There are states who proclaim that electors must vote for the person that won the election--it's a law.
But it is a STATE law, not a federal law. When the electors meet the process is bound by federal law. If the electors vote in a way that violates state law, the state can punish them -- after the act. The state cannot come back after the Electoral College votes and demand that the state elector's votes be changed, because the federal government specifies that the electors get to decide how they vote.
What is even stupider are the states who now mandate that their electors vote in agreement with the unofficial "popular vote". They are, in effect, disenfranchising their entire voter base if the "popular vote" goes against how the people of the state voted. This is stupid on their part. Fortunately, nobody feels strongly enough about doing this that they are doing it all by themselves. As far as I can tell. The ones who want to do that are waiting until everyone jumps into the moron boat with them, admitting that they don't feel any need to respect the "popular vote".
But you're right--the "popular vote" is of no interest to the federal government.
That's because the"popular vote" is a fiction created by the media to create tension and sucker viewers into watching.
You'd want to at least check a random sample of votes.
If you are going to have machine-generated ballots, you might as well just count those. There are highly efficient processors for optical sense papers, which can be tested by hand against a pre-printed set of test ballots. "Here's a thousand ballots, half of which are maked 'A' and half 'B'." If the count comes out anything but 500:500 you know there is a problem.
If the machine-generated ballots can be filled out by hand, you solve the problem of precincts that aren't rich enough to buy enough machines, you let people vote by hand.
And at that point you're using a paper ballot system anyway. Machine-assisted ballot filling-out of paper ballots.
So, obviously, in 2016, when he won the EC but lost the popular vote, Donald Trump graciously announced that, due to his long-standing and on-the-record rejection of the EC system, he was conceding the election to Hillary Clinton.
Only a moron would concede an election he had won fair and square, under the rules agreed to by all parties before the campaigns even started. You might concede such an election, but that reflect upon you more than it does Trump.
Truly, a man of honesty and integrity.
Integrity means you follow the rules even if you don't completely agree with them. Unlike a politician who tried to get entire counties disenfranchised because they voted predominately for his opponent and throwing out all the votes would have meant he won the state and the overall election. Or who tried to change the way ballots were counted when people who predominately voted for him were unable to poke a hole in a piece of paper and then ensure the hole was complete or even present. I don't recall the words "dimpled chad" being part of the counting process until after the first count was over. Or when those tactics still didn't result in a win, go to court trying to get SCOTUS to force yet another recount that would violate the state's authority to manage the election and push the certification of electors past the date of the Electoral College vote, effectively disenfranchising every voter in the state. (Yeah, they technically got to vote, but the electors they selected for the electoral college would not get to represent them in the vote that mattered. Another example of "technically constitutional" not being the best kind.)
Yes, it's an end run around the 10th, but it's technically constitutional. Which, as we all know, is the best kind of constitutional.
Really? Technically, the fourth amendment does not mention computer files at all, and yet most people would claim that the 4th covers the search of computer files, even those stored on someone else's computer! Is a file stored on your ISP's disk a person, place, paper or "effect"? I don't think so. If you argue that corporations are not people, then how you can argue that an ISP would be protected under an amendment that applies to people is interesting.
I don't know anyone who argues that there can be no warrants issued for such a search, because the "file" is not a "place", and making a copy is neither copying "a person" nor seizing something.
Also, the word "privacy" does not appear, so the "right to privacy" is vaporware. And Roe V. Wade is right out.
So, maybe you should be careful before claiming that "technically constitutional" is the best kind. Anytime you can call something "an end run" maybe you need to rethink if it's good.
I believe that Congress has the authority to regulate federal elections,
Amazingly enough, there is no "federal election" that Joe Citizen votes in. We have a set of state-level elections all held on the same day (which Congress DOES have authority to set as per the Constitution) that select electors for the Electoral College. The latter is the only "federal election", and occurs in the manner prescribed by the Constitution.
since states likely wouldn't want to force voters to use both machines and paper ballots for an election.
This likely would be the impetus for a handful of states to file a lawsuit to overturn any law that mandates how an election must be held.
The 17th covers only senators and the requirements to be an elector for that office. It does not allow the federal government to control the manner in which elections are held. Neither do the 15th, 24th, nor the 26th control how elections are run, only what limits the states may put on who can vote with specific regard to race, gender, etc. (standard civil rights categories), poll taxes, or age. (Interesting side-note: the constitution prohibits states from limiting people 18 and older from voting. States can apparently select whatever lower limit they desire as long as it is lower than 18.)
The 25th deals with Presidential succession, and has nothing at all to say about voting in the states.
Congress has the power.
Oh my god. Congress has the powers granted to it in the Constitution, and saying "thou shall use paper ballots for thy elections" is not a power found therein.
See, here's the thing. I should be able to walk into a polling place and vote. And, after the election, the ballots will be audited to determine whether my vote is legitimate.
Without knowing which ballot belongs to who, it is impossible to audit the ballots after they are counted to know if they are legitimate or not. At the point that all identifying information is removed (which is prior to the first count) the ballot becomes irrevocably valid.
Trying to pretend that you can throw out ballots after they have been counted and after they have been anonymized leads to fiascos like trying to get all absentee ballots in certain Florida counties thrown out.
I'd rather throw out a million votes from illegal immigrants after the election than prevent someone's 90 year-old grandmother from voting because she, wisely, does not have a driver's license.
There is no way to detect which ballots came from illegal aliens, and if having a driver's license is one way of identifying your grandmother it is a wise thing to have no matter what. I don't know what is so "wisely" about not having ID, except to those conspiracy nuts who think that having an ID allows the government to snoop and pry and sneak into your life. (They don't need it.)
They caught these people.
How do you catch people who don't exist? I mean, if it isn't happening, then they can't have done it. So I guess it must be happening. The fact that only four were caught, or was it five?, indicates that it happened more often, since 100% is a pretty high detection percentage. Especially for something that everyone claims doesn't happen at all, and would he hard to detect unless the person doing it was really stupid. I mean, if you're going to use a dead person's name to vote, you don't use your wife's.
Even if it is detected, it is impossible to fix after the count, so it has to be stopped before. Audits won't solve the problem -- they happen after the count.
