Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says Ohio Must Allow Provisional Ballots
expriest writes "A Federal Judge has held that the state of Ohio must provide a provisional ballot to persons who claim to be registered, but whose names do not appear on the voter rolls. This decision reverses a policy by Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who was only allowing the provisional ballots in limited circumstances. Furthermore, the Judge put some teeth behind his ruling, allowing persons denied provisional ballot to sue the election official so doing for money damages."
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
The Guardian
-jim
especially the suing part. last time in that florida fiasco some voters were told they had to have a driver's liscence to vote. an obvious lie that hopefully only some first time votors would believe.
at least in ohio the election officials will think twice before f*cking with someone's right to vote
Blackwell, the Ohio Secretary of State who got shot down here is working hard to be the new Kathrine Harris. He previously attempted to tear up voter registrations because they were printed on the wrong thickness of paper. And of course who could forget this absentee ballot, which for some reason omitted the Democratic candidates.
Wow you're ignorant. Voting is what those of us in the legal profession call a "fundamental right," that means that the state must prove they are fulfilling the most compelling interest and have considered every posible alternative before constructing any barriers whatsoever. That's not silly liberalism, it's a basic Constitutional right.
Its about time someone put Blackwell in his place. IIRC, Blackwell is also for throwing out ballots that were cast in improper precincts.
Usually, if a voter came to the wrong precinct, they could just vote a provisional ballot and then have any levies that they weren't eligible to vote for be not counted. Now Blackwell wants the entire ballot to be thrown out. Not to mention he didn't accept voter registration forms that were correctly filled out, but weren't on the proper paper stock.
I'm not going to say this is partisanship on Blackwell's part, but let it be known that Ohio is run by the Republicans at every level of government.
Well Hello Massive Voter Fraud!
This has nothing to do with voter registration. This decision says that if you ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN OHIO but accidently show up at the wrong precinct, you can still vote at that precinct. It also says that if you ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN OHIO, but the precinct mistakingly says you are not, you still we be allowed to vote. Your provisional ballot will then be checked against a central voter registrar to make sure you ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN OHIO. If your name is not on the master list, you're SOL. In other words, you need to stop getting your talking points from Rush Limbaugh.
Cheers,
Craig
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
But as usual, this seems to be opening the door for possible fraud, since it seems you could only verify that each person voted once after the fact, unless there is some kind of centralized electronic database of whether or not each registered voter in Ohio voted or not.
What's to stop me from crossing the state and going into to every poll and state "Oh, my! I am in the wrong place. Please let me vote, anyway because my bunions hurt and I could not possibly wait in line again"? If there is a reasonable way to verify people can only vote once, and a reasonable chance that someone who tries to vote twice will be convicted of voter fraud (that is illegal isn't it?), then this seems fair. If the provisional ballots are different and identifyable then I guess this would be true.
Any time the voting procedure is changed these days I'm suspicious that it is driven by the desire to disenfranchise voters of one party or inapproapriately enfranchise those of the other. Maybe it's all the hype, but it seems everyone is going out of their way to cheat.
Regardless of how it falls, I hope it's by a big enough margin that we don't see a repeat of 2000, because it's a good bet the state legislatures haven't learned the lessons of Florida in 2000.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
With all the new registrations this year there are bound to be a lot that got tied up in the system, mail lost or information entered incorrectly. They've been reporting on the radio that registrations were up 10 fold in the swing states this year so its nice they are taking this precaution.
You obviously didn't read the post I replied to, so I will try again.
All provisional ballots are checked against the master list. One more time, in case you didn't read that sentence either. All provisional ballots are checked against the master list.
So to answer your question, there is nothing preventing someone from crossing the state line and going to every precinct and voting, except that none of those votes will count, and if they gave their real name, the master list will reveal them as a multi-voter, and they will be charged with a crime.
Your attempts to confuse this issue with false fears of imagined chicanery are disingenuous. We both know that high voter turnout benefits Democrats. I suspect that is what has you up in arms.
Looks like I can vote at as many places as I can drive to on November 2! Good thing you don't have to provide evidence of citizenship in Ohio (or most other states). Honestly though, why do some people think it's a good thing to allow anyone to just walk into the polls and vote without I.D., evidence that they live in that precinct, etc.? Feeling disenfranchised? Just drive up to Ohio and vote as many times as you want! Let that stress out! phew...
Ohio is a very republican state.
I live in one of the most republican counties.
I live in a village with a corrupt council and mayor.
Now I don't have to worry about not getting to vote this year. (Why did I vote for Nader last time?)
At least we didn't adopt crappy, no paper trail, e-voting machines. Maybe next year.
You can't take the sky from me
Um. Apparently you didn't read my post, because I said that if that was the case, then that seems fair.
Your attempts to confuse this issue with false fears of imagined chicanery are disingenuous. We both know that high voter turnout benefits Democrats. I suspect that is what has you up in arms.
No, I'm just hearing lots of reports of problems on both sides. I am amused because your last statement seems to imply that stupid people tend to vote Democrat though.
