Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Improve Voter Registration

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

At least in response to those who complain about voter fraud, I have no problem in saying, by all means, lets put more money and effort in upgrading the voter registration system. In doing that, we would be addressing pretty much all of the problems voter fraud advocates find in the system. But that kind of really meaningful reform isn't on the table, because it would be incredibly expensive, and because it wouldn't do what Republicans want which is suppress voter turnout.

--Hiram

John said...

My simplistic view is that we should have a national ID and database that shows who is a citizen, where they currently live, arrest record, voting eligibility, etc, etc, etc... But those who fear Big Brother and those who seem to want people to be able to stay off the grid while receiving citizen benefits fight against such a rational solution.

By the latter, I mean those want people with no ID / citizenship to be able to vote, get welfare, get Medicare, get Medicaid, go to school, etc while not fulfilling a basic responsibility of citizenship. (ie stand up, be counted and pay your taxes)

jerrye92002 said...

"...what Republicans want which is suppress voter turnout."

Which is why many of the reforms proposed by Republicans and rejected by Democrats are exactly the kind recommended at the link, and would be LESS expensive and MORE reliable than the current system.

Nix on the national ID, because there is no limit to the uses to which such data could be put (say rounding up all the Jews, or Japanese, or gun owners). And I do not believe we ought to allow everyone to vote as a matter of citizenship; I think people need to make at least some minimal effort to vote, assuming they will put at least that minimal effort into actually voting.

That said, I think much of this could, but is not, being done in the States, with cooperation among them. And for those who say there is no voter fraud, will you admit that this paper suggests the possibility?

John said...

There is a likelihood that illegals maybe registered, but there is pretty much no evidence that they voted.

I like this quote...

"States that have tried to purge noncitizens from voter rolls, meanwhile, have found even government data lacking.

In 2012, Florida Governor Rick Scott’s administration started an effort trying to crack down on noncitizens voting by comparing driver's license data against voter rolls.

Through this process the Florida Department of State created a list of 182,000 potential noncitizens that had voted. That number was whittled down to 2,700, then to about 200 before the purge was stopped amid criticism that the data was flawed given the number of false positives — including a Brooklyn-born World War II vet.

Ultimately, only 85 people were removed from the voting rolls. State officials began to pursue a second attempt at a purge in advance of the 2014 election but then abandoned that effort, too."

Anonymous said...

There is little interest among Republicaans for improving the registration system, because it wouldn't suppress voters.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot find that for which you do not look.

I'll say it again. Let us pass election reform, including strict Voter ID and improved registration processes. We already keep track of those turned away for lack of proper ID/registration (our precinct had ONE), so if we get no more of those, the people saying there is no fraud are right, and =no harm was done.= If we find a number bigger than that then we know the system is running with less fraud than before, and that's a Good Thing(TM).

John said...

I have to agree with the Liberals here... The GOP is not after ways to make it easier for every legal voter to vote. They are out to find ways to make it hard for highly mobile citizens to vote, because these tend to be young, not too smart and less affluent people. And those folks are more easily swayed by the Democratic "free money" message.

Now if the GOP starts proposing longer voting periods, easier just thorough proof methods, etc. Then they will likely get my support.

jerrye92002 said...

Remind me again, what is the difference between libel and slander?

And explain to me how making it difficult for illegal voters to vote somehow makes it harder for legal voters to vote? Or, if you like the other side, explain to me how making it easier for "everybody" to vote, including those not legally permitted to do so, does NOT prevent legal voters from having their votes count?

John said...

I think you should read my comment again, but maybe I can make it simpler for you.

Simple and cheap: Legal voters like me have not moved in ~21 years. Being registered and having an up to date ID requires no work.

Simple and convenient: Legal voters like me who are more affluent and have a very flexible schedule have no problem getting to the polling place on Tuesday.

Hard and expensive: Legal voters who are homeless and/or move often have to spend a large amount of time and money to keep their ID current.

Hard and inconvenient: Legal poor voters who are single parents and/or work hourly jobs find it much more challenging to get the polls on Tuesday.

GOP wants to make it "Hard" for those people to vote because they are more likely to vote Democratic. Now if you approve of trying to keep legal people from voting, please feel free to keep supporting the Conservative solutions. I believe our duty is to make it simple and inexpensive for every legal voter to do so.

Anonymous said...