If your scenario was a thing, the Kris Kobach's would be talking about it 24/7.
I neither know nor care who "Kris Kobach's" is, or why you make a possessive out of his (her?) name. That's the game of personality politics, and we've had enough of that. The fact is that it is trivial to walk into a polling place and claim to be anyone you want to be, and without requiring ID you'll likely get away with it.
When the election officials are in on the deal, it is certain you will.
And the fact is also that it is not hard at all to do that, despite the claim by the GP that it was not easy, which is what I specifically replied to.
That this happens to cost money is no more of an infringement upon their rights than the fact that food also costs money,
More on point, the background check in Oregon before being allowed to purchase a gun -- a prerequisite to "keep and bear arms", a right in both the US and Oregon constitutions -- costs $10 plus whatever "reasonable fee" the dealer wants to add on. The fee for a concealed carry permit -- part of "bear arms" -- is $65.
I don't recall ever reading anything that says that any right any person has must be provided to him by someone for zero cost.
I am not, and you don't want to "go there" because it proves that it isn't as simple as you say to prove citizenship. LOTS of people won't have their birth records at the local county courthouse simply because they weren't born in the county where they now live. That is such an obvious problem with your method of verification that I cannot imagine that you didn't know it.
It's pretty simple - you have to start with a valid ID. And yes, a driver's license is official ID. Deal with it.
It proves nothing about your right to vote. When states start handing them out to illegal aliens because they think it is better to let the aliens drive with a license than without, that makes drivers licenses useless for determining voting privileges. (And it does a good deal of damage to the idea that they can be used as ID for TSA or other government purposes.) Deal with it.
After you register to vote, using your legal ID, you are not immediately registered to vote.
You still haven't sussed out that the problem is not registration. It's proving that the person trying to vote is registered. No, it is not as simple as "is there a name on the list that matches who they claim to be." It takes ID AT THE POINT OF VOTING, not just at the point of registering.
You don't simply walk into a polling place and flash your driver's license, you have to be registered.
You can walk into a polling place with or without ID of any kind. You can vote without showing ID of any kind. You can't "flash your DL" at someone and get a ballot, of course. You have to tell the poll worker you are someone whose name is on the registration list. But the issue is not registration, which I've said many times, it's matching the person trying to vote to the person who registered.
But if your name is there as a registered voter, and you provide ID,
YOU CANNOT BE ASKED TO PROVIDE ID. Requiring ID is racist. Poor people, who are predominately black, cannot afford ID. They cannot afford time off work to go get an ID. They cannot afford to get a copy of their birth certificate, or there may not be a birth certificate to begin with. Allegedly some states close the only place on the planet where poor black people could go to get an ID. "Voter ID" is dog-whistle racism. That's what everyone who wants to let anyone who walks into a polling place vote says. That's why we cannot require an ID before allowing someone to exercise their right to vote.
Stop telling me to "deal with it", because I seem to be dealing with it a lot better than you are, and you're being a dick when you say it. But you know that, just like you know that registration isn't the issue at hand, it's a requirement to prove that the registration belongs to the person who is trying to vote. But I've only said that a dozen times now.
Do you not understand that your citizenship and right to vote is determined long before you show up at the polling place?
Do you not understand that anyone can show up at the polls and claim to be Roger Smith who lives at 123 Main Street, and unless you have him show ID you cannot know that he is or is not who he claims to be?
When you are at the polling place preparing to vote, they verify that you are you,
The need to verify that I am the person who is registered to vote. Verifying that I am me is not hard. Without requiring an ID, how do you verify that I am the person who is registered to vote?
My license is legal ID
Does your license prove that you are the person who was registered? You can get a license without registering. You can register without a license. And if they cannot ask for ID because that would be "racist", then they aren't going to see your DL.
Dunno why you are wrapped around the axle about a system that is already in use and has a proven track record.
Because it isn't in use? When I voted at a polling place, I never had to show ID. I told them who I was, they saw the name and address I told them on the list, and they handed me a ballot. They then checked off the name. What ID system was in use then?
And today, requiring ID before allowing people to vote is racist, and laws have been overturned that required such things, so that system is not in use, either.
Proven track record, perhaps. In use, no.
They then match it all up on voting days.
Exactly what are they matching up? The name you give them and the name on the list. Check. Good enough.
Do you think that random people just show up at random places and vote?
Of course not. It's not random people, it's a selected group of paid voters. The names they use are not random, they're names of people who are dead or moved away, gathered and collated by campaign workers ahead of time. And the places are not random, they're the correct polling places for the people whose names are being used.
This was the standard operating system in the large city near where I grew up. It was a joke. Everyone knew it was happening. "The cemetaries empty on voting day." The problem was the that problem was managed by the people who got elected through that process, or by people who got favors from those who were elected that way. Or expected to cash in on favors later. Or simply didn't want to lose their jobs in the elections office, or other lose other more significant things by refusing to go along.
Drivers license are legal ID.
Too bad that is it racist to require they be shown before "citizen votes". The system you think is "already in use" isn't.
It is extremely simple to find out if a person is a citizen or not. They take your name to the local courthouse, where birth and naturalization records are housed.
Neither my birth nor naturalization records are housed at the local courthouse. I must be an illegal alien, huh?
Identity as a driver does not mean the person is a citizen.
That's why your "better idea" of using a DL as a Voter ID is not a better idea.
But it very clearly shows that a person exists,
You need to prove more than "a person exists". If I walk up to you on the street and poke you in the nose, I've done a very good job of proving I exist. Unless you're an existentialist or whatever it is that claims nothing exists. If I am standing in front of you, the poll worker, I've succeeded in proving I exist. I have done nothing to prove that I am the person whose name is in the voter records as being registered.
and from there, the process is very simple to find out and put you on the list of registered voters - or not.
Well, I'm sure you've nailed the problem of registration. But you have not nailed the problem of proving that the person who registered is the same person who is trying to vote today.
When they thought my signature didn't match, they contacted me to ask about it before counting my vote. I assume Oregon does the same.
