There is an element of fraud in any election. Dead people rise from the grave and vote in every election.
And I can't imagine being "too poor" being a legitimate excuse, as I'm fairly certain that photo identification is a requirement to receive any sort of state aid in Michigan (welfare, food stamps, etc.). Not to mention that if you're receiving any sort of gov't assistance check, you'll need a photo ID to cash it!
Bullshit. All an illegal immigrant needs to do to receive public assistance in this country is to have a kid here. I would guess that they get a state ID for the child and collect the food stamps and the welfare on the childs behalf.
posted by mike2004 at 02:41 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
You'll find your answer when you look and see who's upset about it...
posted by billy at 07:41 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
There was a lady in Washington who thought their voter registration laws were too lax...that it was too easy for a non-citizen to register. So she got a voter registration card, put her phone bill in her dog's name and sent in a copy of the phone bill with the dog's voter registration. Sure enough, she got an absentee ballot in the mail last November for her dog.
She wrote VOID on it and put a copy of a paw print on the signature line. Despite this, she also got absentee ballots in Feb. and May for school board races.
The dog is finally off the voter registration polls, but her irony was not appreciated as she was being prosecuted for making a false statement on a registration form.
I'm thinking it's because the dog wasn't 18 years old...lol
The vast majority of Americans think you should show an id when voting.
Under the old system (in place in 2004 but not 2006) you only had to show an id when challenged. So here's how it worked: you go in to register and say that you're John Smith Sr.; you sign the book as Sr., and vote; you come back later in the day and say that you're John Smith Jr.; but, the poll worker says, you were here earlier and already voted; no, Jr. says, I haven't voted...and here's my id to show that I am Jr. Results? 2 votes by the same person...
Under the new rules, this opportunity for fraud is supposed to be eliminated...
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:50 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Bullshit. All an illegal immigrant needs to do to receive public assistance in this country is to have a kid here. I would guess that they get a state ID for the child and collect the food stamps and the welfare on the childs behalf.
Um, I think you're missing the point, as it relates to voting...if they are getting a State ID for the child and filing benefits for the child, then an ID is still being shown to get the state assistance.
My point of the comment was this: Some people are arguing that requiring an ID to vote will discriminate against poor people and keep them from voting. However, even the poorest of the poor has reasons other than voting to need photo ID (i.e. - filing for state assistance).
P.S. I did check the application for food assistance on the Michigan gov't website - attached right to it is an application for a State ID card. (Which leads me to believe that a person either needs to have the ID card when applying or obtains the ID card as part of the process.)
Either way...my whole point, as it relates to the topic at hand, is that it doesn't seem "discriminatory" to require photo ID as proof of identity when voting.
posted by mom2 at 08:58 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Maybe I'm missing something...If everyone has to present an id, how is that discriminating? I could understand the charge of discrimination if only left-handed people or hazel-eyed people had to show an id...but how is it considered by some to be discrimination when the rule applies to EVERYONE?
posted by MaggieThurber at 09:41 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
OK, I'll play devil's advocate, just so the argument gets balance.
One of the concerns about such legislation is the slippery slope of government intruding on personal privacy and individual freedoms. Once we start allowing the government to demand identity cards as we exercise our rights, we create precedents for bureaucrats to encroach in other spheres of life. What's next? Being forced to show ID to buy condoms, or gasoline?
Heck - we already have to show ID at the pharmacy to buy a box of good old-fashioned SudaFed since last year, and the feds have the right now to demand records from pharmacists on those rascally SudaFed users.
Admittedly, some political groups have an incentive to maintain the status quo, but there are some disturbing parallels here with the history of totalitarian regimes.
Then there is the philosophical issue of the state's presence at the ballot. While it might seem silly to turn a simple ID check into some Big Brother scenario, we are not that far removed from the eras of hired goons at the polling stations (post-Reconstruction South, Boss Tweed's New York).
And it's not such a tremendous leap in logic from the authorities enforcing election laws to the enforcement of the state's choices in elections. Dictators like Saddam Hussein achieve those miraculous 99% election returns not just through fraud, but also through poll thuggery.
posted by historymike at 09:52 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
you make some good points, historymike...
how would you suggest ensuring that only citizens vote? (note - I didn't say registered voters as I can see such logic applying to the need to register as well...)
posted by MaggieThurber at 09:54 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Voter fraud is a myth. This is an attempt to make it more difficult for some to vote. More chaos and purged votes for 2008!
posted by Chris99 at 10:49 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Maggie,
How do you know that non-citizens are voting? I know conservatives do a lot of hand ringing over this, but there is little or no proof.