I'm not up in arms about anything that's fair and legal.
Please don't confuse me with the Rush Limbaugh guy above.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I live in Ohio too, and I didn't have to worry about not getting to vote this year, or last year, or the year before, or the year before ... no problems ... no worries.
I strongly believe there ought to be some kind of IQ test and lower IQ limit to the voting process. There are plenty of people in society who can't, for instance, add or subtract 2 numbers under 20 without a calculator. I'm quite generous in the standard, say anyone scoring a 69 IQ or below would not be allowed to cast a vote.
In the past, requiring pre-registration and requiring people to vote only at their assigned polling place served that purpose to a limited degree. This ruling is going to help those in society who are cognitively challenged vote, and I'm not convinced that's such a good thing.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
why you even need voter registration? seriously.
don't you guys have records of _who_ actually is living there officially, and thus able to vote, or draftable & etc? with all the "big brother" surveillance you'd think they would be able to handle that. if you wanted. the parties seriously don't seem that intrested in fixing the situation at large because... drummroll.. it could help the other party and thus it's JUST PLAIN WRONG FOR AMERICA.
and yeah.. around here you just appear at the voting place of your residency area.. or if you're not home(abroad or just know in advance that you'll be in another town on the voting day) you pre-vote wherever you feel like.. no registration or stuff like that needed(unless you count being a citizen with an address being registered... which all tax payers probably are anyways). and the ballot is a piece of paper you draw a number on, with multiple parties being involved in all stages the chances for fraud are low(and yes, such a system does scale, there's no need for mechanically or electronically countable ballots whatsoever in a healthy nation to get first night results, like that even really mattered).
besides.. saying that "the party that will benefit.." is almost as the same as saying that the other party would benefit if registration standards were stricter.. it's just fucking weak to turn fairness in voting into "eek the other evil party is just doing this to boost up their rates". basically your logic is that "it helps democrats maybe, so it must be democrat judges behind this screwing the republican voters of their rights!".
come on, everyone benefits at large from fair voting standards.
it's like a damn football match without a referee- with serious prices and no morals on either side.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
how is that other western nations manage just fine without pre-registration?
or is usa some 3rd world country that doesn't know who even should be able to vote(being citizens)? sorry for asking..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Why bother posting drivel on topics you know nothing about? Is there really nothing else to do in your country? You pass time by posting useless nonsense to /.? My god, why not just suicide and get it over with!
why you even need voter registration? seriously
Way I figure, it is a method for collecting suckers for jury duty. Happened to me every time I registered...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Can you explain how this only helps the retarded? It seems to only help prevent a minor clerical error (or greater conspiracy) or unavoidable circumstances from obstructing someone's right to vote regardless of intelligence.
Actually, I don't see how this can help a moron vote, but that is beside the point. It would probably be good if you considered all aspects of your good fortune, rather than attributing it all to your intelligence. It makes for a more robust world-view.
it doesn't matter how smart you are when shit like this happens
this may help stupid people to vote (which i have nothing against) but more importantly it stops corrupt election officials from derailing (even more so) the democratic process.
A friend and colleague of mine believes that every ballot should have a simple multiple-choice test. Nothing requiring a History or Political Science degree; nothing needing math skills. Just a few basic questions (randomly selected from a large database for each ballot, to try and defeat cheat sheets or other "prepping" by party pundits) to check whether the voter has a basic grasp of consequences.
For example, maybe you believe that all citizens should be medically cared for equally, even though that will place an increased burden on taxpayers -- or maybe you believe that medical care should be limited to what you can pay for, even though that means some citizens will fall through the cracks. There are arguments either way, and it's your choice on what you believe, but you need to have a clue as to what the outcome and impact of your belief is.
So, questions like "which of these candidates would most likely change <current policy> to do <foo>"? If you can't demonstrate that you have a grasp of what would happen if a given candidate/party got into office, your vote is discarded.
The trick is to word a sufficient number of questions in a non-biased manner. And to convince people that the completely unaware citizen shouldn't be allowed to control the politics of the country... which of course won't fly with a government who likes easily-led sheep.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I'd prefer an easier test.
Something along the lines of
1) What is your name ______________
2) What is your quest ______________
3) What is your favorite color __________
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
It would make for a more robust world view if we could keep the morons from reflexively voting Democratic every election.
Honestly, this is not 'Insightful' nor 'Extra Insightful' ... I wouldn't have replied but for the excessive modding ...
The judge's ruling still requires you to be properly registered in order for your vote to be counted -- this does nothing to prevent, discourage or otherwise thwart the deliberate removal of your name from the list of registered voters.