Well, if all we have to do is assume that the voting system is ok for it to be ok, then why have any validation at all? Just assume everything is fine and save a lot of time and money. I.e. you're making a lot of assumptions that should not need to be made. If you can see the ballot go into the box then you don't have to assume they'll tell you if they don't think you have the authority to vote. They'll actually tell you to your face before the ballot goes into the box.
but the actual opportunities for fraud seem fairly limited
All I have to do to commit fraud, uncatchable fraud, is to pull a discarded letter out of the trash at the Post Office (or any other place where they might be), fill out the ballot in the secrecy of my home, forge a signature, and then drop the ballot in an unsecured ballot drop box in the dead of night. If I fear a security camera seeing me do that, I'll drop my own ballot in the same box at the same time, and then I have a perfect alibi for being at that box.
Or I can intercept my spouse's ballot as it arrives in the mail, fill it out, forge her signature (I have a thousand exemplars within three feet of where I am now), and send it back in.
This is "fairly limited"? Really? The only "fairly limited" I see here is your creativity.
Realistically, the ballots are secured by USPS until they arrive at each household and secured by USPS again once they leave,
They are secured by USPS until they reach the MAILBOX, which in many, if not most, places, is outside the household. Post office boxes are a major example, but a regular old roadside mailbox is another. Roadside boxes are not secured by USPS, they are protected by law. That's a significant difference, which anyone who has had a new credit card or check stolen from one can educate you on.
The ballot drop boxes are also not secured by USPS in any way. They are not mailboxes and don't fall under postal service regulations. Many of them are simply heavy steel boxes on the side of the road. The only "securing" that is done is by the normal police patrols, and we aren't going to try claiming that this is significant are you? I mean, would you leave $10,000 by the side of the road and rely on regular police patrols to keep someone who knows it is there from stealing it?
Stealing ballots from individual households seems incredibly inefficient and a really easy way to end up in jail for a long time.
Like I said, lack of creativity is obvious. The post office puts waste baskets in the lobbies so people can throw away unwanted mail; an unwanted ballot is just another piece of unwanted mail. That's just one place you could get them.
Realistically, you can also disincentivize voter fraud by simply having higher turnout: to vote twice, you have to fake the identity of a non-voter.
If someone has thrown away their ballot, it is a near certainty that they are in the group called "non-voter".
The fewer non-voters there are, the more likely you are to get caught.
Right. If I pull 100 unused ballots out of the trash it won't matter if these are the only 100 non-voters or there are 100,000. The chances of getting caught by duplicating an existing vote are still 0.
First you have to believe that voter fraud is actually a statistically significant problem.
Don't tell me what I have to believe. I only have to believe that it can be a significant problem and that solutions are available. Both are true.
you would have to argue that some other mechanism (than signature verification) would more effectively eliminate or reduce the fraud.
More telling me what I have to do. But I can do this, too. A picture ID produced at the time of voting that verifies the voter's authorization to vote. While bad guys can, of course, produce scads of fraudulent picture IDs (no ID system is 100%) it is MUCH harder to do than copying a signature. It also completely eliminates coerced voting, where the signature may be perfectly real but the ballot marks be made by or at the instruction of someone else. If an empty ballot enters the voting booth and the same ballot comes out marked and then goes into the box, it is hard for a spouse or anyone else to vote the ballot for someone.
The first validation is the voter registration process itself where the identity of the voter is determined and the baseline signature is obtained.
Wrong. That does not validate the ballot you are holding in any way. You don't know where that ballot came from. Someone registering ten years ago tells you nothing about the history or validity of the ballot now in your hand.
And it does NOTHING to help audit the election.
Signature verification on the ballot envelope is the second or subsequent validation. Sure, it's possible that people could fraudulently register to vote.
They don't need to fraudulently register to fraudulently vote. An act that took place ten or more years ago has nothing to do with the ballot you are looking it. Yes, it may be why someone's name it printed on it, and why it was mailed, but it doesn't prove anything about who filled it out and sent it back.
I argue that signature validation is sufficient to reduce fraud at the time of the vote.
Again, I'll point to the words "security and integrity". The validity of the result. If you have ZERO control over the first half of an election, then relying on a fallable, trickable, eye-ball match of a signature is not going to magically make everything just fine.
You mentioned concern about fraud that occurs before the vote, which I assume you mean at voter registration time.
You don't have to assume what I mean, you could read what I wrote.
I would agree that more stringent procedures could be done to verify voters at voter registration time.
You're the only one of us talking about registration. I'm saying, pretty explicitly, that when you throw ballots out to the four winds (i.e., mail them to every registered voter) you have lost control of any security or even secrecy for the election. You can compare signatures all day and you will not be able to validate that the ballot in your hands was voted by the person whose name is printed on the envelope. You're going to guess wrong in some cases and fraudulent ballots will get through. And you're going to guess wrong even if there is no fraud and people will be disenfranchised. Their vote will be discarded and they'll never know, or find out too late to do anything about it.
I'm sorry, but "vote by mail" is just too open to fraud and failure and should be ended.
That being said, I would want to know that there is actually a statistically significant problem before risking denying or discouraging anyone who is entitled to vote to do so.
And yet, you appear to have claimed that you are an election official who will use his power with impunity to prevent someone from voting if their signature on the ballot doesn't match that on their registration card. (My card is a couple of decades old -- my sign
You visually verify that the signature on the ballot envelope matches the signature on the voter registration card. Yes, we do that here for every vote.
That does not audit the election, that is the first and only validation of the initial vote. Once that step FAILS, as it is bound to if the person attempting the fraud is any good at it at all, there is NO way to audit the election. Once you count that ballot, it's counted. There is no way to exclude it from any recount, or to go back and validate it again.
Ballots are "fill in the bubble" forms so counting is done by optical readers. Human manual recounting can be performed if necessary.
You apparently missed where I referred to having perfect security after the by-eye signature validation, didn't you? This is irrelevant to the security and integrity of the election if the fraud took place long before you count the ballot.
Voter fraud is when a person votes or attempts to vote as somebody different than who they are. It is hard to imitate a different voter
Oh my God, are you for real? If I walk into a polling place and claim to be Robert Smith who lives at 123 Main Street and the poll worker finds my name on the polling list, how does he know I am the person on his list WITHOUT MAKING ME PROVIDE ID? He's not expected to know every person in the voting district. He won't know that the real Robert Smith died a month ago and cannot possibly show up at the polls to contest the vote I cast. Even if he DID show up, my ballot is already in the box and cannot be taken back.
