Did You Vote? Now Your Friends May Know (and Nag You)

And more: the argument consists of digging deeper and asking why, in the past decade, such a sudden, incredible, apocalyptically urgent need has arisen for in-person checks at polling places, with no equivalent need for ID checks with absentee/mail-in ballots.

Fraud with mail-in ballots would be orders of magnitude easier to pull off. Why don't states with draconian polling-place ID laws also have draconian ID laws for mailed-in ballots? Why, in those states, don't you need to bring multiple proofs of identity, residence and citizenship to a notary to stamp your ballot in triplicate before mailing it in? If fraud really was what they were worried about, they'd be consistent across these types of ballots. They aren't.

Also it's worth looking into the whole package of policies that usually comes with these rules. It's not just ID rules; it's a particular kind of ID, and a particular set of paperwork requirements, and closing down ID-issuance offices in certain locations, and closing down polling places in certain locations, and reducing hours for voting at the locations that remain open, and... well, let's just say meditate on that and you'll figure out what "problem" is being solved. If you're still not convinced, just go read the defenders of these policies, in their own words, in court filings, explaining why they're doing this.

Voting is fundamental enough that it should only be restricted in the event of pressing, urgent, demonstrated, proven issues, and only the absolute minimum restrictions should be put in place. Voter ID doesn't "solve" any such issue, and is not the minimum necessary restriction in any event (there are already mechanisms for challenging suspected fraudulent voting, if you're truly worried about that).

It adds cost and there is no indication of an actual existing problem that it would solve that justifies the cost. Even if you ignore the fact that all actual voter ID proposals have been fairly overtly aimed at discouraging voting among selected groups of eligible voters that tend to vote in a way unfavorable to the preferences of those promoting voter ID, or that several times implementation of voter ID has been accompanied by targeted efforts to reduce access to new/replacement IDs in areas where, again, disfavored voters by the group advancing voter ID love, and even the more basic fact that it adds another point of potential failure due to human error even when pursued honestly, the fact that it to all indications provides nothing of value for the direct, immediate added cost is enough reason to oppose it.

The defacto "photo ID" in the United States is a state issued driver's license. Yes, some places informally use this for age verification as a result. But not everyone has the ability to drive (whether by choice or by disability), so not everyone is going to have this document.

So identification for this purpose will have to rely on a patchwork of various documents in order for it to work. But even considering this, if photo ID were tailored in a bipartisan manner as such to ensure complete access is possible, there probably wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case in some states.

The classic argument you hear, for instance, regarding Texas' often-struck-down-but-still-living-on voting ID requirements (https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/id/acceptable-fo...), is that a handgun license is considered a sufficient form of voting ID, but a college photo ID is not. I will add, reviewing the document, that from my perspective, it is logically puzzling to me why, for those aged 70 and older, it is okay to have an infinitely expired ID and still be allowed to vote given the typical "voter ID" arguments you hear in favor. Unless there is a "demographic advantage" here that the law is covertly aiming for, that is.

Identity is determined, confirmed during the registration step.

Identity is reaffirmed at the poll site, with both ID and signature verification. (Address and signature for postal ballots.)

The manufactured outrage about "voter fraud" is used to justify ratcheting up the voter id requirements. Specifically, requiring voters have government issued photo id. Which costs money. Which makes it a poll tax. Which is unconstitutional.

Provide government id for free and everyone who supports democracy and enfranchisement is totally on board.

--

Those of us who understand election administration also oppose the unnecessary bureaucratic gatekeeping imposed in places like Georgia. For example, if your drivers license says "chris co255" and your voter id says "chris-co255", even though everything else matches, your registration will be purged.

Cast opposing such kafkaesque draconian measures as partisan if you wish.

Oops.

Why aren't more instances of voters realizing that someone has already voted on their behalf if this is so easy and smart?

So you change one vote while taking the risk that you won't be able to match their signature under pressure, or that their signature will already be there because they've voted already or will find yours when they vote later, exposing your scheme. With that chance of failure, is the ten years in jail worth it?

Yes, it is.

> When I voted all I had to do was walk in, sign a sheet by my name, and go vote. There was no verification or validation of anything. I could have just as well signed by another individual's name.

You have unusually lax security at your polling places; the standard method is more like providing your name and address, having a poll worker find the matching name/address combo on a list, and then being presented with a page to sign; it's true that the just sign in method you describe is somewhat subject to a “find a blank space right before closing time and sign there” attack, but it's equally the case that that can be (and is every place I've ever voted) mitigated without voter ID.