The story referenced is about a disgruntled ex-employee of a company called 'Voters Outreach of America'. They were in Nevada to accept voter registration forms. We don't know the whole story, but the key witness, Eric Russell, has discredited himself; He admits that if he had been paid, he probably wouldn't have talked. Not only that, but he took the documents to the FBI, and then left before actually filing a complaint. He's also been described as a disgruntled employee who was fired and displayed a violent temper.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Russell was pissed that he got fired, so he stashed a few Dem registration forms in his jacket, and walked out. Now, he tears them up, and concocts a brilliant story about how the forms were in the trash, systematically torn up by someone who works for 'Voters Outreach of America.' Then, at the FBI office, he's cooled off enough to realized that he could get in serious trouble, and beats it out of there. Like I said, we really don't know what happened here.
Furthermore, intellegence is a factor here too. Why would anyone trust their voter registration to an organization that's moving through the state, and hiring legions of temporary workers? Why not just register with the local government, as most people do? At least then you'll know who you're dealing with.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
Voting is not a constitutional right, nowhere in the constitution does it say you have the right to vote.
Whether it's a "fundamental right" or not is debatable... Personally I think our country would be better off if the majority of our population couldn't vote.
... So I guess I'm going to get to vote Republican TWICE!!!
Thanks, Liberal Federal Judges!!!! And remember, kiddies... Voter Fraud works both ways!
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Ohio is _VERY_ close. This decision could easily change the presidential election.
Quagmire?! How the hell did you get a slashdot account?
1. They don't have 300 million people, 10 million of whom are illegal immegrants.
2. They don't have a culture of privacy and comparative anonymity.
3. Compared to other nations, our federal government is fairly weak, and stupid, by design.
4. Since our system thrives on internal conflict, we're much more likely to take our family squabbles, and skeletons from our homes and closets out onto main street.
5. In our culture government service is an ignoble profession reserved for people who failed at being criminals before they were caught and other assorted riff-raff.
I'd be satisfied if the intelligence test simply required people to demonstrate competence at punching a hole in a pre-perforated card.
is that politicians run the entire voting process, from registration down to the actual polling on election day. How can an election ever be considered fair when partisian elements control the process from the very top?
We have an independent agency here in Canada called, appropriately enough, Elections Canada. Their sole purpose is to organize and execute the federal election process (each province maintains a similar independent agency to monitor provincial elections). The system has been refined over many years to eliminate any partisan influence to the point that even the returning officer in each polling station cannot vote in the election to ensure impartiality. The point being that our Attorney General, or whoever, would never have the ability to grab a stack of registration forms and toss them in the trash, it just doesn't work that way.
Ever since the microscope was focused on the election system in the U.S. since the Floridian Fiasco I am still shocked to see how blatantly political it is. The system we use in Canada is not perfect, no system is, (in fact it is quite antiquated as we still use paper and pen for all elections) but when the chief electorial officer has a stake in the outcome of an election it just beggars belief that anyone would accept that the election to follow would be as fair as possible.
What many in the world consider to be the heart of democracy deserves better than this.
You know, there is a reason for universal suffrage.
"Black people don't have the education and the cultural background for democracy"
"Women are mentally far to unstable to vote."
"Only working people may vote, because only they contribute to the society."
Yes, there may be more intelligent voters and dumber voters, but who gets to decide, which ones are the right ones? And who will ascertain that the exlusion won't be partisan or arbitary like in the "cited" cases in the past?
But most importantly, what gives one the right to exclude those people to vote on their own rulers?
If you think that your electoral constituency is too dumb, don't disenfranchise them, educate them.
In a democracy, you may not get the government you need or want. But at least, you get the government you deserve.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
This judge made a decision to ensure that Democracy is preserved -- the only people that would oppose such a decision are Fascists and other supporters of totalitarianism.
Otherwise you are just asking for voter fraud.
Provisional ballots are probably one of the worst ideas ever. They seem tailor made to insure fraud does occur.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Pot, meet kettle.
Since we were never intended to be a democracy, but a representative republic, your ideas on why there is universal sufferage fall apart. Read the federalist papers some time. Universal sufferage is not the wonderful thing we've all been indoctrinated to believe it is.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Um, the Constitution clearly states that state legislatures choose electors for president. That is because in our form of government, states elect the President, not the people. Traditionally states have used a popular vote to apportion electors, but they can do it any way they please.
This is another reason why the Florida controversy in 2000 is moot. The moment the FL state legislature declared they were setting aside the popular vote and naming the electors directly, Bush won the state, game over.
Of course, nearly all Americans, even those who are (self-proclaimed, of course) intelligent, enlightened slahsdotters have no clue about how their system of government works.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
The important thing to remember is America is a Republic not a democracy, with a system almost the same as the roman republic, with some concesions towards democracy and like the Roman Republic has all the problems of corruption and ultimatley will suffer the same fate people will only suffer republics for so long before they end up acepting a dictator or demanding democracy. Republics never last.
Even the cia world book admits it is a repbulic with strong democratic tendancies. Which
Way to push the Republican agenda there, Lil' W.
Nowhere does it say that all men *ARE* equal. Legally Speaking, convicted felons, convicted sexual offenders, illegal immigrants, and the list goes on and on, are not afforded the same rights as the lawful in America. Even unregistered voters are not afforded the same legal rights (i.e. the right to vote) as those who are legally registered.
