high rank officials to the room where the queen is giving birth). Not because you are seriously expecting some baby swapped / huge amount of people voting in someone else name, but because you want to have uncontested succession.

Damn, if such procedures were followed at Obama's birth that would at least strip his opponents of one of their arguments. ;)
 
  • #32
Czcibor said:
You really don't see analogy?

Whatever is source of legitimacy of government, has to be be guarded with procedures that are technically speaking excessive (I consider as somewhat funny putting so many high rank officials to the room where the queen is giving birth). Not because you are seriously expecting some baby swapped / huge amount of people voting in someone else name, but because you want to have uncontested succession.

Damn, if such procedures were followed at Obama's birth that would at least strip his opponents of one of their arguments. ;)

But this particular argument against Obama never gained much traction at large and was never a serious impediment to his assuming office once elected president. Whether a candidate is qualified to hold office does not bear any relation to the laws governing the ability of the population at large to cast a ballot in an election.

Except in countries where the monarch is both head of state and head of government, the integrity of the royal succession is of little moment to the affairs of state. In the UK, where the monarch has not been head of government for several centuries (in fact, since the supremacy of Parliament was established de facto during the Civil War in the 17th century), a succession of monarchs from different locales and nationalities have occupied the throne of England and the UK. You've had Stuarts, who were Scottish, William from the House of Orange (Dutch) and his daughter Anne, the Hanovers (German), then the Windsors (Anglicized Germans, because of the War). The royal houses of western Europe have many, if not more, familial connections due to intermarriage amongst different branches than they have ties with anyone European country.
 
  • #33
OmCheeto said:
Oregon has been voting exclusively by mail for the past 16 years. I don't think fraud has been a problem here. And according to the following article, it's not really a problem anywhere else:

New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed
August 2012
A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.
​
​
Part of the difficulty to people who are concerned about the integrity of the vote is that there is no broken window or dead body (well, sometimes there is a dead body...) in voter fraud, so you will only find it if you are looking hard for it. And I don't think people are looking hard for it.

In either case, I'm definitely in favor of finding ways to combat the other types of voter fraud, such as registration and absentee ballot fraud.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #34
About four or five years back, there was a person ahead of me in line who was trying to vote, but the judges were telling him that the
records indicated that he had voted earlier that day. Was this fraud or just a mistake? I don't know - although it's hard to see how a one-vote fraud is worth the trouble. But it could have been solved by having an ID check.

Disenfrachisement works both ways - people being told they can't vote because they can't prove who they are, and people who are told they can't vote because someone voted in their name.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and mheslep
  • #35
russ_watters said:
​
Part of the difficulty to people who are concerned about the integrity of the vote is that there is no broken window or dead body (well, sometimes there is a dead body...) in voter fraud, so you will only find it if you are looking hard for it. And I don't think people are looking hard for it.

In either case, I'm definitely in favor of finding ways to combat the other types of voter fraud, such as registration and absentee ballot fraud.

I won't deny voter fraud occurs:

Clackamas election worker gets jail time for election fraud
April 2013
Swenson is the 13th person to be prosecuted for voter fraud since Oregon went to all vote-by-mail elections in 2000. During that time frame, 23.8 million ballots were cast in statewide elections in Oregon.​

but I think the system of non-vote by mail is a much bigger problem.


Another reason to vote by mail?

Bottom top reason cited for not voting:
Bad weather 0.2%
(ref)​
 
  • #36
Czcibor said:
You really don't see analogy?

Whatever is source of legitimacy of government, has to be be guarded with procedures that are technically speaking excessive (I consider as somewhat funny putting so many high rank officials to the room where the queen is giving birth). Not because you are seriously expecting some baby swapped / huge amount of people voting in someone else name, but because you want to have uncontested succession.

Damn, if such procedures were followed at Obama's birth that would at least strip his opponents of one of their arguments. ;)
I understand the analogy you're trying to make, but there's one obvious flaw.

In the queen giving birth scenario, 100% of the "votes" are focused on a single individual. If the population was 100 million, they're protecting the equivalent of 100 million votes.

In a democratic election, you're working the other way. Voter ID laws are protecting each 1/100 millionth of the vote. They're worth an effort, but obviously don't have the same impact as the single heir in the queen giving birth scenario.

Just knowing how people do things, there certainly should be some voting controls. You have to handle people that move, but don't know how to change their residence for voting purposes (which can effect which city councilman, state representative they vote for, etc., but should still leave them eligible to vote in elections covering larger areas such as US Senator, President, etc). Getting people to vote in the right district is a bigger problem than actual fraud.

