Big Sky Cairn

An honest question to those worried that proving citizenship and/or identity is too high a hurdle for voting.  What is the threshold for asking too much?  Is it acceptable to ask for proof of residence in the voting district?  What about asking someone for proof of their name?

If these are okay, what makes them different from asking for difficult-to-forge photo identification?  What’s the bright-line for the amount of effort we can require to vote?

If they’re not acceptable, are you okay with people voting multiple times at as many voting locations as they can drive themselves to in the course of an election day?

It seems to me, there are competing interests both in reducing burdens at the polls and ensuring that polls aren’t being abused.  Pressure from the first interest moves toward eliminating any requirement for voting while pressure from the second moves toward instituting stringent requirements.  Somewhere, there’s a balance between those interests and it’s probably safe to assume that where you think that convergence if interests lies is influenced by your political ideology.  I understand my perspective - but I’m wondering how far toward accessibility the Left wants to take us.

Given some of the comments on various blogs, and some of the statements I hear during regular conversations, I say not only should the standards for proving identity and citizenship be raised to a “beyond a reasonable doubt” level, but I think we bring back a test to determine eligibility: basic government, history, economics - in English!!!!!!! Why should our lives be governed by the collective village idiots?

Until English is actually our national language (and, surprisingly, I believe that it should be) stop whining about the whole “in English!!!!!!!” thing!

One, generally speaking, it’s an interesting phenomenon that Republicans usually dedicate their efforts to suppression of voting, while Democrats want to expand it. It’s not hard to figure - the Republicans have nothing to gain in letting the unwashed vote.

Secondly, the great threat we face is not voter fraud, but rather election fraud, where votes are stolen, miscounted, suppressed, elections shifted from winner to loser, and votes tallied by unaccountable and unauditable machines. Speak to that, if you would, Wiley, or allow me to judge your silence as acquiescence.

I’d support voter ID laws if we pass legislation that NOBODY is turned away on election day. Provisional ballots that place all the burden — especially expense — on the shoulders of the state.

Everyone has the right to vote, even if they don’t have a dime to their name.

…I think we bring back a test to determine eligibility: basic government, history, economics - in English!!!!!!! Why should our lives be governed by the collective village idiots?

Wouldn’t you miss the right to vote, Auntie?

Jay and Mark ~

Everyone DOES NOT have the right to vote!!! Check the Constitution. I don’t believe my criteria mentioned money as a test of eligibility. There is a difference between “money” and basic knowledge of “economics”.

I have nothing against the “unwashed”. It’s the uneducated that I have problems with. And the Dems like those folks because they are so easily misled by demagogues.

I am quite comfortable that I could pass a basic test, fellas. In fact, I was thinking of challenging you two to a battle of wits - but it wouldn’t be fair since you’re unarmed.

Jay, I really want to agree with you, I do. But, from my viewpoint every illegally cast ballot in effect disenfranchises a legal voter on the other side of the issue or candidate.

I think most people would agree that setting a reasonable time frame for registration, say the Friday before election Tuesday, would alleviate many of the concerns over potential registration fraud. For me it is a tough sell to say that a voter could not find time in the month before to register up to the weekend before an election.

Secondly, I in no way favor a federal level decree on english only ballots, until we (if it ever happens) have a national language. Let states make that decision, they are the ones footing the bill after all, if having Spanish or Chinese ballots benefits the legal voters of those precincts, so be it, let the localities not the feds decide that.

Mark, first of all you are engaging in exaggerated hyperbole again, but this time I’m not going to gradually wean you back to a reasonable claim like I did with your thoughts on racism. Of course I’m not an advocate of voter suppression, and I don’t think Conservatives are either as a rule. You might be surprised to learn that the great electioneering contribution of the Sith Karl Rove was actually based around increasing voter participation via massive Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts. Turns out, there are plenty of “unwashed” conservatives out there too.

Second, you are quick to dismiss voter fraud and focus on election fraud. I’d say both are a concern - and that they are in fact different faces of same coin. Both threaten to undermine the sanctity of the individual vote,. I actually address these in the last paragraph of my original post, and Brad did a great job of putting it succinctly above when he explains that voter fraud - just like election fraud - disenfranchises.

Jay - I actually agree that it is silly to turn someone away at the polls on election day. But implicit in your ideal that nobody be turned away at the polls is the ability to load up a bus and drive from polling place to polling place voting as many times as you can. Provisional ballots are a great solution if they are handled correctly - with the burden of proof on proving they are legit before they are counted not the other way around.

Of course, the increased popularity of vote-by-mail adds an entirely different set of challenges and opportunities. I imagine in our lifetimes we’ll see vote-by-text-message and vote-by-internet. The fundamental questions ought to be less the pragmatics of a particular method of voting and more on where we strike the balance between ensuring that people are not disenfranchised by voting barriers and ensuring that people are not disenfranchised by voter/election fraud.