It's even worse for vote-by-mail, where all I have to do is forge signatures on a secrecy envelope good enough for an overworked election official to approve. If I send in 100 ballots and have only a 50% success rate, that's fifty votes I've cast.
as soon as a person comes up with a workable plan to ID voters,
And as soon as someone points out why your plan is not workable (because a DL is NOT a Voter's ID; it says nothing about citizenship or holding the right to vote) you jump to hyperbole mode and claim that that someone must oppose all forms of voter ID or the use thereof. Yes, someone can oppose one part of your plan because it isn't sufficient to accomplish the goal and still support the goal overall. It's not amazing unless you don't understand that.
Meanwhile, what has been proven is that voting machines can be hacked by an 11 year old
I guess you can't bother to read what you cite, either. That Time article is pretty clear that the 11 year old hacked into an IMITATION Florida website to change the numbers it displayed. IMITATION, as in NOT REAL. A fake website created for the express purpose of being hacked into by an 11 year old as a publicity stunt. And a WEBSITE, as in NOT A VOTING MACHINE. Fuck, it's only like the second or third paragraph in that story, and was hashed to death in slashdot not very long ago.
Or a conspiracy involving dozens of people laboriously drives from polling place to polling place, managing to cast at most a hundred or so fraudulent votes, seen by hundreds of witnesses,
Since it is known to have happened on a regular basis, and those "hundreds of witnesses" were all party to the crime and being paid to do it, well, I'll go with that one.
not to mention that any one of those dozens of people could turn on the others in an instant in exchange for immunity?
One does not "turn in" the party machine in a Daley-run Chicago lightly, and getting immunity would require that the prosecutors not be in the pocket of the machine itself.
You should really review the law instead of making false claims.
Article 1 Section 4 talks about Senators and Representatives, not electors for the Electoral College.
The 15th prohibits certain discrimination; the 24th prohibits poll taxes, and the 26th sets the age above which a state cannot prohibit someone from voting.
With the exception of electing Senators and Representatives, the Constitution goes not grant the federal government the right for any control over how the States run their elections. It also is silent (and thus grants no authority) on the manner in which the electors are chosen for the Electoral College, with the exception that the Congress may set the day upon which the electors are chosen.
You should really review the law instead of making false claims.
Citing things that don't say what you pretend they do is handing the argument over to your opponent. Or do you believe that the ability to create laws on the selection of Senators and Representatives actually opens the door to micromanagement of the entire election process by the feds?
Here's what your link for CA says they require to get a CA ID:
Provide proofs of your ID, SSN, birth date, and residency.
Prove who you are, that you are old enough to vote, and that you live where you are intending on voting. The SSN isn't a tough one, but apparently it is a killer in your opinion.
Ultimately, voter IDs are attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist
Busing people from polling place to polling place to vote for the dead or disabled is standard practice in some places in this country. You can claim it doesn't exist all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
I'm not convinced that making it federal would eliminate the political problems, either.
Of course making it federal wouldn't solve the problems. You'd be creating a federal identification system for all people. You don't need a federal identification system for all people.
You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
Wrong. State. States are the highest political division that has elections. If the state wants to authorize the counties to handle it, that's ok too,
But you also allow Drivers Licenses,
Driver's licenses are not proof of citizenship.
But your typical right before election bawlbaby bitching about is couldn't be any more transparent of your motives.
I'm sorry, is this discussion right before an election? How long before an election is long enough for you to stop playing the racist card and allow the adults to discuss a solution to the problem? Does it help to refer to people as "chocolate people"?
And looky here, a little over 2 months from the election,
This discussion has been going on for a long time, so the fact that eventually an election comes along while it is taking place isn't proof of anything.
- Create weird laws like requiring early voting to be open more hours then needed
Wait, it's BAD for voting to be easier for people who can't make it to the polling places on "election day"? How long is "needed"?
- Reject vote by mail
Vote by mail is an open door to fraud of all kinds, which defeats the concept of having any ID at all to be able to vote. How do you make sure that the person whose ballot you got in the mail was voted by the person whose is supposed to be voting it?
But, being in Oregon, and having to put up with Wyden, I am rolling on the floor laughing at your claim that "vote by mail" is being rejected.
Guess whos being disenfranchised?
People who care so little about voting that they can't bother to register or get an ID? People who care so little that nobody expects them to cast an intelligent vote? One whose votes will be swayed by every blip in the media message, and most likely to be influenced by the advertising from large money donors? It's hard to limit money in elections because money is a requirement for free speech to be effective at all, so you want to make it easier for money to influence the vote by making it easier for people who will be most likely to be influenced to actually vote?
Easier for absentees to vote is Bad, but easier for low information voters who don't care about the election to vote is Good? Welcome to 1984.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a background check is required in order to exercise your rights.
And nowhere does it give the federal government the authority to mandate how states run their elections.
You might try to say that since it is a NATIONAL election then the NATIONAL government is running it, but you'd be wrong. The only election for a national office is not a national election, it is a collection of state elections, where each state is told to pick their electors but not how that must be done. The actual final election is conducted in accordance with the Constitution.
Also, for those who are trying to lump gerrymandering in with this issue, gerrymandering has no impact on the result of the Presidential election.
Also, DMVs require more documentation for IDs than is necessary to vote.
My DMV requires proof of citizenship and proof of residence for ID. For DL, proof of vision and at some time in the past proof of driving ability. So, for ID, everything that is required for voting and nothing more.
alabama_closes_dmvs
If only there were some way of getting ID by mail... like maybe going to a post office and doing something... States don't control post offices like they do DMV offices.
This bill is being pushed by Wyden, and yes, Oregon is a state with a lot of logging that supports papermaking plants. It is also a state that mails ballots out to every registered voter, losing all control of where they wind up and who actually votes them. How do you audit a voting system like that? You have unsecured ballot drop boxes, and unsecured trash containers where people discard ballots they aren't going to vote. The validation of the elector is a signature on an envelope which is compared by eye with a recorded signature. If your ballot is tossed because the "signature doesn't match" nobody tells you so you can rectify the situation.
