Do we really need instant election returns? (About voting, not politics.)

[bcla]

They are still counting ballots in CA as well, in several districts. AND most of the results have flipped from the election night totals. It is absolutely necessary to wait until every vote is counted accurately before calling a winner.

Calling a race is really unofficial though. It's not as if it's some sort of official concession where the candidacy is immediately ended and the candidate is no longer one. It's not official until the result is certified, and that can take a few weeks. And it really has to be when there are things like a 10 day deadline for overseas ballots to arrive.

 

[DLgal]

Calling a race is really unofficial though. It's not as if it's some sort of official concession where the candidacy is immediately ended and the candidate is no longer one. It's not official until the result is certified, and that can take a few weeks. And it really has to be when there are things like a 10 day deadline for overseas ballots to arrive.

I know. And I agree. But, the way some politicians are carrying on right now, you'd think that election night results are all that matter.

 

[bcla]

I know. And I agree. But, the way some politicians are carrying on right now, you'd think that election night results are all that matter.

In any case, all legally cast ballots are supposed to be counted. There are some judgement calls to be made, such as signature matching and provisional ballots being qualified/disqualified, but even if no race on a particular ballot is in doubt, every voter deserves to have an input that is reflected in the results.

 

[MrsPete]

Most people have ID. It's the photo ID they might not have. In various cities, there is no reason to have a driver's license which is what most people resort to.

Slightly off topic...I'm not sure if this went through or not, but I read in North Carolina, they require photo ID, but the legislature will not allow college ID's even from in state schools. That's insane and hopefully not true.

NC just voted to require IDs ... so we have not been through an ID-required election yet.

Regardless, the powers that be have said that photo work IDs, photo school IDs, photo bank cards will all be accepted ... things pretty much everyone has ... as well as the more common driver's license, passports, etc.
The DMV says they will give without cost an ID -- not a license, just an ID -- to anyone who comes in and says he or she needs it for voting purposes.

Furthermore, you can register to vote at the DMV while you're getting a license or state ID, so you can take care of BOTH the ID and the voter registration in one stop.

I really can't see how there's a problem. You know well in advance if you need an ID in your state. Even if a ride is a problem, you only have to do it ONCE, and then you're set for YEARS. If you value voting, I don't see it as a real issue.

Here's some more thoughts on how voting could be changed:

1.) Have one NATIONAL standard voting system that cannot be hacked, meaning paper or similar ballots that can be publicly tracked
2.) Have the voting sheets go to an independent third party
3.) Have those votes that the third party sees NOT tied to a candidate, so in other words they just see Option A, Option B, etc. and tally the votes that way, then those numbers get converted back to the official tally when they're brought back in.

I definitely think we should all vote the same way, and it should be more secure. I also don't understand how the party system helps us, but that's a whole other issue.

You'd be surprised. For people who stay at the low-wage same job for really long periods of time, or work under the table, and who drive without a license (common with those who cannot afford auto insurance but still need to work) ...

I can't support the ideas of avoiding taxes or driving without a license, so I really can't get behind these excuses.

Especially for a poor person, working under the table is like shooting yourself in the foot because it means you build up no Social Security, and these are probably the same people who are least likely to be prepared financially for retirement. You also have no legal work protections if you're working under the table; I had a high school student who was working for a small catering company -- she needed money, so she stayed out of work for a whole week helping the owner with a big job -- and then instead of paying her, the owner fired her. Yes, the owner stole a week's work from her, and the girl had NO recourse because she wasn't a legal employee. Similarly, a person who's working under the table can't collect workers' comp or unemployment insurance. No, working under the table is not something we should pass off as if it's just another choice; it places society's most venerable members in financial danger.

Similarly, driving without a license opens other people to the possibility of being involved in an uninsured motorist wreck. If you let your license lapse, you can't just go get a new one -- they make you pay for all the months you didn't have a license, so you can only dig yourself deeper and deeper in to a financial pit. It'd be smarter to turn in your license and make whatever transportation arrangements you can until you're able to drive legally again. Furthermore, you can't renew your car's license plate without having a license and insurance ... and the police will catch you if you're driving on an expired plate. While it's a problem, people who can't afford to drive legally are better off making other arrangements -- because the fines will end up costing more than the license and insurance.