Neither Mark nor Jay answered my original question. What is acceptable requirement for identification on voting day? Where does that line fall. You oppose requiring photo-IDs - so what mechanism do you offer to ensure that people are voting legally?

Wiley - you said nothing about election fraud in your original post. You focused instead on voter fraud, and indeed this is a concern voiced strictly by Republicans, and suggests that you think that the wrong people are voting. Say what you want about getting people to the polls, fact is that in 2004 the black vote was suppressed, and voter ID laws are aimed mostly at people who don’t have ID’s, who happen to be the unwashed.

For you to say that you are not interested in voter suppression is disingenuous at best. Historically, Republicans have represented the well-heeled, and have, since they became the party of wealth, had an interest in making it hard for poor people to vote.

And you have not addressed election fraud, other than to say you are aware of it. As it stands, we have votes counted by machines (using proprietary software) without support of paper ballots that cannot be recounted or audited. Reasonable people are reasonably suspicious. This is a problem. Say something. What action do you want to take?

Auntie Lib - your notion that there is some basic economic knowledge that you are in possession of is contradicted by the economics we have seen since 1980 - these are highly educated people who have frozen workers’ wages, created the greatest disparity of wealth since the 1920’s, and driven the nation deeply into debt. Tell me, Auntie - what is it that you know that the typical working stiff doesn’t? Are you talking market fundamentalism?

Wiley - would you support a streamlined and subsidized process for voter ID’s, and provisional voting for people who don’t have them? This would allow those who don’t know about the requirements to vote, and then go through the process, which should allow for a mere test of citizenship which could be supported by testimony as well as documentation, so as not to disadvantage those who don’t have or don’t know how to get their birth certificates.

Yeah, it seems the pivotal point here is what to do with people who don’t meet the bar (whatever that is). Do we turn them away or grant them a provisional vote? I would support the photo ID requirement if there was a provisional state for those who didn’t bring it/lost it/didn’t know/who kids removed it from their waller (that has happened to me).

Do you have a problem with that?

Mark, you realize that the bulk of your argument is centered around you telling me what I really think? By virtue of the fact that the only warrant that matters for what I believe, is frankly what I believe, you’ve actually picked an argument that you cannot possibly win.

Colby, I don’t have a problem with that in principle. But 1) like Brad said, I’d want it done at a state level, not from Washington and 2) the pragmatics are tricky - I’d want provisional ballots excluded unless a) the margin of victory was smaller than the total number of provisional ballots and 2) documented evidence can be provided establishing the voter who casts the provisional ballot as a legal voter.

If I’m not mistaken, in Montana in 2006 provisional ballots were counted with every other ballot in the final tallies. I have a problem with that.

If I’m not mistaken, in Montana in 2006 provisional ballots were counted with every other ballot in the final tallies. I have a problem with that.

If they were legal voters, then why?

If they were legal voters - as undoubtedly most were - no problem, but as I understand it they were merely presumed legal without supporting evidence. I think for provisional ballots the burden of proof should be on including them, not excluding them. Prove it’s a legal vote before you count it.

I think that is splitting hairs; since they might be legal votes, they need to be rendered legal or not prior to issuing a decision on the election. Whether that is by counting the other votes, seeing if they are legal, then adding the legal ones, or by proving the legal ones and then counting all legal votes. A decision in an election should not be issued until all votes are ruled legal or not and all legal votes are counted.

Do you disagree?

I think the issue is how they are rendered legal not whether legal votes are counted. I think they should be considered invalid unless they are demonstrated legal within a reasonable time-frame. And it should be the responsibility of the voter, not the government, to provide that evidence.

Also, for the sake of pragmatics, this effort should only be undertaken if the number of provisional ballots is greater than the margin of victory among non-provisional ballots (i.e. if they might actually sway the results of the election).

Wiley - if we resign ourselves to taking people at face, then politics is never fun, and Republicans always get elected. It’s all about agendas, and if you tell me you don’t have one, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

And again, you didn’t address election fraud. You do this constantly - avoid the issue with great precision. Not impressed.

So, Mark, does your insightful observation require evidence of any kind or does your stating it make it manifestly true? Really all you’ve done is said that when I said black I meant white because everyone like me means white. Makes me wonder if you are either misjudging me or your perception of everyone like me. Lord knows, there’s precedent for that particular error on your part.

The last sentence is my favorite though. Go back to the original post and check the by-line. I set the subject on this particular conversation and - as you astutely pointed out - it didn’t include your idea of election fraud. Since you haven’t addressed the original subject of the original post, it’s a bit ironic that you accuse me of avoiding “the issue.”

I don’t imagine that anything I do would ever impress you Mark, which is why I’m not trying!