This is what Wyden wants for the entire US. Toss ballots to the four winds and count what comes back. You can provide perfect security for the paper ballots once they get past the eyeball signature check, but if everything up to that point is wide open for fraud you don't really have a secure voting system.
Slashdot Mirror
There are states who proclaim that electors must vote for the person that won the election--it's a law.
But it is a STATE law, not a federal law. When the electors meet the process is bound by federal law. If the electors vote in a way that violates state law, the state can punish them -- after the act. The state cannot come back after the Electoral College votes and demand that the state elector's votes be changed, because the federal government specifies that the electors get to decide how they vote.
What is even stupider are the states who now mandate that their electors vote in agreement with the unofficial "popular vote". They are, in effect, disenfranchising their entire voter base if the "popular vote" goes against how the people of the state voted. This is stupid on their part. Fortunately, nobody feels strongly enough about doing this that they are doing it all by themselves. As far as I can tell. The ones who want to do that are waiting until everyone jumps into the moron boat with them, admitting that they don't feel any need to respect the "popular vote".
But you're right--the "popular vote" is of no interest to the federal government.
That's because the"popular vote" is a fiction created by the media to create tension and sucker viewers into watching.
You'd want to at least check a random sample of votes.
If you are going to have machine-generated ballots, you might as well just count those. There are highly efficient processors for optical sense papers, which can be tested by hand against a pre-printed set of test ballots. "Here's a thousand ballots, half of which are maked 'A' and half 'B'." If the count comes out anything but 500:500 you know there is a problem.
If the machine-generated ballots can be filled out by hand, you solve the problem of precincts that aren't rich enough to buy enough machines, you let people vote by hand.
And at that point you're using a paper ballot system anyway. Machine-assisted ballot filling-out of paper ballots.
So, obviously, in 2016, when he won the EC but lost the popular vote, Donald Trump graciously announced that, due to his long-standing and on-the-record rejection of the EC system, he was conceding the election to Hillary Clinton.
Only a moron would concede an election he had won fair and square, under the rules agreed to by all parties before the campaigns even started. You might concede such an election, but that reflect upon you more than it does Trump.
Truly, a man of honesty and integrity.
Integrity means you follow the rules even if you don't completely agree with them. Unlike a politician who tried to get entire counties disenfranchised because they voted predominately for his opponent and throwing out all the votes would have meant he won the state and the overall election. Or who tried to change the way ballots were counted when people who predominately voted for him were unable to poke a hole in a piece of paper and then ensure the hole was complete or even present. I don't recall the words "dimpled chad" being part of the counting process until after the first count was over. Or when those tactics still didn't result in a win, go to court trying to get SCOTUS to force yet another recount that would violate the state's authority to manage the election and push the certification of electors past the date of the Electoral College vote, effectively disenfranchising every voter in the state. (Yeah, they technically got to vote, but the electors they selected for the electoral college would not get to represent them in the vote that mattered. Another example of "technically constitutional" not being the best kind.)
Yes, it's an end run around the 10th, but it's technically constitutional. Which, as we all know, is the best kind of constitutional.
Really? Technically, the fourth amendment does not mention computer files at all, and yet most people would claim that the 4th covers the search of computer files, even those stored on someone else's computer! Is a file stored on your ISP's disk a person, place, paper or "effect"? I don't think so. If you argue that corporations are not people, then how you can argue that an ISP would be protected under an amendment that applies to people is interesting.
I don't know anyone who argues that there can be no warrants issued for such a search, because the "file" is not a "place", and making a copy is neither copying "a person" nor seizing something.
Also, the word "privacy" does not appear, so the "right to privacy" is vaporware. And Roe V. Wade is right out.
So, maybe you should be careful before claiming that "technically constitutional" is the best kind. Anytime you can call something "an end run" maybe you need to rethink if it's good.
I believe that Congress has the authority to regulate federal elections,
Amazingly enough, there is no "federal election" that Joe Citizen votes in. We have a set of state-level elections all held on the same day (which Congress DOES have authority to set as per the Constitution) that select electors for the Electoral College. The latter is the only "federal election", and occurs in the manner prescribed by the Constitution.
since states likely wouldn't want to force voters to use both machines and paper ballots for an election.
This likely would be the impetus for a handful of states to file a lawsuit to overturn any law that mandates how an election must be held.
The 25th deals with Presidential succession, and has nothing at all to say about voting in the states.
Congress has the power.
Oh my god. Congress has the powers granted to it in the Constitution, and saying "thou shall use paper ballots for thy elections" is not a power found therein.
I don't know of any country which allows you to vote without an ID.
I have never had to show an ID in the US to vote. Certainly not now, because there isn't even anyone who I could show it to.
See, here's the thing. I should be able to walk into a polling place and vote. And, after the election, the ballots will be audited to determine whether my vote is legitimate.
Without knowing which ballot belongs to who, it is impossible to audit the ballots after they are counted to know if they are legitimate or not. At the point that all identifying information is removed (which is prior to the first count) the ballot becomes irrevocably valid.
Trying to pretend that you can throw out ballots after they have been counted and after they have been anonymized leads to fiascos like trying to get all absentee ballots in certain Florida counties thrown out.
I'd rather throw out a million votes from illegal immigrants after the election than prevent someone's 90 year-old grandmother from voting because she, wisely, does not have a driver's license.
There is no way to detect which ballots came from illegal aliens, and if having a driver's license is one way of identifying your grandmother it is a wise thing to have no matter what. I don't know what is so "wisely" about not having ID, except to those conspiracy nuts who think that having an ID allows the government to snoop and pry and sneak into your life. (They don't need it.)
They caught these people.
How do you catch people who don't exist? I mean, if it isn't happening, then they can't have done it. So I guess it must be happening. The fact that only four were caught, or was it five?, indicates that it happened more often, since 100% is a pretty high detection percentage. Especially for something that everyone claims doesn't happen at all, and would he hard to detect unless the person doing it was really stupid. I mean, if you're going to use a dead person's name to vote, you don't use your wife's.
Even if it is detected, it is impossible to fix after the count, so it has to be stopped before. Audits won't solve the problem -- they happen after the count.
If your scenario was a thing, the Kris Kobach's would be talking about it 24/7.