You should need an ID to vote in an election. You need an ID to order a drink, to buy cigarettes, to open a bank account, to apply for food stamps, apply for welfare, apply for social security, apply for unemployment, apply for a job, rent or buy a house, apply for a mortgage, drive/buy/rent a car, get on an airplane, get married, rent a hotel room, visit a casino, to buy certain flu medicine at the pharmacy, but you don't need one to vote? It makes no sense.

Yes, I have to show ID regularly for various reasons -- why should voting be an exception?

My uncle lived in the same house as his mom. She died right before the last presidential election. The night of voting my uncle went to vote and it said my dead grandmother had voted. Someone signed her name and everything. My boss's wife went to go vote once and it said that she had already voted. There is corruption. It exists.

This is just one reason I think showing an ID makes perfect sense.

Whether you agree or disagree with the ID-to-vote concept comes down to which of these two things you think is most prevalent /most damaging to society:

Possibility 1: If we do not require ID, it is very possible to "steal" someone else's vote and/or to be registered to vote in multiple places. I think we all want fairness in voting, and the idea that some people are getting multiple votes flies in the face of that fairness.
Possibility 2: If we do require votes, people living on the fringes of society may be unable to vote because they lack that ID.

Personally, I think the few, few people who don't have ID /really can't get ID with months of notice probably don't value voting and/or wouldn't come to vote anyway -- I mean, you're talking about disenfranchised people here, people who most likely aren't fully functioning members of society. I don't mean to write them off with a "well, sucks to be them", I think they are fewer in number than the people who are willing (and able) to commit Voter Fraud by voting more than once.

The reality is that the number of people committing voter fraud is utterly minuscule, while the number of people denied their right to vote due to voter ID laws is significant. I'll take an insignificant number of extra votes over a large number of disenfranchised voters any day.

I think just the opposite is true: I think a fair number of people are committing Voter Fraud (why else would they post signs about it at the polling places?), while a very small number of potential voters don't have /aren't willing to get ID.

I think if you’ve made a conscious choice to operate outside the system, you need to live with that choice.

Yeah, if you're choosing to hide your under-the-table income, etc., it's a choice. The consequence may be losing your opportunity to vote.

If someone is unaware that they should have an ID or how to get one, then perhaps we should focus more on getting this info out there, as having an ID will likely aid them in far more things in life than just voting. Ignorance of laws and rules does not make one exempt from following them.

I agree with that -- no one should be denied the right to vote because of ignorance of how to get an ID, but I don't think how to get an ID is exactly a state secret.

 

[PollyannaMom]

Wouldn't it be easier to show (if it were true) the large amount of fraudulent votes? Can you give us any research or studies that fraudulent votes have actually had an impact?

I don't know how you would show them. - To vote in my town, I had to walk in, go to the table for my precinct, give my street, house number, and name. That's it - no ID, no signature, they just crossed my name off the list.

I was explaining this to my teen (since he'll be able to vote in the next election) and his first question was "then what would stop someone who knew one of our neighbors wasn't voting from going in and saying they were them?" And he's right - how would anyone know?

That's why part of me thinks we should require ID.

But I definitely see the other side as well. For someone living in a city, who really has no need to drive, requiring them to get a license (what people traditionally think of as ID) would definitely be an obstacle to exercising their voting rights. (And passports are expensive, and school ID's don't show where you live, and...)

I think maybe the solution is to require ID, but to make it free and more convenient to get a non-driver photo ID - maybe as part of the voter registration process itself??

 

[MrsPete]

I don't know how you would show them. - To vote in my town, I had to walk in, go to the table for my precinct, give my street, house number, and name. That's it - no ID, no signature, they just crossed my name off the list.

I was explaining this to my teen (since he'll be able to vote in the next election) and his first question was "then what would stop someone who knew one of our neighbors wasn't voting from going in and saying they were them?" And he's right - how would anyone know?

That's why part of me thinks we should require ID.

But I definitely see the other side as well. For someone living in a city, who really has no need to drive, requiring them to get a license (what people traditionally think of as ID) would definitely be an obstacle to exercising their voting rights. (And passports are expensive, and school ID's don't show where you live, and...)

I think maybe the solution is to require ID, but to make it free and more convenient to get a non-driver photo ID - maybe as part of the voter registration process itself??

Voting has been the same for me: Walk in, give your name and address verbally, vote. My thoughts are exactly the same as your teen's: At work we talk about where we each go for our polling places and whether we're going in the morning or after work with our spouses ... if I know you're not able to go 'til the evening, what stops me from going in at lunchtime? My brother was in the hospital on voting day this year. Anyone who knew that would know he wasn't able to go to the polls -- if they know his address, it's easy enough to walk in and give his name.