Libel is written, slander is oral.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Bear in mind that voter id doesn't make it more difficult for illegal voters to vote because illegal voters have ID too. The purpose of id is to make sure the person presenting it is who he says he is. Possession of id says nothing at all about whether a person is qualified to vote.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"GOP wants to make it "Hard" for those people to vote because they are more likely to vote Democratic." Again with the libelous remarks.

As for your "simple," it is TOO simple. The GOP wants to use USPS Change of Address to keep registrations up to date, along with death notices and court records. That is the SIMPLE solution to people that move.

The GOP wants to give "provisional ballots" to same-day registrants because a lot of fraud is at least possible that way. But those who register same day CAN get to the polls, obviously, on a Tuesday. The GOP hasn't suggest eliminating it. And I haven't heard objections to unlimited absentee or early voting, either, so long as those same checks are in place.

And I ought to take offense at your implication that poor black folks are too stupid to get an ID or to register, and that they stupidly assume their "interest" lies in voting Democrat. I doubt Republicans think that way.

John said...

Let's see... You don't want a national ID and yet you are okay with them tracking us via change of address notes, death records, etc. Sounds good to me but I thought you feared Big Brother?

And yes the GOP has been working to reduce the number of polling places, shorten early voting, etc.

Please note that I never mentioned race as a factor... What were you thinking?

My factors were cost, mobility, fixed schedules, single parents, etc. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the GOP wants to make it hard for these folks to vote?

John said...

As for results... Here you go.

jerrye92002 said...

Sources, please?

jerrye92002 said...

Oh, I see. "Disparate impact" is proof of GOP racism, but not of Democrat racism? Can we possibly admit that people are people, and make up their own minds? Which political party it is that practices identity politics?

John said...

Like with the financial market...

Past performance does not assure future results... But is an good indicator.

Besides the PEW Link shows some very consistent behavior among many groups of voters over many election cycles.

VOX 7 Ways
Nationalize Suppression

At some point you should decide if you are for a free America. (ie vouchers) Or a controlled America. (ie blocking legal citizens from voting)

jerrye92002 said...

Sorry, false choice. I prefer government that works, including doing the job of educating that we pay them for, even if it means doing so through private contractors, and protecting our right to vote by not giving that right to fictional people, imposters, frauds and non-citizens. Why would anyone suggest government shirking such obvious duties and responsibilities?

John said...

Because as with most things in life it is a question of balance.

Same question regarding a national ID. Why would anyone argue against a national ID and database that could be used to:
- ensure felons don't get guns or vote
- people don't get extra welfare benefits
- everyone pays their taxes
- and only legal voters are allowed to vote

Now I am not worried if the off the grid people get to vote or not. If they want to avoid taxes and the other responsibilities of citizenship, then they don't need to have the privilege of voting. But we should be making it as simple and convenient as possible for all other citizens to vote.

The reality is that it seems you are okay leaving many people trapped in poverty and making it hard for them to exercise their right to vote.

jerrye92002 said...

No idea where you get that idea. I have consistently said I don't think ANYBODY should be trapped in poverty, but that government actions have a way of doing that to them by, as Franklin said, "making them comfortable in it." I also don't have an objection to the poor voting, so long as they are legally entitled to do so. I DO object to the Left presuming that these real human beings will "vote their interest" of perpetuating their own dependence on government. I prefer Trump's formulation of "what have you got to lose?"

You list several possible "benefits" to a national ID and DB, but you fail to recognize that such a database could as easily: deny guns to law-abiding citizens, give extra welfare benefits to Democrat voters, prevent Right-leaning (or left-leaning) groups from getting tax-exempt status or auditing political enemies, or any number of terrible consequences. If knowledge is power, then government should never be allowed such knowledge. Unless you think I'm making up the partisan concerns, remember that some states require you to state party affiliation when registering to vote. So long as that data is used only for voting, it's no problem.

jerrye92002 said...

OK, look at it another way. What problem of election integrity is solved by a national ID/DB that can not be solved some other way?

John said...

One database:
- Means you can only be registered in one state / address at a time.
- Means that you will be removed from the other state's rolls when you move.
- You die, you are removed from all rolls. (ie likely tied to your social security number)
- ID can clearly identify citizenship or right to vote status

"I also don't have an objection to the poor voting, so long as they are legally entitled to do so."