I understand the Min-70-IQ requirement would eliminate the votes of a significant number of registered Democrats and a few registered Republicans. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. I mean if you're below 70 IQ, how can you hope to understand the Democrats are career politicians looking to ensure their next election, and really don't have your best interests at heart? Or that the Republicans are the party you should vote for if you want to avoid economic ruin?
I mean, why is it that the 'cognitively challenged' vote overwhelmingly Democratic? Mostly because they take a politician at face value, and aren't able to see through the rhetoric and unrealistic promises made by Democrats during the campaign.
Read your consitution...there is NO right to vote. The method for selecting state electors is left completely in the hands of the state legislators. I don't know how the Ohio state legislature has set up the rules, but if they say the paper has to be polka-dotted, then guess what...it does. There are amendments that prevent disenfranchisement based on race and sex, but there is NO right to vote for president (Hell, US Senators weren't popularly elected until the 17th amendment).
I'd rather spend my days trying to make the US and the World a better place to live ...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/REGISTRATIO N_SCAM?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEF AULT
DEFIANCE, Ohio (AP) -- Elections officials knew something was wrong when they got voter registration cards for Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, Michael Jordan and George Foreman.
They notified the Defiance County sheriff, who arrested Chad Staton on Monday on a felony charge of submitting phony voter registration forms. Investigators also were looking into allegations that he was paid with cocaine in exchange for his efforts.
Staton, 22, had fraudulently filled out more than 100 voter registration forms, Sheriff David Westrick said.
"Staton was to be paid for each registration form that he could get citizens to fill out," the sheriff said. "However, Staton himself filled out the registrations and returned them to the woman who hired him from Toledo."
Staton was charged with false registration and was released without bond pending arraignment.
No other charges had been filed in the case Monday, authorities said.
According to Westrick, the NAACP's National Voter Fund had submitted the false registrations to the elections board in Cleveland. George Forbes, Cleveland chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said Monday that the voter fund operates independently from his chapter.
Officers said they interviewed a Toledo woman who claimed that she had paid Staton with cocaine for the registrations. Officers said they obtained a search warrant and took voter registrations and drug paraphernalia from her home.
The woman claimed she had been recruited by a Cleveland man to obtain voter registrations, Westrick said.
By Jim Siegel
Enquirer Columbus Bureau
COLUMBUS - Thousands of cards mailed by county election boards to newly registered voters in Hamilton County and throughout the state are being returned because the people can't be found.
John Williams, director of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, said the situation indicates that there might not be as many new voters as some expect in a state deemed crucial in the presidential election.
Ohio Republican Party Chairman Robert Bennett on Tuesday said it's a result of statewide registration fraud conducted by independent groups that support Democratic candidates.
"By most accounts, their work can only be considered sloppy, haphazard and, in some cases, downright illegal," Bennett said, noting that the state party plans to take out full-page ads in Ohio newspapers encouraging citizens to stop voter fraud.
Democratic Party spokesman Dan Trevas said the fraud uncovered in Ohio equates to "minor errors" when viewed in the bigger picture.
"The vast majority of those registered for the first time are intent on voting," he said.
Bennett cited instances in 10 counties where potentially fraudulent voter registration forms were submitted.
He said many were submitted by groups he terms "auxiliaries of the Democratic Party": the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and America Coming Together.
The groups paid people to register voters. Some registrations were filled out for dead people, some contained fake addresses, and others named fiction characters such as Dick Tracy and Mary Poppins.
Jess Goode, spokesman for ACT in Ohio, has denied wrongdoing by his group. He said the Republican Party is scared of the number of new Democratic voters headed to the polls in two weeks.
An estimated 7.9 million people have registered in Ohio, up from 7.1 million at the beginning of the year.
Williams is currently investigating fraud by someone working for ACORN who he said submitted voter registrations for about 35 people who don't exist.
Newly registered voters in Hamilton County are mailed a card telling them where to vote and what political districts they live in. But thousands of those cards were returned because the people, or the addresses listed on voter registration forms, couldn't be found.
"There is quite a number," Williams said, noting that not every returned card is a suspected case of fraud. "People do actually move.''
State GOP records, confirmed by Williams, show that through Oct. 4, Hamilton County mailed 63,403 cards to new registrants, and 4,152 were returned - a rate of 6.6 percent.
The number was third-highest in the state behind Cuyahoga County's 14,461 and Franklin's 6,917, according to GOP records. In Butler County, 255 cards mailed to new voters were returned, while 24 were returned in Warren County, according to GOP records. Clermont County numbers were not available.
Tim Burke, chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party and the county elections board, said an updated number of cards returned is 5,808 out of 150,000 mailed not only to new voters, but also to those changing addresses, for a return rate of less than 4 percent.
Burke said fraud makes up a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of newly registered voters in Ohio.
"I think Republicans are attempting to justify what they intend to do on Election Day by raising questions of voter fraud and overplaying this," he said.