Our DMVs have said they'll give free ID to anyone who comes in and says they want it for voting purposes.
Yes, school IDs don't show where you live, but that isn't part of the requirement ... just show that you're you.

 

[bcla]

Voting has been the same for me: Walk in, give your name and address verbally, vote. My thoughts are exactly the same as your teen's: At work we talk about where we each go for our polling places and whether we're going in the morning or after work with our spouses ... if I know you're not able to go 'til the evening, what stops me from going in at lunchtime? My brother was in the hospital on voting day this year. Anyone who knew that would know he wasn't able to go to the polls -- if they know his address, it's easy enough to walk in and give his name.

Our DMVs have said they'll give free ID to anyone who comes in and says they want it for voting purposes.
Yes, school IDs don't show where you live, but that isn't part of the requirement ... just show that you're you.

Depends on the state. I remember Texas had issues because the law they passed included a firearm permit as an acceptable ID, but not student ID. There were claims that it was specifically engineered to encourage certain groups (gun owners) to vote, while discouraging other groups (students) from doing so by not accepting the identification they were most likely to have.

https://www.apnews.com/7f712e26f0df4e339318d143a6badd03
The biggest change to the Texas law — which accepts handgun licenses as sufficient identification to vote, but not college student IDs — is that voters without any acceptable photo ID can still cast a ballot so long as they sign an affidavit. Opponents and a federal judge in Texas balked at the revisions, saying criminal penalties tied to lying on the affidavit could have a chilling effect on voters.​

The North Dakota law seems to be the most restrictive. There are only 4 categories of acceptable ID - driver license, non-DL state ID, tribal ID, or long-term care ID. It doesn't include student ID or passports. Whatever form it is must contain a residential address, or has to be accompanied with supplemental documentation with a residential address such as a utility bill or paystub. Other than that, there's a set-aside method where it's counted after the election if that ID is provided to the registrar before the tally.

https://vip.sos.nd.gov/idrequirements.aspx
Acceptable Forms of Identification:
➣ Voting at the Polling Place – A Valid North Dakota:

• Driver’s license
• Nondriver’s identification card
• Tribal government issued identification (including those issued by BIA for a tribe located in North Dakota, any other tribal agency or entity, or any other document that sets forth the tribal member’s name, date of birth, and current North Dakota residential address)
• Long term care identification certificate (provided by North Dakota facility)

I don't necessarily agree that ID should be a requirement. It's something that on its face sounds like it would make a difference, but the reality is that voting fraud is extremely rare these days. There are people who are legally entitled to vote who (for whatever reason) will give up trying to obtain the ID needed to do so.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't know how you would show them. - To vote in my town, I had to walk in, go to the table for my precinct, give my street, house number, and name. That's it - no ID, no signature, they just crossed my name off the list.

I would assume there would be an uproar if a lot of people went to vote and found out someone had already voted in their name. Before you solve a problem, you need to determine there IS a problem (not just a potential).

I remember a number of years ago there were concerns about not leaving GPS's in cars when you attended functions/ran errands/etc. The thought process was someone could break into a car, grab the GPS, then use it's "home" setting to go rob the house, knowing the person was away. There's a couple problems though...
1) The title for the car will generally have the name, and it probably wouldn't be as obvious that it's gone.
2) The theoretical thief only knows ONE person supposedly living at that address is gone. They don't know the house is empty.

This sounds like the same thing. Sure, you could have a massive number of people (enough to influence an election) get enough registered voters information and go precinct to precinct to vote for their candidate. BUT, you don't know that the person they stole the identity from wasn't going to vote for their desired candidate anyway. So it could be a wash.

I agree, on paper, it sounds good to require ID to vote. But when you look at the practicality does it?

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

NC just voted to require IDs ... so we have not been through an ID-required election yet.

Regardless, the powers that be have said that photo work IDs, photo school IDs, photo bank cards will all be accepted ... things pretty much everyone has ... as well as the more common driver's license, passports, etc.
The DMV says they will give without cost an ID -- not a license, just an ID -- to anyone who comes in and says he or she needs it for voting purposes.

Furthermore, you can register to vote at the DMV while you're getting a license or state ID, so you can take care of BOTH the ID and the voter registration in one stop.