I do truly feel that most conservatives/Republicans want to make it harder for the poor and minorities to vote, as they traditionally vote Democrat. If you look at states like Ohio and Florida, keeping 1-3% of votes from voting (particularly Democrats) can cause an election to swing one way or another.
In the end Republicans can’t prove voter fraud. So why pass a law making harder vote? Simple – Voter suppression.
From USAToday:WASHINGTON — At a time when many states are instituting new requirements for voter registration and identification, a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud those measures seek to stop.
Or this one:
Across the country, new laws restricting who can register and vote have reduced the number of people who are eligible. Some of those laws have been blocked in court. Even so, critics say, the damage has been done:
Most the direct evidence of voter fraud and manipulation I can find involves Republicans -
Ann Coulter -scroll down
GOP phone jamming operation in New Hampshire
Destruction of Democratic registration cards.
Don't get me started on paperless voting machines...
posted by SensorG at 10:50 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
This is an attempt to make it more difficult for some to vote.
Who would that be?
posted by billy at 10:54 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Who would that be?
People without a photo ID
posted by Chris99 at 10:59 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
A few more thoughts:
1. I am sure that voter fraud occurs on an individual level, but statistically it is bound to occur on both sides, meaning that this activity likely cancels itself out. Of course, if you believe the GOP has fewer crooks than the Democrats, or vice versa, you will argue otherwise, but I think we can agree that corruption respects no political labels.
2. Individual voter fraud, though, is not a very efficient method to rig an election. Assuming a really dedicated and devious Democrat or Republican wanted to influence a particular race, and created 20 aliases (one every 30 minutes for a 10-hour period jumping from precinct to precinct), that's still not many votes. Perhaps a really close local race could hinge on this, but this would be insignificant in a state or federal race.
3. Let's assume for the moment that there are cabals of political operatives who want to illegally influence the vote by rounding up hordes of illegals and convicts. How much money would it take to pull this off? If I was an unemployed or homeless type, I think $10 might get me interested, and $20 would open my eyes fairly wide here in Toledo. To have some serious impact, I would think 500 non-voters would be needed, so you would need $5,000 to $10,000 just in payoff money, plus the costs of transportation and the cigarettes and meals these lowlifes would be cadging. Better double that $10-$20 cost. Now, the best part: Mookie, our smarter homeless guy/ illegal voter, would be wise enough to figure out he could shakedown the political operative for some hush money after the deed. Better quadruple that payout money for Mookie, plus the three friends who came with him. Oh - and the SOBs stole your CD case on the way out of your car.
4. Now, how do you know how our homeless, convict, and illegal alien tricksters are actually going to vote? Can they even read? Maybe they will want to screw with the political operative and vote the opposite of what they are told, or maybe they will choose the first name they see to get the hell out of that place, or maybe they walk in and walk out the back door, never even voting? Too many variables with these shifty characters.
5. If I were a crooked political operative, I wouldn't waste my time with these inefficient methods, and would focus my attention on the poll workers, the machines, or the central elections offices. Much higher chance of achieving results, and probably a hell of a lot more bang for the buck.
6. Finally, a quick anecdote: I went to register one of my children at a Washington Local school where I have had at least six kids attend at various times. I have lived in the district for fourteen years, and when I got there they asked for my ID. No problem there, showing them my state-issued driver's license, but that wasn't enough. I also was now required to bring in a utility bill addressed to my house in my name. Now, this was an inconvenience, and I wasn't going to go ballistic, so I went home and came back with the bill, but it is a small example of the encroaching power of the state into my personal life. I pay my taxes, follow all the laws, but the local school district has the power to deny my children their right to public education if I do not comply with this rule. What's next? A retinal scan in addition to the ID and the utility bill? A DNA screening for my kid before she can go to school?
It's a strange world, folks, and I'm just sayin' things are going to get weirder...
posted by historymike at 11:24 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Shhhhh...historymike, you're giving them ideas....
posted by Chris99 at 11:29 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Maybe with an id, Mary Poppins couldnt vote and local crackheads would have to find other ways to get some rock.
posted by billy at 11:35 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
I think your generalizations are incorrect. Republicans I know DON'T want to make it more difficult to vote...they just want to make sure those registered can vote - but only vote once. It wasn't the Republican organizations registering Peter Pan and Mickey Mouse. Of course, you can say that these are just bad individuals, but you don't seem to give the same consideration to those on the other side. Fair is fair, sensorG...