What both the Democratic and Republican parties in Ohio intend to do is use a 51-year-old law that allows them to place challengers at polling sites. The parties are recruiting lawyers, law students and others to ensure that people are allowed to vote, or to potentially challenge voters' eligibility.
Bennett said his efforts are likely to focus on heavily Democratic areas where many new voters have been registered. Democrats expect to match the effort.
As further evidence of registration fraud,
you could try explaining why this would cause voter fraud or how the possiblity of voter fraud trumps the right of people to vote.
i've been reading lots of mention of how this will cause voter fraud but no one seems to want to explain how exactly.
I'll skip the customary introductory ad hominem, and simply cite McPherson v. Blacker which the US Supreme Court partially based it's ruling on in the election of 2000.
... and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object."
Regarding presidential electors, the McPherson ruling states "[t]he Constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote
McPherson even explicitly cites, as an acceptable method of selecting electors, the sole participation of the state legislature without a popular vote at all.
Hope that clarifies.
Listen, I appreciate the information, but POST A LINK TO THE STORY, not the whole F---ING STORY!
No.
Personally I think our country would be better off if the majority of our population couldn't vote.
women and minorities right?
or just let land owners vote? those that can afford the "vote tax"?
come on, who can't vote. i really want to know.
No person acting under color of law shall . . . deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/05/153124. php
Blackwell's solution to the pesky problem of people wanting to vote is to institute the most draconian state election laws possible. It makes me wonder if it's possible to have a truely fair election here in my home state.
Happily planning to vote for Badnarik, the Libertarian... I mean, the "OTHER PARTY" candidate. ;)
Assuming, of course, that my polling place hasn't changed, I can find the new one if it has, and that I can get there before it closes.
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0402/ohio_lawsuit.html
I am amused because your last statement seems to imply that stupid people tend to vote Democrat though.
i registered to vote over the summer and this will be my first time to vote. I think you just called me stupid. thanks asshole.
I was thinking more of only educated, intelligent, and well informed people.
Having to own land and pay a tax would also be acceptable. That would eliminate a great many of the voters who feel they're entitled to someone else's money.
Wha . . .?
So you're saying that only people who meet your precise definition of "intelligence" should be given the right to vote? If so, I'd like to personally thank you for stepping up to cure all of America's election difficulties with such a simple and sublime solution. Why didn't we think of this before?!? Now all we need to do is amend the Constitution!
I.Q. based? Sweet mother of Christ.
I can think of at least one very prominent U.S. official that has a significant amount of difficulty stringing together a simple sentence. Where would he fall in your criteria?
The problems are not at all related to intelligence, but to simple confusion. Senior citizens who have voted in the same schoolhouse for 20 years are finding themselves re-routed to a new church building several miles away because their neighborhood was re-districted after the last election (we won't mention the fact that some folks may have some very strong opinions about being forced to vote in a place of worship not of their religious preference). Ballets are redesigned with enough frequency to merit their own award show. Touchscreens replace scanners, which replace pull-levers, which replace pencil and paper. Requirements for driver's licenses or no driver's licenses are different from state to state, and, in some instances county to county, or parish to parish. Not all people have, or even need a driver's license, and, like it or not, not everyone living here speaks your particular brand of English - doesn't make them stupid, just different.
You want to eliminate the "dummies" from the process, simply the #@*king thing by making ALL ballots and all procedures, nationwide, identical. You want to eliminate voter fraud and disenfranchisement? Make it a capital crime to take away a citizen's Constitutional right to vote in any size shape or form.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I have come to the conclusion that a person should have to answer a single multiple choice question before being allowed to vote. And here is the question.
Please select all three (3) branches of government from below:
I figure if you cannot get this right you shouldn't be voting.
Sounds like a bunch of made up bullshit to me -- shithead!
Because most of the people who register with those roving operations are too damn lazy to actually get off their ass and register normally.
What if I registered multiple times (say 10) using different names each time (and possibly differnt even made up addresses?
I could then go to 10 different precincts and vote using each of the different names I registered under. Since each of those names would be on the master list each of those votes would count.
But I have a couple of questions for you. The problems are not at all related to intelligence, but to simple confusion. Senior citizens who have voted in the same schoolhouse for 20 years are finding themselves re-routed to a new church building several miles away because their neighborhood was re-districted after the last election (we won't mention the fact that some folks may have some very strong opinions about being forced to vote in a place of worship not of their religious preference).
Do you have any examples of that? I live an a somewhat rural area with a lot of small municipalities around me and the elections always take place in municipal buildings. Is my area the exception or are you making that up?
Agreed that there should be consistency and uniformity in voting methods. Unfortunately it's the local municipality who has to pay for the voting machines so unless there is a major federal funding initiative (which might be a good idea) you can't require them to replace all of their machiens. Which gets to the other point--while there are a ton of variations on voting machines, the fact is at any given site they generally don't change all that often. Local municipalities don't run out and get new machines unless they absolutely have to.