There's nothing wrong with trying to prevent intentional voter fraud. It's just ironic that we're increasing our efforts to prevent fraud at polling places while making it easier to vote via absentee ballot - a method more susceptible to voter fraud by its very nature. At least where I live, once you've set things up to receive absentee ballots, they keep coming year after year (until you fail to vote enough times and get purged from the rolls). A friend of mine still receives absentee ballots for her son who was in college (making him eligible to vote absentee since he was still considered a resident of his parents' house), but graduated a few years ago and now lives in an entirely different state. If she wanted to, she could just vote for him and who would know?
 
  • #37
BobG said:
Just knowing how people do things, there certainly should be some voting controls. You have to handle people that move, but don't know how to change their residence for voting purposes (which can effect which city councilman, state representative they vote for, etc., but should still leave them eligible to vote in elections covering larger areas such as US Senator, President, etc). Getting people to vote in the right district is a bigger problem than actual fraud.

This is why it is so difficult, IMO, for registrars to maintain accurate lists of eligible voters by district, and why, in some elections, more people vote than live in certain districts. If there is an announced effort to purge voter rolls, the hue and cry raised as a result is that voters are being disenfranchised.

At least where I live, once you've set things up to receive absentee ballots, they keep coming year after year (until you fail to vote enough times and get purged from the rolls). A friend of mine still receives absentee ballots for her son who was in college (making him eligible to vote absentee since he was still considered a resident of his parents' house), but graduated a few years ago and now lives in an entirely different state. If she wanted to, she could just vote for him and who would know?

IDK where this is, but in my state, you have to make a written application to the election officials before each election to receive an official ballot, which you mark and then return. Your name doesn't go on a list, like those for receiving magazine subscriptions or whatnot, and you do not keep receiving absentee ballots year after year. This is a practice which invites abuse, if not outright fraud. After voting, my absentee ballot is also enclosed in the last in a series of envelopes, which are all mailed back to the absentee voting office. On one of the outer envelopes, I must have my signature witnessed by a notary, which also means I must show proper ID.
 
  • #38
BobG said:
I understand the analogy you're trying to make, but there's one obvious flaw.

In the queen giving birth scenario, 100% of the "votes" are focused on a single individual. If the population was 100 million, they're protecting the equivalent of 100 million votes.

In a democratic election, you're working the other way. Voter ID laws are protecting each 1/100 millionth of the vote. They're worth an effort, but obviously don't have the same impact as the single heir in the queen giving birth scenario.

Just knowing how people do things, there certainly should be some voting controls. You have to handle people that move, but don't know how to change their residence for voting purposes (which can effect which city councilman, state representative they vote for, etc., but should still leave them eligible to vote in elections covering larger areas such as US Senator, President, etc). Getting people to vote in the right district is a bigger problem than actual fraud.

There's nothing wrong with trying to prevent intentional voter fraud. It's just ironic that we're increasing our efforts to prevent fraud at polling places while making it easier to vote via absentee ballot - a method more susceptible to voter fraud by its very nature. At least where I live, once you've set things up to receive absentee ballots, they keep coming year after year (until you fail to vote enough times and get purged from the rolls). A friend of mine still receives absentee ballots for her son who was in college (making him eligible to vote absentee since he was still considered a resident of his parents' house), but graduated a few years ago and now lives in an entirely different state. If she wanted to, she could just vote for him and who would know?

In my country there is a proper ID required and being registered to live in that area. No voting by mail.

With usual dose of cultural chauvinism I treat that as default way. The system is for practical purposes more or less fraud resistant which I find as good idea.

Honestly? I absolutely agree that mail voting is vulnerable to potential tampering, what makes me unenthusiastic about it. Of course I see your point, but it means that a bigger loophole really should be closed first.
 
  • #41
There is actually data now. "Do non-citizens vote in US elections", Richman, Chattha and Earnest, Electoral Studies 36, 149-157 (2014), which is unfortunately behind a paywall. Their findings:

  • Historically, some US jurisdictions allowed some non-citizens, particularly those who were naturalizing, to vote.
  • 2-6% of non-citizens vote (this is not the same as saying 2-6% of the votes are from non-citizens.
  • 80% of these votes are for candidates from one political party.
  • This makes a political difference: it is probable that Al Franken (D-MN) would not have won had only legal votes been cast.
  • Most (75%) of these voters had photo ID, so the most commonly proposed remedy would not be effective.
If some or all of these findings make you unhappy, take it up with the authors, not me.
 