I really can't see how there's a problem. You know well in advance if you need an ID in your state. Even if a ride is a problem, you only have to do it ONCE, and then you're set for YEARS. If you value voting, I don't see it as a real issue.
I definitely think we should all vote the same way, and it should be more secure. I also don't understand how the party system helps us, but that's a whole other issue.
I can't support the ideas of avoiding taxes or driving without a license, so I really can't get behind these excuses.

Especially for a poor person, working under the table is like shooting yourself in the foot because it means you build up no Social Security, and these are probably the same people who are least likely to be prepared financially for retirement. You also have no legal work protections if you're working under the table; I had a high school student who was working for a small catering company -- she needed money, so she stayed out of work for a whole week helping the owner with a big job -- and then instead of paying her, the owner fired her. Yes, the owner stole a week's work from her, and the girl had NO recourse because she wasn't a legal employee. Similarly, a person who's working under the table can't collect workers' comp or unemployment insurance. No, working under the table is not something we should pass off as if it's just another choice; it places society's most venerable members in financial danger.

Similarly, driving without a license opens other people to the possibility of being involved in an uninsured motorist wreck. If you let your license lapse, you can't just go get a new one -- they make you pay for all the months you didn't have a license, so you can only dig yourself deeper and deeper in to a financial pit. It'd be smarter to turn in your license and make whatever transportation arrangements you can until you're able to drive legally again. Furthermore, you can't renew your car's license plate without having a license and insurance ... and the police will catch you if you're driving on an expired plate. While it's a problem, people who can't afford to drive legally are better off making other arrangements -- because the fines will end up costing more than the license and insurance.
Yes, I have to show ID regularly for various reasons -- why should voting be an exception?
This is just one reason I think showing an ID makes perfect sense.

Whether you agree or disagree with the ID-to-vote concept comes down to which of these two things you think is most prevalent /most damaging to society:

Possibility 1: If we do not require ID, it is very possible to "steal" someone else's vote and/or to be registered to vote in multiple places. I think we all want fairness in voting, and the idea that some people are getting multiple votes flies in the face of that fairness.
Possibility 2: If we do require votes, people living on the fringes of society may be unable to vote because they lack that ID.

Personally, I think the few, few people who don't have ID /really can't get ID with months of notice probably don't value voting and/or wouldn't come to vote anyway -- I mean, you're talking about disenfranchised people here, people who most likely aren't fully functioning members of society. I don't mean to write them off with a "well, sucks to be them", I think they are fewer in number than the people who are willing (and able) to commit Voter Fraud by voting more than once.

I think just the opposite is true: I think a fair number of people are committing Voter Fraud (why else would they post signs about it at the polling places?), while a very small number of potential voters don't have /aren't willing to get ID.
Yeah, if you're choosing to hide your under-the-table income, etc., it's a choice. The consequence may be losing your opportunity to vote.
I agree with that -- no one should be denied the right to vote because of ignorance of how to get an ID, but I don't think how to get an ID is exactly a state secret.

Glad to hear they are allowing school ID's. Though I would watch it as the currently legislature will try and get in as much as possible before their super majority ends. Not sure how the DMVs run down there, but the lines here can be torture. If photo id's are necessary....why not do it at registrations, even if it's same day?

As for the bolded...you might think that, but there is NO evidence supporting what you believe. Signs have always been posted at polling places to answer questions and keep the lines moving.

 

[Colleen27]

NC just voted to require IDs ... so we have not been through an ID-required election yet.

Regardless, the powers that be have said that photo work IDs, photo school IDs, photo bank cards will all be accepted ... things pretty much everyone has ... as well as the more common driver's license, passports, etc.

This varies greatly from state to state. In MI, I don't think school IDs count. At least, that's what my son was told as a non-driving 18yo without a state-issued ID. He was turned away the first time he tried to vote. But there's another issue there - training of poll workers - that complicates that question, and to be honest I've never read the law to check one way or the other because we got him an ID for border crossings before the next election rolled around.

Especially for a poor person, working under the table is like shooting yourself in the foot because it means you build up no Social Security, and these are probably the same people who are least likely to be prepared financially for retirement. You also have no legal work protections if you're working under the table; I had a high school student who was working for a small catering company -- she needed money, so she stayed out of work for a whole week helping the owner with a big job -- and then instead of paying her, the owner fired her. Yes, the owner stole a week's work from her, and the girl had NO recourse because she wasn't a legal employee. Similarly, a person who's working under the table can't collect workers' comp or unemployment insurance. No, working under the table is not something we should pass off as if it's just another choice; it places society's most venerable members in financial danger.