US elections are still very much in need of the reforms promised after the 2000 election. I'm very angry for politicians not addressing them. But I also have very little sympathy for people who only vote every 4 years and people who make a mistake or are confused and don't ask for help. While usability needs to improve and be a major point of emphasis, in my experience the people working the polls have always been very nice, explained things well and emphasized that they would be happy to help if I had any questions.
Maybe I've just been lucky, but I don't have anything to go on besides my own experience.
Vote Quimby.
If we had a National ID card or used our Social Security cards as a means of proving residence and citizenship then yes we could do something like that. However, we do not have a National ID card (for good or ill) and it is "illegal" in this country to use our SSN's as a form identification.
So, even though we do not have as much anonymity in this country as we did in the past we still have quite a lot compared to other places. This anonymity has both its advantages and disadvantages.
Absolutely true, except this last phrase:
their system of government works
It obviously DOESN'T work, at least, not as self governance for most people. It works quite well as a dictatorship of the oligarchy of the rich, however.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Ohio Revised Code stipulates that "idiots" shall not be qualified electors.
I don't know what IQ range "idiot" is in, but all the same, we have laws on the books to that effect.
You contend that The problems are not at all related to intelligence ..., then go on to deliver examples of 'confusion' that arise out of a lack of intelligence:
Senior citizens who have voted in the same schoolhouse for 20 years are finding themselves re-routed ...
Assuming this is true, which is a big step, this change of polling place would've been detailed on their voter registration card that arrived in the mail. If they were intelligent senior citizens, they would've made note of the new voting location.
some folks may have some very strong opinions about being forced to vote in a place of worship not of their religious preference ...
Religious intolerance is almost always a symptom of a lack of intellegence.
Ballets [sic] are redesigned ... Touchscreens replace scanners, which replace pull-levers, which replace pencil and paper.
Intelligent people can adapt to changes, even if they are unwanted. Intelligent people can read instructions, and know to ask poll workers about the process and get assistance with the process. These poll workers are there to oversee the process and answer questions about how to vote.
Requirements for driver's licenses or no driver's licenses are different from state to state, and, in some instances county to county ...
All intelligent voters only vote at one polling place each election -- they only need to know one polling location's requirements. But, let me ask you: Is it a smart thing to do to leave one's residence without their State or Federal picture ID? Is it beyond one's cognitive skills to decide to take a few minutes to run home and get it?
The test for voters could be provided in other languages, just as ballots are multi-lingual. Most of the campaigning and media coverage is in English though ... so maybe a requirement regarding English comprehesion is something to consider ...
This is a foolish statement. I think under the proposed guidelines regarding IQ that you might not get to have your vote counted ...
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
> Since we were never intended to be a democracy, but a representative republic, your ideas on why there is universal sufferage fall apart.
Since I never intended to do become a billionair, my idea on why there are stock companies fall apart.
In other words, I fail to see the logical consequence.
> Universal sufferage is not the wonderful thing we've all been indoctrinated to believe it is.
Why? First, why indoctrinated?
Next, why isn't it?
The US is a democracy in the sense people use the word. It isn't a direct democracy, like Switzerland, so what. The US is also a republic, so is Switzerland, and even North Korea happens to be a republic, just because their dictator is not to be a king.
I know their reasoning, it was the same I posed to use in my post you are responding too. Fear of the plebs, and what will happen when they get the vote.
But their reasoning doesn't respond to the question of morality: "What gives you the right to deny a person to decide on who is going to govern one?"
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Generally true unless the state mandates change, which is what is happening for this election after what could be called a "trial period" with electronic voting machines two years ago. Previously, my last polling place had six document scanner polling booths, and two punch card booths. This year, all primary voting was done electronically, as will be the main event.
I wish that everyone would adopt some sort of universal standard that could be applied nation-wide, but I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. With things as fractious as they are now, I can only imagine it'll get worse as each side tries to one-up the other with deliberate confusion intended to drive folks away. God, it's sad.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Way to miss the point, let's try again:
What happens when someone just like me gets to change the I.Q. guidelines? Or someone, who in your opinion, is very much worse.
Are you prepared to face being banished to a political wasteland based on somebody else's qualification of your I.Q.? Somehow, I don't think so.
What you fail to see is that every type of reactionary statement (such as this I.Q. requirement) has two sides. What appears positive to you appears fascist as hell to me. Doesn't mean either of us is wrong, it just means we're different. That is what democracy is all about.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
*Why bother posting drivel on topics you know nothing about? Is there really nothing else to do in your country? You pass time by posting useless nonsense to /.? My god, why not just suicide and get it over with!*
I'd tick 'em off from the front page but slashdot wont let me.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
*we still have quite a lot compared to other places.*
uh, _other_places_ have lost part of their anonymity because usa is demanding things like visa numbers from airplane passangers..
usa has some way or another to figure out if someone is a citizen or not(or else everyone could be citizens..), for sure, so why all this nonsense?