I neither know nor care who "Kris Kobach's" is, or why you make a possessive out of his (her?) name. That's the game of personality politics, and we've had enough of that. The fact is that it is trivial to walk into a polling place and claim to be anyone you want to be, and without requiring ID you'll likely get away with it.
When the election officials are in on the deal, it is certain you will.
And the fact is also that it is not hard at all to do that, despite the claim by the GP that it was not easy, which is what I specifically replied to.
That this happens to cost money is no more of an infringement upon their rights than the fact that food also costs money,
More on point, the background check in Oregon before being allowed to purchase a gun -- a prerequisite to "keep and bear arms", a right in both the US and Oregon constitutions -- costs $10 plus whatever "reasonable fee" the dealer wants to add on. The fee for a concealed carry permit -- part of "bear arms" -- is $65.
I don't recall ever reading anything that says that any right any person has must be provided to him by someone for zero cost.
Quite possibly. Let's not go there at this time.
I am not, and you don't want to "go there" because it proves that it isn't as simple as you say to prove citizenship. LOTS of people won't have their birth records at the local county courthouse simply because they weren't born in the county where they now live. That is such an obvious problem with your method of verification that I cannot imagine that you didn't know it.
It's pretty simple - you have to start with a valid ID. And yes, a driver's license is official ID. Deal with it.
It proves nothing about your right to vote. When states start handing them out to illegal aliens because they think it is better to let the aliens drive with a license than without, that makes drivers licenses useless for determining voting privileges. (And it does a good deal of damage to the idea that they can be used as ID for TSA or other government purposes.) Deal with it.
After you register to vote, using your legal ID, you are not immediately registered to vote.
You still haven't sussed out that the problem is not registration. It's proving that the person trying to vote is registered. No, it is not as simple as "is there a name on the list that matches who they claim to be." It takes ID AT THE POINT OF VOTING, not just at the point of registering.
You don't simply walk into a polling place and flash your driver's license, you have to be registered.
You can walk into a polling place with or without ID of any kind. You can vote without showing ID of any kind. You can't "flash your DL" at someone and get a ballot, of course. You have to tell the poll worker you are someone whose name is on the registration list. But the issue is not registration, which I've said many times, it's matching the person trying to vote to the person who registered.
But if your name is there as a registered voter, and you provide ID,
YOU CANNOT BE ASKED TO PROVIDE ID. Requiring ID is racist. Poor people, who are predominately black, cannot afford ID. They cannot afford time off work to go get an ID. They cannot afford to get a copy of their birth certificate, or there may not be a birth certificate to begin with. Allegedly some states close the only place on the planet where poor black people could go to get an ID. "Voter ID" is dog-whistle racism. That's what everyone who wants to let anyone who walks into a polling place vote says. That's why we cannot require an ID before allowing someone to exercise their right to vote.
Stop telling me to "deal with it", because I seem to be dealing with it a lot better than you are, and you're being a dick when you say it. But you know that, just like you know that registration isn't the issue at hand, it's a requirement to prove that the registration belongs to the person who is trying to vote. But I've only said that a dozen times now.
Do you not understand that your citizenship and right to vote is determined long before you show up at the polling place?
Do you not understand that anyone can show up at the polls and claim to be Roger Smith who lives at 123 Main Street, and unless you have him show ID you cannot know that he is or is not who he claims to be?
When you are at the polling place preparing to vote, they verify that you are you,
The need to verify that I am the person who is registered to vote. Verifying that I am me is not hard. Without requiring an ID, how do you verify that I am the person who is registered to vote?
My license is legal ID
Does your license prove that you are the person who was registered? You can get a license without registering. You can register without a license. And if they cannot ask for ID because that would be "racist", then they aren't going to see your DL.
Dunno why you are wrapped around the axle about a system that is already in use and has a proven track record.
Because it isn't in use? When I voted at a polling place, I never had to show ID. I told them who I was, they saw the name and address I told them on the list, and they handed me a ballot. They then checked off the name. What ID system was in use then?
And today, requiring ID before allowing people to vote is racist, and laws have been overturned that required such things, so that system is not in use, either.
Proven track record, perhaps. In use, no.
They then match it all up on voting days.
Exactly what are they matching up? The name you give them and the name on the list. Check. Good enough.
Do you think that random people just show up at random places and vote?
Of course not. It's not random people, it's a selected group of paid voters. The names they use are not random, they're names of people who are dead or moved away, gathered and collated by campaign workers ahead of time. And the places are not random, they're the correct polling places for the people whose names are being used.
This was the standard operating system in the large city near where I grew up. It was a joke. Everyone knew it was happening. "The cemetaries empty on voting day." The problem was the that problem was managed by the people who got elected through that process, or by people who got favors from those who were elected that way. Or expected to cash in on favors later. Or simply didn't want to lose their jobs in the elections office, or other lose other more significant things by refusing to go along.
Drivers license are legal ID.
Too bad that is it racist to require they be shown before "citizen votes". The system you think is "already in use" isn't.
It is extremely simple to find out if a person is a citizen or not. They take your name to the local courthouse, where birth and naturalization records are housed.
Neither my birth nor naturalization records are housed at the local courthouse. I must be an illegal alien, huh?
Identity as a driver does not mean the person is a citizen.
That's why your "better idea" of using a DL as a Voter ID is not a better idea.
But it very clearly shows that a person exists,
You need to prove more than "a person exists". If I walk up to you on the street and poke you in the nose, I've done a very good job of proving I exist. Unless you're an existentialist or whatever it is that claims nothing exists. If I am standing in front of you, the poll worker, I've succeeded in proving I exist. I have done nothing to prove that I am the person whose name is in the voter records as being registered.
and from there, the process is very simple to find out and put you on the list of registered voters - or not.
Well, I'm sure you've nailed the problem of registration. But you have not nailed the problem of proving that the person who registered is the same person who is trying to vote today.
When they thought my signature didn't match, they contacted me to ask about it before counting my vote. I assume Oregon does the same.