Sorry but the GOP has already decided that those folks are less likely to vote GOP... Remember..

"black voters choosing Hillary Clinton by a margin of 80 percent on Election Day"

And he apparently did better than Romney...

So if you are supporting most of the GOP proposals, you are supporting making it harder from them to vote.

jerrye92002 said...

Sorry, but that last doesn't even follow, unless you are willing to impute motivations to people that you cannot possibly know. Support for election integrity has absolutely nothing to do with which way people choose to vote, and historic class or racial alignments have nothing to do with it, either. Unless, of course you are one of those who think poor folks and black folks are too stupid to figure out where and how to get an ID, or how to properly fill out a ballot. The GOP didn't "decide" that black folks were more likely to vote D; apparently black voters did, while the Democrats COUNT on it happening while delivering not much in return (almost like "what do you have to lose"). Keep 'em on the plantation, seems to be the Democrats' approach.

And all of the things you cite could be done by cross-checking state voter registration rolls against the USPS and SS lists.

jerrye92002 said...

Also interesting is that most of the "overvotes" in Michigan (i.e. more ballots cast than voters who voted) were in the heavily black precincts of Detroit that went 95% for Hillary. Any chance that this went beyond simple human error and wandered into fraud?

jerrye92002 said...

a book

John said...

You must be working real hard in your attempt to not understand this...

"those who think poor folks and black folks are too stupid to figure out where and how to get an ID"

It is not that they are stupid, it is that they move far more often or do not have an address, it takes time to apply and get, it takes money, it takes transportation, etc. The things that are a much greater burden to them than to us.

jerrye92002 said...

And yet when asked, all but a few truly homeless seem to think they CAN manage these things, and many of the court cases challenging ID laws have fallen apart when no one who has been denied voting can be found. Again, what is the problem? If these laws are passed and suddenly we have dozens, hundreds or thousands of people who are legally entitled to vote but cannot get properly registered, we'll have to adapt the law. If there are not, then the concerns about denying people the right to vote will have come to nothing, so no harm done. Why do you want to oppose fighting voter fraud when you insist it cannot occur?

John said...

Because why would we throw up excessive burdens that make it difficult for our poor and low income folks to have a voice in our government to solve a miniscule problem? Talking about using a sledge hammer to swap a fly.

As the court of appeals ruled in NC...

"In June, the 4th Circuit overturned a U.S. District Court judge’s ruling upholding the law. In a striking opinion, the three-judge panel sided with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the federal Department of Justice and other groups that had sued North Carolina over its new law, saying the law would discriminate against minorities.

“We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” Circuit Court Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote in the June opinion."

So do you why do you want to support laws that make it harder for poor people to vote? Maybe you do fear the uninformed / down trodden making their voices heard.

John said...

Personally I think the SD, TX, etc solutions strike a good compromise.

Voter ID Laws

jerrye92002 said...

"We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,”

So, the Courts are now charging racism with zero evidence? Isn't that racist? How about finding an actual, real, living person who was denied a vote because of the law, regardless of race or anything else? How about PROVING that the law would work as you believe, and not as those supporting the law believe?

Nice site. Too bad Minnesota isn't listed, but I'm sure "non-strict" doesn't begin to describe it. Not sure why you chose those two states, but they don't appear that similar in one very important respect. That is, in SD you get your ballot counted right away, so if you lied you get away with the fraud and your fraudulent vote counts. In TX your ballot doesn't count-- provisional ballot-- until you complete the voter ID process. I forget what state it was, but the notion when you cast a provisional ballot for lacking ID, we send mail to your stated address, and you return proof of ID, thus verifying your ID and your address-- no muss, no fuss if you are legal. MN could easily do what TX does, just by tightening ID requirements, cleaning up the voter rolls, and using provisional ballots. But the DFL would have to give up their cheating advantage.

Sean said...

I'll just leave this here.

WP: The Smoking Gun Proving NC Republicans Tried to Disenfranchise Black Voters

John said...

Sean, Excellent link. Do you have any issues with the TX / SD laws?

Jerry, See the problem with sending mail is that the homeless often do not receive mail and yet they have a right to vote. Please feel free to keep your head stuck in the sand... :-)

By the way, I am fine with the TX version.

Sean said...