And Chris - the point of having a photo id isn't so that someone can make it more difficult for those without an id to vote...the point was to ensure that people are who they say they are when they do vote. I could retort with a question as to why you think we should allow people to vote WITHOUT showing who they are...but...
I've given you an example of something that was reported to the BOE during a prior election (before the new laws took effect) where the booth officials filed a complaint about a person voting twice (I do not believe this was investigated by the prosecutor). I've also given an example of a dog getting an absentee ballot by virture of a phone bill.
I don't know if non-citizens are voting - but I also don't know that they aren't. My question to HistoryMike was, given his comments, what do we to ensure the integrity of the vote...isn't that something we all want?
In general, it seems like dem 'mouthpieces' try to paint reps as trying to supress voters. In general, it seems like rep 'mouthpieces' try to paint dems as trying to encourage fraud.
If we all agree that the integrity of the vote is the goal, the question then becomes how best to ensure that goal.
If the goal is to ensure that only qualified individuals (citizens of the relevant jurisdiction) are able to register, what's the best way to accomplish that? proof of identity and residence makes a lot of sense.
If the goal is to ensure that only the person who is registered gets to vote, what's the best way to accomplish that? proof of identity at the time of the vote seems to make a lot of sense.
I'm open to other ideas as well - what do you think will work?
For your consideration, from a John Fund June 13th column:
"Indeed, courts have tended to uphold voter ID laws. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling that had blocked an Arizona ID law. In doing so, the Court noted that anyone without an ID is permitted to cast a provisional ballot that could be verified later. The court also noted that fraud "drives honest citizens out of the democratic process."
Voter ID laws are hardly the second coming of Jim Crow. In 2005, 18 out of 21 members of a federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker came out in support of voter ID laws. Andrew Young, Mr. Carter's U.N. ambassador, has said that in an era when people have to show ID to travel or cash a check "requiring ID can help poor people." A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last year found that voters favor a photo ID requirement by 80%-7%. The idea had overwhelming support among all races.
One reason for such large public support is that the potential for fraud is real. Many people don't trust electronic voting machines. And in recent years Democratic candidates have leveled credible accusations of voter fraud in mayoral races in Detroit, East Chicago, Ind., and St. Louis.
Last week, election officials in San Antonio, Texas determined that 330 people on their voter rolls weren't citizens and that up to 41 of them may have voted illegally, some repeatedly. In 2004, San Antonio was the scene of a bitter dispute in which Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez charged his primary opponent with voter fraud.
In Florida, a felon named Ben Miller was arrested last week for illegally voting in every state election over a period of 16 years. The Palm Beach Post discovered that in Florida's 2000 infamous presidential recount, 5,643 voters' names perfectly matched the names of convicted felons. They should have been disqualified but were allowed to vote anyway. "These illegal voters almost certainly influenced the down-to-the-wire presidential election," the Post reported. By contrast, only 1,100 people were incorrectly labeled as felons by election officials, the Post estimated. "
posted by MaggieThurber at 11:40 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
If you are 72, disabled and don't drive its a problem. Because of these circumstances I drive my neighbor to the polls.
posted by holland at 11:41 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
HistoryMike...interesting story about Washington Schools...they do this on a regular basis because you can live in the district (get your license) and then move but not change the license. I recall, some time ago, one of the board members telling me this was getting to be a problem with non-resident students still going there in order to not go to TPS...go figure.
But you do raise some interesting points. In the example I used, if you had 20 people per precinct who voted twice, that's 40 votes for 'your' candidate...that does add up with all the precincts and close races...Some conspiracy theorists (not me, but I've heard some doozies) would tell you that 20 people per precinct would be an average - higher in some areas, lower in others...
more openness, more good volunteers, more checks and balances...all would go a long way toward trust in the 'system.'
posted by MaggieThurber at 11:47 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
And Chris - the point of having a photo id isn't so that someone can make it more difficult for those without an id to vote...the point was to ensure that people are who they say they are when they do vote.
It would depend on who is setting this up, and what their motive is. There is little evidence, outside of anecdoctal evidence, that voter fraud is a big problem. Counting the votes, on the other hand.....
This quote from your article is interesting:
One reason for such large public support is that the potential for fraud is real. Many people don't trust electronic voting machines.
How would photo IDs restore faith in electronic voting machines?
posted by Chris99 at 11:59 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Chris...I offered the article for consideration...I'm not going to defend, attack or support it...I just thought it was interesting.