Well, if all we have to do is assume that the voting system is ok for it to be ok, then why have any validation at all? Just assume everything is fine and save a lot of time and money. I.e. you're making a lot of assumptions that should not need to be made. If you can see the ballot go into the box then you don't have to assume they'll tell you if they don't think you have the authority to vote. They'll actually tell you to your face before the ballot goes into the box.
but the actual opportunities for fraud seem fairly limited
All I have to do to commit fraud, uncatchable fraud, is to pull a discarded letter out of the trash at the Post Office (or any other place where they might be), fill out the ballot in the secrecy of my home, forge a signature, and then drop the ballot in an unsecured ballot drop box in the dead of night. If I fear a security camera seeing me do that, I'll drop my own ballot in the same box at the same time, and then I have a perfect alibi for being at that box.
Or I can intercept my spouse's ballot as it arrives in the mail, fill it out, forge her signature (I have a thousand exemplars within three feet of where I am now), and send it back in.
This is "fairly limited"? Really? The only "fairly limited" I see here is your creativity.
Realistically, the ballots are secured by USPS until they arrive at each household and secured by USPS again once they leave,
They are secured by USPS until they reach the MAILBOX, which in many, if not most, places, is outside the household. Post office boxes are a major example, but a regular old roadside mailbox is another. Roadside boxes are not secured by USPS, they are protected by law. That's a significant difference, which anyone who has had a new credit card or check stolen from one can educate you on.
The ballot drop boxes are also not secured by USPS in any way. They are not mailboxes and don't fall under postal service regulations. Many of them are simply heavy steel boxes on the side of the road. The only "securing" that is done is by the normal police patrols, and we aren't going to try claiming that this is significant are you? I mean, would you leave $10,000 by the side of the road and rely on regular police patrols to keep someone who knows it is there from stealing it?
Stealing ballots from individual households seems incredibly inefficient and a really easy way to end up in jail for a long time.
Like I said, lack of creativity is obvious. The post office puts waste baskets in the lobbies so people can throw away unwanted mail; an unwanted ballot is just another piece of unwanted mail. That's just one place you could get them.
Realistically, you can also disincentivize voter fraud by simply having higher turnout: to vote twice, you have to fake the identity of a non-voter.
If someone has thrown away their ballot, it is a near certainty that they are in the group called "non-voter".
The fewer non-voters there are, the more likely you are to get caught.
Right. If I pull 100 unused ballots out of the trash it won't matter if these are the only 100 non-voters or there are 100,000. The chances of getting caught by duplicating an existing vote are still 0.
First you have to believe that voter fraud is actually a statistically significant problem.
Don't tell me what I have to believe. I only have to believe that it can be a significant problem and that solutions are available. Both are true.
you would have to argue that some other mechanism (than signature verification) would more effectively eliminate or reduce the fraud.
More telling me what I have to do. But I can do this, too. A picture ID produced at the time of voting that verifies the voter's authorization to vote. While bad guys can, of course, produce scads of fraudulent picture IDs (no ID system is 100%) it is MUCH harder to do than copying a signature. It also completely eliminates coerced voting, where the signature may be perfectly real but the ballot marks be made by or at the instruction of someone else. If an empty ballot enters the voting booth and the same ballot comes out marked and then goes into the box, it is hard for a spouse or anyone else to vote the ballot for someone.
The first validation is the voter registration process itself where the identity of the voter is determined and the baseline signature is obtained.
Wrong. That does not validate the ballot you are holding in any way. You don't know where that ballot came from. Someone registering ten years ago tells you nothing about the history or validity of the ballot now in your hand.
And it does NOTHING to help audit the election.
Signature verification on the ballot envelope is the second or subsequent validation. Sure, it's possible that people could fraudulently register to vote.
They don't need to fraudulently register to fraudulently vote. An act that took place ten or more years ago has nothing to do with the ballot you are looking it. Yes, it may be why someone's name it printed on it, and why it was mailed, but it doesn't prove anything about who filled it out and sent it back.
I argue that signature validation is sufficient to reduce fraud at the time of the vote.
Again, I'll point to the words "security and integrity". The validity of the result. If you have ZERO control over the first half of an election, then relying on a fallable, trickable, eye-ball match of a signature is not going to magically make everything just fine.
You mentioned concern about fraud that occurs before the vote, which I assume you mean at voter registration time.
You don't have to assume what I mean, you could read what I wrote.
I would agree that more stringent procedures could be done to verify voters at voter registration time.
You're the only one of us talking about registration. I'm saying, pretty explicitly, that when you throw ballots out to the four winds (i.e., mail them to every registered voter) you have lost control of any security or even secrecy for the election. You can compare signatures all day and you will not be able to validate that the ballot in your hands was voted by the person whose name is printed on the envelope. You're going to guess wrong in some cases and fraudulent ballots will get through. And you're going to guess wrong even if there is no fraud and people will be disenfranchised. Their vote will be discarded and they'll never know, or find out too late to do anything about it.
I'm sorry, but "vote by mail" is just too open to fraud and failure and should be ended.
That being said, I would want to know that there is actually a statistically significant problem before risking denying or discouraging anyone who is entitled to vote to do so.
And yet, you appear to have claimed that you are an election official who will use his power with impunity to prevent someone from voting if their signature on the ballot doesn't match that on their registration card. (My card is a couple of decades old -- my sign
You visually verify that the signature on the ballot envelope matches the signature on the voter registration card. Yes, we do that here for every vote.
That does not audit the election, that is the first and only validation of the initial vote. Once that step FAILS, as it is bound to if the person attempting the fraud is any good at it at all, there is NO way to audit the election. Once you count that ballot, it's counted. There is no way to exclude it from any recount, or to go back and validate it again.
Ballots are "fill in the bubble" forms so counting is done by optical readers. Human manual recounting can be performed if necessary.
You apparently missed where I referred to having perfect security after the by-eye signature validation, didn't you? This is irrelevant to the security and integrity of the election if the fraud took place long before you count the ballot.
Voter fraud is when a person votes or attempts to vote as somebody different than who they are. It is hard to imitate a different voter
Oh my God, are you for real? If I walk into a polling place and claim to be Robert Smith who lives at 123 Main Street and the poll worker finds my name on the polling list, how does he know I am the person on his list WITHOUT MAKING ME PROVIDE ID? He's not expected to know every person in the voting district. He won't know that the real Robert Smith died a month ago and cannot possibly show up at the polls to contest the vote I cast. Even if he DID show up, my ballot is already in the box and cannot be taken back.