They don't allow same-day registration. I also don't see how -- if a person can merely sign an affadavit -- you're really making things more secure. (Of course, the issue of in-person voter impersonation is a red herring anyway...)

jerrye92002 said...

John, I notice that your list of those "disenfranchised" keeps shrinking and shrinking, and now includes only the homeless. Sorry to say this, but the homeless lacking addresses is a disqualification since by definition they do not have "residence" in any given precinct. There are a few homeless shelters that accept long-term residents and offer a mailing address to help these folks find work, etc. But I don't think we should allow wholesale cheating just so that a few folks who may not even be interested in voting have the opportunity. If Sean's article is accurate, (which, considering the source...) then Democrat opposition to election integrity should be equally condemned as wanting to allow minorities (like dead people, non-existent people, non-citizens and clones) to vote on the belief they are all Democrat voters.

Question: If the NC decisions were made WITHOUT any evident racial implications (disparate impact not being evidence of intent), would those be acceptable in a fraud prevention sense?

Question 2: How do we know there is no cheating going on if we have no mechanisms to detect it?

jerrye92002 said...

Sean, In this state we allow same-day registration on election day AND during early voting as well. Same-day is only a problem if the ballot is counted before verification of the voter takes place, thus my belief that provisional ballots would solve the bulk of the problem without an undue burden on anybody.

John said...

Not shrinking, just noting that the "mail out a verification" method is flawed.

And whether you like it or not, the homeless citizens are entitled to vote.

John said...

Sean,
As you note, this is pretty much a non-issue.

However I can not see showing a photo ID as overly burdensome, especially if provisions are provided for that teeny tiny minority that does not have an ID.

jerrye92002 said...

I agree mailing out seems flawed though it would work for the vast majority of the 15% or so of those registering on election day in MN. After all, I assume the PO would deliver to a laundromat even if no one lived there. If someone was there to pick up the mail, fraud could still take place. And no, by law homeless people, those with no address, are NOT allowed to vote, since residence in the State and precinct is required.

jerrye92002 said...

"As you note, this is pretty much a non-issue." I will agree. If we pass a law that eliminates most of the opportunities for cheating, and we find that there are no attempts to cheat, your point will be proven and the rest of us can believe in the integrity of our elections again. Win-win. So why the strenuous objections from the Left side of the aisle?

Anonymous said...

However I can not see showing a photo ID as overly burdensome, especially if provisions are provided for that teeny tiny minority that does not have an ID.

Are you admitting it is a burden?

According to an article in the Times today, "For example, a federal court in 2014 found that in Wisconsin an estimated 300,000 voters who had already registered did not have any of the required IDs."

--Hiram

John said...

Jerry,
Your ideas are great if you want to increase the burden and cost of voting to the point where the poor and homeless don't do it...

By the way... "Residency and Mailing Address Requirements

Some states had previously required registrants to live in a “traditional dwelling” in order to register to vote. Judicial decisions in court cases and the enactment of state and federal laws have eliminated that requirement. Today, homeless individuals in all states--including those people who are living on the streets--have the right to register and vote. When registering to vote, homeless voters only need to designate their place of residence, which can be a street corner, a park, a shelter, or any other location where an individual stays at night. Designation of a residential address or location of residence is required to ensure the voter lives within the district in which she/he wishes to register and to assign the voter to the appropriate polling location. Usually, the location of a residence may be indicated by drawing a map or by providing a general descriptive location, if not the address of a shelter."

John said...

Hiram,
Voting is a burden and a right... The question is to find a good balance between them. And to ensure the burden is minimized while ensuring fraud does not occur.

jerrye92002 said...

John, you missed the fine print. "States often have durational requirements to establish residence" so a street corner isn't good enough. I know we turn people away or send them back to their former precinct if they haven't lived at their current address for more than 20 days. That doesn't prevent fraud, either, but it's better than nothing.

And you keep saying, based on zero evidence, that I want to "increase the burden so the poor don't do it." Is it OK with you if we increase the burden so that the FRAUDULENT don't do it? Can I agree with Hiram?

jerrye92002 said...

Hiram, if I remember, that Wisconsin "estimate" sort of fell apart when plaintiffs could not produce a single person that had "standing" in the case-- that is, did not have and could not get proper ID.

Anonymous said...

The issue would be whether getting an id would be burdensome. Since everyone has an identity, it is logically impossible to conclude that someone could not get an id.

--Hiram