Please go back to the questions I asked:
If we all agree that the integrity of the vote is the goal, the question then becomes how best to ensure that goal.
If the goal is to ensure that only qualified individuals (citizens of the relevant jurisdiction) are able to register, what's the best way to accomplish that? proof of identity and residence makes a lot of sense.
If the goal is to ensure that only the person who is registered gets to vote, what's the best way to accomplish that? proof of identity at the time of the vote seems to make a lot of sense.
I'm open to other ideas as well - what do you think will work?
posted by MaggieThurber at 12:16 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
chris...sorry if my previous comment sounded snippy or snide...I didn't intend it that way and, in looking back, I can see how it might be interpreted as such...
I'm not in favor of supressing or preventing people from voting...I am in favor of an election system that people have confidence in. I'm truly interested in ideas to achieve what I believe is a mutual goal. What do you think might help?
posted by MaggieThurber at 12:18 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
If you are 72, disabled and don't drive its a problem. Because of these circumstances I drive my neighbor to the polls.
In Michigan, if you're over 65 or disabled (at any age), you can get a state ID card for free.
posted by mom2 at 12:19 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
HistoryMike...interesting story about Washington Schools...they do this on a regular basis because you can live in the district (get your license) and then move but not change the license. I recall, some time ago, one of the board members telling me this was getting to be a problem with non-resident students still going there in order to not go to TPS...go figure.
I know people who have done that, actually. Eventually they got caught, and it was a big problem. (Technically they were in the Woodward district, but fudged some details to go to Washington Local schools.)
There was an article within the past year or so about how much money Washington Local, Sylvania, and other districts were losing b/c of these students. So, its no surprise that they are trying to crack down a little. (Wish I could find the article...anyone else able to find a link?)
posted by mom2 at 12:23 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
If you are 72, disabled and don't drive its a problem. Because of these circumstances I drive my neighbor to the polls.
does he get mail? I believe a simple piece of mail with your name and address will do it...
posted by billy at 12:35 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
I am in favor of an election system that people have confidence in. What do you think might help?
I would focus on the electronic voting machines. I think this is a bigger issue
posted by Chris99 at 02:10 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
I would focus on the electronic voting machines. I think this is a bigger issue
Most voting machines run Microsoft Windows. We know that it's a solid bug free application, that's completely tamper proof. What could go wrong.
------
If all an illegal alien has to do is show ID to vote, it shouldn't be an issue. Apparently getting a fake state IDs, drivers license and social security card is easy to do. If there good enough to fool employers, then they should fool the 75 year old woman who is going to check it at the voting booth.
I wouldn't think that too many illegal aliens would want to draw any more attention to them selves as necessary.
posted by SensorG at 02:32 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Chris - most people have some level of confidence in an ATM - or the credit card swipe machine - or even the self-ring registers so prevalent in many grocery stores and retail outlets.
It seems that there is some level of comfort with other types of electronic machines - what might be done to increase the confidence in the several voting machines currently on the market?
Having a 'paper ballot' was supposed to help, and I think it did for some...anything else?
posted by MaggieThurber at 02:32 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Most voting machines run Microsoft Windows. We know that it's a solid bug free application, that's completely tamper proof. What could go wrong.
According to the information I saw, they don't run windows - they have their own operating system...can you provide a reference for this, please?
posted by MaggieThurber at 03:37 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
I agree with Maggie about avoiding labels and claims about other people's motivations. It's always a good idea to do that. But I would disagree about the end goal. I would say that our goal should be a voting system with both integrity and accessibility for all who are qualified to vote.
A voter id requirement does not meet that goal. Because as hard as it is for a not-poor person to imagine, it can be very difficult for a poor person to obtain an id. One example from the Georgia voter id requirement that was struck down as a Voter Rights Act violation - there were no DMVs in central city, low-income Atlanta. The DMVs in the suburbs were difficult to reach by public transportation. Thus all the affluent suburbanites never even considered how difficult it might be for a low-income, carless person in the inner city to make it to the DMV. Even a mobile Voter Van that could provide ids wasn't deemed enough to correct this disparity.
So maybe that is a partial answer to Maggie's question about how a neutral law can be enforced discriminately. Poll taxes and many of the other voter suppression tactics in the south were also "neutral" laws.