It's even worse for vote-by-mail, where all I have to do is forge signatures on a secrecy envelope good enough for an overworked election official to approve. If I send in 100 ballots and have only a 50% success rate, that's fifty votes I've cast.
What is so difficult about any of that?
as soon as a person comes up with a workable plan to ID voters,
And as soon as someone points out why your plan is not workable (because a DL is NOT a Voter's ID; it says nothing about citizenship or holding the right to vote) you jump to hyperbole mode and claim that that someone must oppose all forms of voter ID or the use thereof. Yes, someone can oppose one part of your plan because it isn't sufficient to accomplish the goal and still support the goal overall. It's not amazing unless you don't understand that.
Meanwhile, what has been proven is that voting machines can be hacked by an 11 year old
I guess you can't bother to read what you cite, either. That Time article is pretty clear that the 11 year old hacked into an IMITATION Florida website to change the numbers it displayed. IMITATION, as in NOT REAL. A fake website created for the express purpose of being hacked into by an 11 year old as a publicity stunt. And a WEBSITE, as in NOT A VOTING MACHINE. Fuck, it's only like the second or third paragraph in that story, and was hashed to death in slashdot not very long ago.
Or a conspiracy involving dozens of people laboriously drives from polling place to polling place, managing to cast at most a hundred or so fraudulent votes, seen by hundreds of witnesses,
Since it is known to have happened on a regular basis, and those "hundreds of witnesses" were all party to the crime and being paid to do it, well, I'll go with that one.
not to mention that any one of those dozens of people could turn on the others in an instant in exchange for immunity?
One does not "turn in" the party machine in a Daley-run Chicago lightly, and getting immunity would require that the prosecutors not be in the pocket of the machine itself.
You should really review the law instead of making false claims.
Article 1 Section 4 talks about Senators and Representatives, not electors for the Electoral College.
The 15th prohibits certain discrimination; the 24th prohibits poll taxes, and the 26th sets the age above which a state cannot prohibit someone from voting.
With the exception of electing Senators and Representatives, the Constitution goes not grant the federal government the right for any control over how the States run their elections. It also is silent (and thus grants no authority) on the manner in which the electors are chosen for the Electoral College, with the exception that the Congress may set the day upon which the electors are chosen.
You should really review the law instead of making false claims.
Citing things that don't say what you pretend they do is handing the argument over to your opponent. Or do you believe that the ability to create laws on the selection of Senators and Representatives actually opens the door to micromanagement of the entire election process by the feds?
Prove who you are, that you are old enough to vote, and that you live where you are intending on voting. The SSN isn't a tough one, but apparently it is a killer in your opinion.
Ultimately, voter IDs are attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist
Busing people from polling place to polling place to vote for the dead or disabled is standard practice in some places in this country. You can claim it doesn't exist all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
I'm not convinced that making it federal would eliminate the political problems, either.
Of course making it federal wouldn't solve the problems. You'd be creating a federal identification system for all people. You don't need a federal identification system for all people.
You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
Wrong. State. States are the highest political division that has elections. If the state wants to authorize the counties to handle it, that's ok too,
But you also allow Drivers Licenses,
Driver's licenses are not proof of citizenship.
But your typical right before election bawlbaby bitching about is couldn't be any more transparent of your motives.
I'm sorry, is this discussion right before an election? How long before an election is long enough for you to stop playing the racist card and allow the adults to discuss a solution to the problem? Does it help to refer to people as "chocolate people"?
And looky here, a little over 2 months from the election,
This discussion has been going on for a long time, so the fact that eventually an election comes along while it is taking place isn't proof of anything.
- Create weird laws like requiring early voting to be open more hours then needed
Wait, it's BAD for voting to be easier for people who can't make it to the polling places on "election day"? How long is "needed"?
- Reject vote by mail
Vote by mail is an open door to fraud of all kinds, which defeats the concept of having any ID at all to be able to vote. How do you make sure that the person whose ballot you got in the mail was voted by the person whose is supposed to be voting it?
But, being in Oregon, and having to put up with Wyden, I am rolling on the floor laughing at your claim that "vote by mail" is being rejected.
Guess whos being disenfranchised?
People who care so little about voting that they can't bother to register or get an ID? People who care so little that nobody expects them to cast an intelligent vote? One whose votes will be swayed by every blip in the media message, and most likely to be influenced by the advertising from large money donors? It's hard to limit money in elections because money is a requirement for free speech to be effective at all, so you want to make it easier for money to influence the vote by making it easier for people who will be most likely to be influenced to actually vote?
Easier for absentees to vote is Bad, but easier for low information voters who don't care about the election to vote is Good? Welcome to 1984.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a background check is required in order to exercise your rights.
And nowhere does it give the federal government the authority to mandate how states run their elections.
You might try to say that since it is a NATIONAL election then the NATIONAL government is running it, but you'd be wrong. The only election for a national office is not a national election, it is a collection of state elections, where each state is told to pick their electors but not how that must be done. The actual final election is conducted in accordance with the Constitution.
Also, for those who are trying to lump gerrymandering in with this issue, gerrymandering has no impact on the result of the Presidential election.
Also, DMVs require more documentation for IDs than is necessary to vote.
My DMV requires proof of citizenship and proof of residence for ID. For DL, proof of vision and at some time in the past proof of driving ability. So, for ID, everything that is required for voting and nothing more.
alabama_closes_dmvs
If only there were some way of getting ID by mail ... like maybe going to a post office and doing something ... States don't control post offices like they do DMV offices.
This bill is being pushed by Wyden, and yes, Oregon is a state with a lot of logging that supports papermaking plants. It is also a state that mails ballots out to every registered voter, losing all control of where they wind up and who actually votes them. How do you audit a voting system like that? You have unsecured ballot drop boxes, and unsecured trash containers where people discard ballots they aren't going to vote. The validation of the elector is a signature on an envelope which is compared by eye with a recorded signature. If your ballot is tossed because the "signature doesn't match" nobody tells you so you can rectify the situation.
This is what Wyden wants for the entire US. Toss ballots to the four winds and count what comes back. You can provide perfect security for the paper ballots once they get past the eyeball signature check, but if everything up to that point is wide open for fraud you don't really have a secure voting system.