(*i could understand the voting registration as an *Extra* measure to provide for people who wouldn't otherwise get to vote due to not living anywhere, not wanting to register their address & etc)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Well, now we're on to a completely different issue ... no wonder I missed it in your first post, it wasn't there!
...
...
... none of these threaten me or my right to vote at all. In fact they make perfect, complete sense.
What happens when someone just like me gets to change the I.Q. guidelines? Or someone, who in your opinion, is very much worse. Are you prepared to face being banished to a political wasteland based on somebody else's qualification of your I.Q.?
Absolutely! What a relief it would be to not have to worry about who I should be voting for. Of course you realize that setting the IQ requirement too high is going to attract the attention of quite a few organizations with powerful lawyers
There are a myriad ways to implement a scheme as I proposed, and a further myriad of ways to administer it. I see both sides of the argument, its your side that comes up weak
Already there are restrictions on who votes (In Ohio, 18 years or older, registered voters who are not currently in prison), where they vote (you can only vote on local issues where you live), and what they vote on (you can only vote on issues that are actually on the ballot). Those issues are all handled by various laws, regulations, elected officials, and citizens who oversee the process at various levels. With the media and organizations like the ACLU to keep everyone mostly honest and everything mostly above board.
Are any or all of those restrictions facist to you? If so, you might want to put your tinhat back on
As would a lower limit on intelligence. There's nothing to say some rudimentary intelligence requirements couldn't be added to the system, fairly and honestly and without malice.
You're only seeing one side of the issue, that people are going to be excluded from the voting process. My side of the issue is that society as a whole would be better served if those people were removed from the process, as there's a very good chance that they don't understand the consequences of the vote they cast.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
Provisional ballots are probably one of the worst ideas ever. They seem tailor made to insure fraud does occur.
You obviously know nothing about the provisional ballot system.
First, let me point out that it was part of the "Help America Vote Act of 2002" and anything that Ken Blackwell has done to block provisional ballots is in violation of that law. Our Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, violated that law. If he thought it was wrong then too bad, law is law. He did challenge it and lost in court, law stands.
Now, where the fsck were you in 2000? Many voters said that they were turned away because they weren't on registration lists - and they had no recourse. Nothing could be done and the vote count went ahead without their votes. With a provisional ballot you can go ahead and vote, even if you don't appear on the registration list. Your vote isn't counted (it is held separate from other ballots) until it can be proven that you indeed had the right to vote.
Good idea in my view. Regardless of the vote (for or against my guy) your ballot isn't just tossed aside. How is this bad?
(I should note that this affects a great deal of people who vote at places other than where they should. If you can't make the trip home to vote when you work 40 miles away you can vote anywhere. They then see if you already voted, if not they count it. I should also note that my tax money went to sending me a card that says You Must Vote At:... when it isn't even true. )
Get your Unix fortune now!
No, I didn't. High voter turnout implies people who usually don't bother to vote will vote. People who don't usually bother to vote tend to be stupid (or apathetic), and if it benefits Democrats... you do the math.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Apparently, you never intended to make any sense either, so any argument that I might make about your post being nonsense would fall apart ...
...
You'll fail to see the logical consequence of that as well
Or any other way, for that matter.
But that is irrelevant.
And that's all I need to hear. Rrequiring voters to meet any sort of intelligence or literacy standards is illegal, immoral, and a violation of civil, and democratic rights. Period.
Nobody gets to say who is too smart or too dumb to vote. Period. If you can't get your mind around that fact, or you find it personaly insulting, fine. You're free to leave and find a country that'll do it your way.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
The Laws are quite clear, it is the legistlature that has oversight over state elections and state balloting, not the courts.
The state court cannot instruct the legistlature to change the law, this is role reversal. The court can only rule on legalities, not remedy them. If I was the secretary of state or state attorney general, I would have the Judge hauled before the legislative body to answer for their usurption of authority.
'cuz you're not. The federal government, through the Constitution, isn't the only entity that can grant you rights. States can do that, too. And every state has given citizens the right to vote in presidential elections. So does every citizen that can vote have the right to vote for president? Of course they do.
So you have no point, dumbass.
...and for all your talk about intelligence, a real stupid one too.
..., then go on to deliver examples of 'confusion' that arise out of a lack of intelligence:
You contend that The problems are not at all related to intelligence
No, those would be examples of ignorance. You are an example of an idiot.
If they were intelligent senior citizens, they would've made note of the new voting location.
And should someone lose their right to vote because they can't physically find it? Do you drive by the poll site every year to make sure that you know where it is? Didn't think so.
Religious intolerance is almost always a symptom of a lack of intellegence.
Fuckin seperation of church and state, for one thing. And I don't want any Pat Robertson types harrasing me on the way in. Just how stupid are you?
Intelligent people can adapt to changes, even if they are unwanted. Intelligent people can read instructions, and know to ask poll workers about the process and get assistance with the process. These poll workers are there to oversee the process and answer questions about how to vote.
Poll workers that are either volunteers (frequently seniors) or being paid a pittance? You get what you pay for. And you can keep people from voting simply by creating enough delays till the poll closes.