But back to the original question about ensuring integrity - one reason that many people question the motivation of the Ohio voter id requirement was that it was passed at the same time as an expansion of absentee ballot use. As Maggie pointed out, there is recorded evidence of voter fraud through misuse of absentee ballots. There is very little or no confirmed evidence of voter impersonation fraud that an id requirement would correct. How can you make it easier to commit fraud that actually occurs, and still claim that preventing voter fraud is a good enough reason to make it harder for a lot of people to vote?
posted by ifXthenWhyNot at 04:04 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
what might be done to increase the confidence in the several voting machines currently on the market?
NOTHING AT ALL
I for one find if FUCKING HILARIOUS that anyone wishes to bitch about Voter ID requirements when the entire system CAN BE RIGGED by simple computer-based fraud.
Let's hear Mags and billy and the other conservatives here say word one about transparency in voting.
I don't care if it's e-voting (touch-screen) machines, optical scan, or punch cards, if they're counted by computer and ONLY BY COMPUTER then the whole works can be gamed by anyone with access to the tabulating computer and/or other vote-recording devices (Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, poll workers).
I want to see paper ballots of the "mark the box" type, I want to be able to see and inspect the ballot boxes before they get put out and locked up on Election Day, to be able to sit there and watch the box all day long, count the # of people who drop a ballot in the box, follow the box to the tally location, watch them unlock the box, take out the ballots, count the ballots, and tally up the votes BY HAND. I don't want some fucking piece of software counting the votes, even if I could see the purported source code and that of the compiler used to compile it into machine language, on a piece of hardware that may also be of suspect design (Pentium FDIV bug ring a bell?)
I know of ATMs that run Microsoft Windows. I am NOT kidding you. The "cash registers" at The Andersons run Windows. I've read an article in 2600 about "hacking" self-scan machines at Wal-Mart or something like that, by inserting a bill and then inserting coins while it said DO NOT INSERT COINS, the machine would then decide you've paid (while you didn't pay in full) and away you went with your purchase for pennies on the dollar.
Tell me why we should base our democracy on a tally counted by some closed, unaudited system full of ways to mess with the results.
posted by anonymouscoward at 10:31 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
Diebold "AccuVote" (excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing at that name) machines run Windows CE 3.0 and store the vote tallies as a Microsoft Access "database", Mags.
Also, An unknown number of ATMs running Windows XP Embedded were shut down during the spread of the so-called Nachi worm, said officials at Diebold Inc., which made the ATMs and refused to name the customers affected.
posted by anonymouscoward at 10:38 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 20, 2007 #
AC...I didn't realize that the 'accuvote' ran windows...thanks for clarifying.
And A/C...as people are human, they can miscount as well. No individual system or action is ever perfect. I believe that it's the combination of processes with checks and balances that provide the 'integrity' so desired. And poll workers are supposed to those kinds of things at the polling locations - which is why there's always supposed to be a rep and a dem together...
IfX...that's good informatiion about Atlanta. Seems to me that such problems about locations would have been researched ahead of time...but that would require politicians to think several steps out when making laws...silly me to expect such a thing...
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:12 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 21, 2007 #
Maggie,
Here are several references to voting machines and windows. None of it pretty.
From google...
Not only do they use Microsoft Windows, some of them us Microsoft Access as a database.
It sounds like something I coded for a programming 101 class in college.
posted by SensorG at 08:15 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 21, 2007 #
SensorG...thanks for the link
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:28 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 21, 2007 #
No open source applications you can run on generic 486s or anything?
posted by charlatan at 11:34 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 21, 2007 #
The funny thing about Diebold is that every time someone gets a hold of one of their machines or get to look at the code of the operating system they find a ton of flaws and vulnerabilities and Diebold’s response it that it’s “old code”.
Old code? You mean code you used in last election?
Here is a video of a Princeton professor and a couple of grade students hacking a Diebold voting machine.
This is the stuff that keeps me up at night; not the thought of illegal aliens voting.
posted by SensorG at 01:23 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 21, 2007 #
I think a big problem with privatizing the voting process is transparency.
posted by Chris99 at 04:16 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 21, 2007 #
What do you mean by transparency? If you mean the technology being used, then whats the problem? The information is out there, available and not obfuscated in any way.
If you mean the voting record then there is a problem. Voting should be anonymous in respect to who or what an individual votes for. If this is your area of concern then wouldn't transparency make it easier to bully people into voting a specific way as there voting record would be open to review?
posted by apophistoledo at 12:38 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 24, 2007 #
The information is out there, available and not obfuscated in any way.
Is it? So Diebold (for example) lets us see how their software works, and how they count the votes?
posted by Chris99 at 01:15 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 24, 2007 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