> If I was smart I'd do it somewhere closer to the closing of poll times to help minimize the chances that they'd show up. I could then go from station to station doing similar things.

If you start after 90% of people have voted and then do it at multiple sites (with a smaller share remaining that will vote at each site), you are fairly likely to get detected—not more likely than not. If you've got a dozen or so people doing that at every federal election (every two years), you'd have a higher expected rate of detected in person voter fraud than we actually have in the US.

So we do not bother.

That said, my state autoregisters people as they come of age and get an ID. Vote by mail has high participation rates.

People can walk into an elections office and vote if they have some difficulty. Doing that is free, they just gotta get there.

People even run ballots out to voters. I did that volunteer work one year. Was cool actually. I helped voters vote.

> they were leftists to begin with and created these seemingly neutral apps to push the dem vote.

They are open about the purpose of the apps, to encourage young progressives to vote.

So you're saying that oversight should be 100% accurate, no false positives, to be considered legitimate?

You realize the Randolph County mess got sorted out, right? Isn't that exactly what's supposed to happen? Checks & balances.

You previously stated it was a Democratic election board. That was false. I watched an interview with that board. And they, one Republican and one Democrat, made it clear there was never a chance those poll sites were going to be closed. Believe them at your own peril.

--

Okay, I fell for it. I clicked that link. That North Dakota ad about hunting licenses was a bad move. The use of weasel words (eg "may lose") is no defense. As a staunch Democrat, I condemn all such BS. We are the party that enfranchises, not disenfranchises. (I'd much rather you vote for our opponents than not vote at all.)

Further, the trogs that go off script and pull this kind of stunt gives ammo to our critics, allowing people like you to falsely compare one bozo in the badlands with a deliberate nationwide effective perennial effort to disenfranchise us.

I begrudgingly thank you for pointing out the ND stunt. In response, I'll present a resolution to my local party condemning that action, with the goal of amending our state party platform to prohibit such nonsense.

Because that's how we Democrats roll: we clean house with sternly worded letters.

If you see a D or an R next to somebody's name in this app, then you know who they voted for with pretty high confidence.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-california-p...

One method is to simply not allow people to copy it. I can go to the department and request the information, but I can't leave the building with any digital or physical copy (photoing inside is forbidden). Technically within the legal definition of public information. The other method is using copyright to grant permission for private use but not distribution, which mean no one has permission to put the public information online. That way its publicly available to request from the department but it will not be published online. The third method is not really a method but simply relying on the gdpr. The information may be public but there are still legal limits on the kind of databases people may have about private information.

I'm not arguing that we are or aren't a democracy, or saying that view is valid or invalid. I'm simply saying that if someone thinks that we're not a democracy, then they have a moral obligation to try to do something about it.

> My personal suggestions...

Personal suggestions are pointless without action. If that action isn't voting for someone, then all I'm saying is tell me what actions you're going to take instead?

I find it obnoxious that while some of us are doing the HARD WORK for free that others complain from the sidelines. Not speaking to you specifically, but if someone thinks voting is pointless then do SOMETHING that isn't. Don't leave it to other people to do the work.

By not voting you're telling politicians that you don't matter and they will believe you.

> Better in what way?

As I said in my first post, compulsory voting helps get the money out of politics and moderates the extremes of policy. Less money is wasted on campaigning and policies must appeal to a broader group of people.

No, it doesn't. It really super duper doesn't. I mean it obviously doesn't.

There is no politician in the whole of the United States who is looking at the absymal electorate percentages and saying "I bet I can get that non-voting 70% if I form a new party!" or whatever because the system itself prevents that outcome structurally. As long as we are first-past-the-post it will literally never happen.

Your only option to shape society is to choose from the options presented to you. Abstaining is absolutely and completely not a protest, it's a validation of, and vote to continue, the status quo.

Ok.

> and worst of all, them to prod me to vote.

For someone that cares about the former, how can the latter possibly be worse?

Party affiliation is part of voter registration in the states that run primaries. Primaries are not part of the Constitution, and before the 1970s, party candidates were picked via convention, i.e. party elites. Making the primary vote accessible to all voters was ostensibly an attempt to democratize the selection process. Seems like it'd be logistically difficult to hold party votes without having a record of voter affiliation.