  • Like
Likes Czcibor, russ_watters, edward and 2 others
  • #42
Vanadium 50 said:
There is actually data now. "Do non-citizens vote in US elections", Richman, Chattha and Earnest, Electoral Studies 36, 149-157 (2014), which is unfortunately behind a paywall. Their findings:

  • Historically, some US jurisdictions allowed some non-citizens, particularly those who were naturalizing, to vote.
  • 2-6% of non-citizens vote (this is not the same as saying 2-6% of the votes are from non-citizens.
  • 80% of these votes are for candidates from one political party.
  • This makes a political difference: it is probable that Al Franken (D-MN) would not have won had only legal votes been cast.
  • Most (75%) of these voters had photo ID, so the most commonly proposed remedy would not be effective.
If some or all of these findings make you unhappy, take it up with the authors, not me.
The findings do make me unhappy, but I have to agree 100%.

Here is a bit more from the Washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ld-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/

In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
 
  • #43
edward said:
The findings do make me unhappy, but I have to agree 100%.
Not me.
7% of the USA is populated with non-citizens. (ref)
If only 4% of them vote, per Vani's reference, that means that just 1/4 of 1% of the people in the USA are "deciding" elections.
With only 58% of eligible people voting in the 2012 election, I'd say, it serves us right, if they did.

Here is a bit more from the Washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ld-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/

Commentators from "Old Dominion University" are now on my "watchout list".

Ha! Jesse Richman is the author or your posted blog, and co-author of Vani's article.
 
  • Like
Likes edward
  • #44
OmCheeto said:
that means that just 1/4 of 1% of the people in the USA are "deciding" elections

The Minnesota Senate election in 2008 was decided by 312 votes out of almost 2.9 million cast. 1/92 of 1%, Which is in the paper.
 
  • #45
Vanadium 50 said:
The Minnesota Senate election in 2008 was decided by 312 votes out of almost 2.9 million cast. 1/92 of 1%, Which is in the paper.
Wow. That was a close race. So how many people didn't vote?
google google google

Although Minnesota has had the highest voter turnout in the nation for decades, it appears that 1.2 million eligible voters didn't vote in the 2008 election[1].
2.9M / 0.71 = 4.1M
4.1M - 2.9M = 1.2M

I would tend to blame the 1.2 million non-voters for the outcome of the election, rather than the crooked voters. Which, according to this guy: [Byron] York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots, is a real problem.

Felons voting? hmmmm...
The laws on that vary from state to state.
Here's an interesting article:

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/959567/396/Voting-rights-for-released-felons-debated-in-Minn
author: John Croman

... In Minnesota's 2008 general election at least 200 felons voted statewide before they were eligible, which is a felony in and of itself. That was statistically small considering 2.7 million people took part in that election, but it gave critics of the system an opening to push for tighter controls.
...
hmmm... 1099 or >200?
Who should I believe?

Byron York is Chief Political Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, a Fox News contributor, author of "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy." (per wiki, he lives in Washington DC)​

or

John Croman's reporting has garnered numerous regional Emmys and Associated Press awards. He joined KARE 11 in December of 1997
Who's your idol? No one person. I admire courageous and principled people such as Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King, Jr., plus the unsung everyday heroes...
Family: John, his wife Lisa, and son Elias make their home in Minneapolis.​

An out of state, right wing conspiracy theorist, or, a local, left wing reporter?

[1] http://www.twincities.com/ci_23198817/data-center-voting-rates-by-race-and-gender , the same rate as in 2008. ... & ... Minnesota had led the nation in turnout in 12 of the previous 16 presidential elections...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
To make the case even more complicated:

My country (like any other member state) would allow citizen of other EU country to vote in local election and some EU countries extend that to residents who are citizens of a third country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#European_Union_.28EU.29

EDIT: In Scottish referendum my compatriots living there (guest workers) were allowed to vote, and tended to support Scottish stay in the UK.
 

Similar threads

News Maine GOP alleges rampant voter fraud, stolen elections.
Replies
5
Views
4K
News Are Ohio's Provisional Ballot Rules Disenfranchising Voters?
Replies
18
Views
3K
News Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case
Replies
14
Views
4K
News Stop "Fox News North" - Avaaz.org 21M Global Campaign Network
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Honduran President, Chavez Ally, Ousted in Coup
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Why Did Americans Re-Elect Bush?
2
Replies
64
Views
9K
News Souter Confirms Republicans' Worst Fears
2
Replies
70
Views
13K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K
From Trade School to Nuclear Physics: My Pandemic-Induced Epiphany
Replies
2
Views
717
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
21
Replies
1K
Views
94K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top