And there's a whole 'nother can of worms re: poor people and the way decisions made with immediate survival in mind come back to bite them in the long run, but from those folks I've known who have done it, it is just that - a decision made for immediate survival. When you're only making, say, $10/hr, not losing 10% to SS and other tax withholding can feel like a big deal.

Similarly, driving without a license opens other people to the possibility of being involved in an uninsured motorist wreck. If you let your license lapse, you can't just go get a new one -- they make you pay for all the months you didn't have a license, so you can only dig yourself deeper and deeper in to a financial pit. It'd be smarter to turn in your license and make whatever transportation arrangements you can until you're able to drive legally again. Furthermore, you can't renew your car's license plate without having a license and insurance ... and the police will catch you if you're driving on an expired plate. While it's a problem, people who can't afford to drive legally are better off making other arrangements -- because the fines will end up costing more than the license and insurance.

Off on a tangent... How does this work? Here, there is no consequence for letting your license lapse other than a relatively small late fee; the penalties only come in if you're caught driving while the license is expired. We certainly aren't charged on a per-month basis! And since you can legally own a car without driving, you don't have to be a licensed driver to register a vehicle. You have to have a licensed driver willing to insure the car, since you have to present proof of insurance when you register (though that's a system rife with abuse, up to and including seven-day policies that let people register a car they have no intention of keeping insured), but you can still register it without a license.

 

[MrsPete]

I would assume there would be an uproar if a lot of people went to vote and found out someone had already voted in their name. Before you solve a problem, you need to determine there IS a problem (not just a potential).

Well, there might be an uproar IF the individual whose votes were stolen realized it'd happened. But if the "real voter" happened to be dead or didn't go to vote, who'd know?

Glad to hear they are allowing school ID's. Though I would watch it as the currently legislature will try and get in as much as possible before their super majority ends. Not sure how the DMVs run down there, but the lines here can be torture. If photo id's are necessary....why not do it at registrations, even if it's same day?

Yes, DMV lines can be long, but -- again -- the ID is good for YEARS, and a person would only need to go to the DMV if he or she didn't have a work ID or other common ID that costs nothing and requires no special trip. The DMV doesn't have to be the "go to" spot.

As for the bolded...you might think that, but there is NO evidence supporting what you believe. Signs have always been posted at polling places to answer questions and keep the lines moving.

There's also no evidence to support that a whole slew of people would be unable to vote if IDs were required. The question comes down to this: a problem exists on each side of the question ... which problem do you think is most likely?

And there's a whole 'nother can of worms re: poor people and the way decisions made with immediate survival in mind come back to bite them in the long run, but from those folks I've known who have done it, it is just that - a decision made for immediate survival. When you're only making, say, $10/hr, not losing 10% to SS and other tax withholding can feel like a big deal.

I don't disagree with you, but do you think people who are genuinely in immediate survival mode are turning out to vote in large numbers?

 

[CarolAnn856]

Well, there might be an uproar IF the individual whose votes were stolen realized it'd happened. But if the "real voter" happened to be dead or didn't go to vote, who'd know?

So, scammers are so savvy that they do this frequently but somehow almost never accidentally vote in the place of someone who just so happened to not vote? Amazing coincidence.

Yes, DMV lines can be long, but -- again -- the ID is good for YEARS, and a person would only need to go to the DMV if he or she didn't have a work ID or other common ID that costs nothing and requires no special trip. The DMV doesn't have to be the "go to" spot.

And again, not all states accept those kinds of IDs.

There's also no evidence to support that a whole slew of people would be unable to vote if IDs were required. The question comes down to this: a problem exists on each side of the question ... which problem do you think is most likely?

There is quite a large body of evidence proving that voter ID disenfranchises a significant number of eligible voters. You seem to be choosing to ignore it. And as for which problem is more likely, again, actual facts are on the side of disenfranchisement being the far, far greater problem.

I don't disagree with you, but do you think people who are genuinely in immediate survival mode are turning out to vote in
large numbers?