But, let me ask you: Is it a smart thing to do to leave one's residence without their State or Federal picture ID?
Okay, are you English or retarded? Unless I am driving a car, my ID or lack there of is none of your god damn business.
Legally Speaking, convicted felons, convicted sexual offenders ...all of which happens after they are "created".
illegal immigrants
Illegal immigrants aren't citizens, are they? Then what's your point with respect to voting rights?
Or that the Republicans are the party you should vote for if you want to avoid economic ruin?
You meant to say "ensure economic ruin", right? Because that's what they are doing with their deficits in the hundereds of billions of dollars, adding trillion to the debt and gutting regulations. The simple fact is that democratic presidents have a MUCH better track record on economys than the GOP does. Stick that in your cock and smoke it.
Mostly because they take a politician at face value, and aren't able to see through the rhetoric and unrealistic promises made by Democrats during the campaign.
As opposed to the GOP? Who has been so busy deep throating Bush to notice that he's taken a big shit on two of the conservative movements biggest tenants: limited government and responsible spending? The party that impeached a President for lying about consensual, legal, private sex but defends to the death Bush's invading the wrong fucking country?
The problem with you neocon shitheads is that you are constantly trying to one-up yourselves on hypocracy and a total lack of consistency.
Gawd I wish people would stop parroting this, thinking they are so clever.
Of course we are a democracy - a representative democracy. What you are talking about is a *pure* democracy, a whole different enchalada.
It would make for a more robust world view if we could keep the morons from reflexively voting Democratic every election.
If morons were prevented from voting the GOP would cease to exist because they'd never get anyone elected.
"In a democracy, you may not get the government you need or want. But at least, you get the government you deserve."
:)
Actually, I get the government that MOST of the public deserves.... That doesn't make me feel better, but it does explain a LOT
"And that's all I need to hear. Rrequiring voters to meet any sort of intelligence or literacy standards is illegal, immoral, and a violation of civil, and democratic rights. Period."
But there doesn't seem to be a problem requiring voters not to have a felony. I suspect those who commit felonies are not the brightest or most literate (as a whole). Sounds like an intelligence or literacy test to me....
I don't know your opinion on the above matter. I assume you are opposed to ANY restrictions on voting. But it is well established in this country that there CAN be restrictions placed on voting eligibility. You can make a case against intelligence (not the person's fault) but why against literacy? That, like a felony, is a choice. If one is allowed, why not the other? They both disenfranchise similar groups of people. Just curious.
It gets worse. According to the League of Women Voters Cleveland Education Fund, Blackwell has anticipated this kind of ruling.
... okay, or don't, that's fine") we're heavily borked.
Latest I've heard he'll allow the provisional ballots to be cast but it's likely that he'll instruct poll workers not to count them. He's going by a technicality here. Judging by the US Supreme Court's tendency in elections (cf.2000) and the Ohio Supreme Court's anti-activist leanings ("hey, state legislature, you're funding schools illegally, fix it please?
Guess whether the rich or poor districts are likely to have these problems - go ahead, take a guess. Now see if you can figure out what the political affiliations of that likely-to-exhibit-uncounted-irregularities area is.
It's so bad in Cuyahoga County that they've started to hire an extra set of poll workers specifically to reinstruct people at the last minute on when and how to give out provisional ballots. The real training for poll workers occurred months ago; but this additional class of people (my dad has volunteered through his job with the County) is being trained at the last minute, to learn in an entire day things that they forgot to tell the workers they've already provided for. It's a bloody mess and nobody knows how to sort it out - there's no consistent policy.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
You have to keep in mind that not all illiteracy is the result of choice. Poverty and mental deficiency/dyslexia (keep in mind that even "W" has admitted to dyslexia. He may not be able to read well, but it sure hasn't affected his ability to function) are two frequent causes/contributors to illiteracy.
Up until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, literacy tests were often used as a way to keep black voters from going to the polls in the south. Southern blacks were rural, mostly poor, often deliberately under-educated. Voter tests of this time served to do nothing more than intimidate black voters away from the polls. The end result was massive voter disenfranchisement, and the extension of racial hostilities that persist to this day.
The risks that I'm trying to point out are simple: If someone played the system in their favor before, someone else will do so again. When people start proposing solutions such mandatory voter tests, they fail to ask themselves the crucial question of "How would I feel if this was applied to me? Could I be victimized by the very same tools I use against another?". People never seem to remember that the political landscape has always been a wheel - what goes around, comes around - and that there is a very real possibility that the methods used against another can very easily be turned against themselves.
The problem with any kind of testing for voter suitability is that someone will always try to game the system. I'll argue that the very fact that someone suggests voter testing is indicative of that person already seeking a method of exclusion. While I hate the term, it is a classic "slippery slope" scenario. Why get into the pain and embarrassment of being forced to undo a mistake, when the easiest solution is to not make one in the first place?
Excluding voters is not the way to a democratic republic.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.