News Voter disenfranchisement - in 2014?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
Click For 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.
  • #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. ;)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
News Are Ohio's Provisional Ballot Rules Disenfranchising Voters?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
News Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
News Stop "Fox News North" - Avaaz.org 21M Global Campaign Network
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
News Honduran President, Chavez Ally, Ousted in Coup
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Why Did Americans Re-Elect Bush?
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
9K
News Souter Confirms Republicans' Worst Fears
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
13K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
  • · Replies 1K ·
34
Replies
1K
Views
95K
News Nader tells youths to brace for draft
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K