Don't you think that we, as a society, should not only be helping people get out of immediate survival mode, but also finding every way possible for them to exercise their right to have a say in the governance of the country we all live in?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Yes, DMV lines can be long, but -- again -- the ID is good for YEARS, and a person would only need to go to the DMV if he or she didn't have a work ID or other common ID that costs nothing and requires no special trip. The DMV doesn't have to be the "go to" spot.

I didn't even think it was possible, because of a whole mess with our DMV (that's a totally different topic lol), but we now can renew our DL through an app if you're 21-50 and meet a few other qualifications (like an eye test within the last 12 months, etc).

I don't know how it's working with REAL ID since we have yet another new DL (that meets the updated REAL ID information; our state is presently compliant until Oct 2020 when we'll need the new DLs that have the star on them) but I'm real curious. My DL doesn't expire until 2022 but after October 2020 I'll have to use my passport OR pay out of my renewal cycle for the newer fully compliant REAL ID so I'm not sure I'll be using that app or not. Sounded cool though!

 

[bcla]

There's also no evidence to support that a whole slew of people would be unable to vote if IDs were required. The question comes down to this: a problem exists on each side of the question ... which problem do you think is most likely?

That's not correct. In the cases that have gone before the courts, numbers have been determined. In Texas I believe it was estimated that at least 600,000 registered voters in Texas would lack the ID needed under the new laws. In Wisconsin it was about 300,000. Here's one of the federal court decisions (from Wisconsin):

https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Decision042914.pdf
Based primarily on the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, Leland Beatty, a statistical marketing consultant with extensive experience in business and politics, I find that approximately 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin, roughly 9% of all registered voters, lack a qualifying ID.10 To put this number in context, in 2010 the race for governor in Wisconsin was decided by 124,638 votes, and the race for United States Senator was decided by 105,041 votes. See LULAC Ex. 2 ¶ 10 & Table 2. Thus, the number of registered voters who lack a qualifying ID is large enough to change the outcome of Wisconsin elections. In addition to these registered voters without an ID, there are a number of persons who are eligible to vote but not yet registered who lack an ID. Because Wisconsin permits same-day registration at the polls, any eligible voter may become a registered voter on election day. One of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Matthew Barreto, a professor at the University of Washington and an expert on voting behavior, survey methods and statistical analysis, conducted a telephonic survey of eligible voters in Milwaukee County. Professor Barreto found that there were 63,085 eligible voters in Milwaukee County alone who lack a qualifying ID.

A substantial number of the 300,000 plus eligible voters who lack a photo ID are low- income individuals who either do not require a photo ID to navigate their daily lives or who have encountered obstacles that have prevented or deterred them from obtaining a photo ID. At trial, I heard from eight witnesses who intend to vote in Wisconsin elections but who do not currently possess a qualifying photo ID. Seven of these witnesses are low income. Alice Weddle testified that she is unemployed, receives Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits and has no bank accounts or credit cards. She attempted to obtain an ID but was unable to do so because she does not have a birth certificate. Eddie Holloway testified that he would be homeless if his sister did not agree to take him in, and that he is on various forms of public assistance. He testified that he attempted to obtain an ID but was unable to do so because of an error on his birth certificate that he cannot afford to have corrected. Rickey Davis testified that he is unemployed, has no bank accounts and attempted to obtain a photo ID but could not get one because he does not have a birth certificate. Shirley Brown testified that she lives on Social Security disability and attempted to obtain an ID but was unable to do so because she does not have a birth certificate. Melvin Robertson testified that he has no education beyond grade school and that he would like to obtain an ID but cannot because he lacks a birth certificate. Rose Thompson testified that after Act 23 was enacted, she attempted to obtain an ID but could not afford to pay the fees associated with obtaining her birth certificate from Mississippi. Sim Newcomb testified that he does not drive, relies on public transportation, has not recently traveled outside the United States, does not travel on airplanes, and that to the extent he needs a photo ID for banking, he is able to use his Veteran’s ID card, which is not an acceptable ID under Act 23. He testified that he attempted to obtain a Wisconsin ID card but could not satisfy the DMV’s documentation requirements.​

 

[NotUrsula]

Who is guaranteeing that a person is only voting once? I moved from one state to another but my husband still voted in the state we moved from (he was still in the previous state) and when he went to vote, I was still on the previous state's books to be able to vote. They never took me off. Of course, we both voted only once but I could of easily voted twice and no one would of done nothing about it. That's reality.

You've undercut your own argument here. You said, "Of course, we both voted only once, but I could have voted twice ..." What do you mean, "of course"? In the same sentence you are implying that the temptation of that double-listing is huge, but note that you resisted it. You know why? Because it isn't a temptation to you, just as it isn't to probably 99.9% of the population. People generally are honest when getting away with being dishonest requires real effort, and that is the case when your name appears on multiple voter rolls because the bureaucracy fell behind. To take advantage of that double-listing you would first have had to have known about it, then made the effort to go to both polling places and stand in line twice. Definitely a hassle, and for what? What good does one extra vote do? The VAST majority of people would only go to those lengths if they got paid to do it, which is why you cannot remove a copy of your filled-out ballot from the polling place. Any political operator who was paying the recently-moved or recently-bereaved to double-vote would have to be doing it on faith, because they cannot produce proof that they voted as they were paid to. Professional political dirty-tricksters are not big on acts of faith; they prefer to go with a sure thing.

As I said before, simple logic should tell you that organizing enough double-voters or dead-voters to actually swing an election is way more work than necessary, when the option of a much more effective strategy also takes less effort and permits a greater degree of control: paying an insider to make sure that real ballots somehow don't get counted.

Also, ONCE AGAIN, I'm not saying that working under the table or driving without a license is a good thing; only that it is possible and not uncommon among marginalized segments of society. I brought it up in answer to questions about how people function without ID, NOT as a suggestion of a good way to avoid needing one.

One thing I've noticed in this thread that troubles me (besides people thinking that I actually approve of working under the table or driving without a license), is the frequent repetition of rumors. Rumors like the one about NC student IDs are planted on purpose to convince people not to show up at the polls. Think of the reputation of most DMV offices, and how much fun they are to visit? If you've never been to one, but had heard all the jokes and complaints, would you assume that the folks there would be friendly and helpful to you?

You ask how it could be that people don't know that they need an ID, or how to get one? There's your answer: they believe the rumors that they hear that tell them that it is impossible, or a waste of time and money to go to the DMV if you don't drive. My freshman college-student son was told once by a mail clerk that he would need a court order to apply for a passport without a parent's signature, because he was under 21. Totally untrue -- the guy was just blowing smoke because he had no clue and didn't want to bother finding someone to ask. DS took the path of least-resistance and believed him until I told him otherwise. He worked at the Post Office, where they process passports -- why not believe him?

Look, try this: ask a dozen random people you encounter in the next month if it's possible to get a photo ID from the state if you don't drive. I'll bet you any money that at least half of them will either tell you no, or tell you that they have no idea how you would go about doing that. It truly is not common knowledge in most places.

Maybe we should just adopt the standard practice from Africa, and provide purple stamp pads at all the polling sites. You have to roll your thumb on the pad after you get a ballot, and it is very difficult to wash off that ink; it takes days of regular washing to fade it off. The idea is to show that you have already voted and and prevent duplicate voting. Perhaps that would satisfy those who are convinced that duplicate-voting is common.

 

[rickybobby]

I see what you are doing there. You have no evidence that it does exist, so you flip it around and ask for people to prove it doesn't. Except it's pretty much impossible to prove the lack of something that doesn't exist, so you then walk away feeling like you are proven right.

So,,,,maybe a bit off topic, but a recent supreme court candidate was accused of something, and the general consensus on the network news was that he should prove he was not guilty or not get the job. Kind of the same thing, right?

 

[CarolAnn856]

So,,,,maybe a bit off topic, but a recent supreme court candidate was accused of something, and the general consensus on the network news was that he should prove he was not guilty or not get the job. Kind of the same thing, right?

Actually, the loudest consensus on the network news was that the entity charged with investigating such concerns should have been allowed to do so, fully and without hindrance.

 

[rickybobby]

Actually, the loue4st consensus on the network news was that the entity charged with investigating such concerns should have been allowed to do so, fully and without hindrance.

which meant that he should demand an investigation, putting him on the hotseat to prove his innocence, rather than place the burden on the challenger to make a valid case first. (Alas, the investigating agency had already done background checks numerous times in the past which were clean as a whistle)

 

[CarolAnn856]

which meant that he should demand an investigation, putting him on the hotseat to prove his innocence, rather than place the burden on the challenger to make a valid case first. (Alas, the investigating agency had already done background checks numerous times in the past which were clean as a whistle)

Nope. You are wrong on all counts.

 

[rickybobby]

Nope. You are wrong on all counts.

Okay, where am I wrong?