| |
| ▲ | skew-aberration 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The value of transparency goes above and beyond protecting against abuses (for which there are other methods) - it also provides assurance to the public that there is protection against those abuses, and that those abuses are not taking place. i.e. 'Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done' | | |
| ▲ | rmunn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I once read an account by a poll watcher of her experience in 2012. She said that at her polling place, there had been a number of people showing up to vote on Election Day, being told they had already voted during the early-voting process, and swearing up and down that that wasn't true, that they always voted on Election Day and never voted early, and that whoever had voted in their name had done so fraudulently. Now, in that particular case, the state (I believe it was Colorado though I'd have to find the article I read, and I don't remember where to find it any more) didn't require photo ID, so there was no way to prove that the people showing up on Election Day were the actual voters, as opposed to the cheaters. But this poll watcher's opinion was that they were the actual voters, and the cheating had been done by whoever had submitted ballots in their name days (or weeks) earlier. Given how many people she said this had happened to, I'm inclined to agree with her: it wasn't three or four people, it was (she said) something like one-third of the people who showed up on Election Day at that polling place. That's a case where the fraud couldn't be repaired by knowing that it had occurred — the fraudulent ballots (if they were indeed fraudulent) had already been accepted, and it was impossible to go pull the ballot allegedly belonging to Joe Smith back out of the ballot box. But the publicly-available list of "who voted" did at least make it possible for the fraud to be detected in that particular case. | | |
| ▲ | skew-aberration 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think all you can do is sue at that point. I personally do support voter ID, and for the same reason. Members of the public must be able to verify the process is happening fairly. It might be fair without it (fraud truly negligible), but it must also be seen to be fair. This would resolve so many controversies. Likewise mandatory voting and private ballots (can cast a donkey vote) helps ensure the public people are not being paid to vote and that other biases are not coming into play. | | |
| ▲ | rapidaneurism an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | An added benefit of voter id is that by making it easy or cheap for one groups and difficult or expensive for an other (or choosing acceptable IDs that already have these characteristics) you can create some friction to make it more difficult for the wrong people to vote. That is why I like voter ID if it relies on documents provided for free with minimal fuss. | | |
| ▲ | rmunn an hour ago | parent [-] | | The situation you describe, where the laws would be selected to make obtaining a photo ID (and thus voting) difficult for one group over another, would amount to a poll tax — which has already been found unconstitutional in the United States. However, every US state I'm aware of (if you know of exceptions, please let me know) has some form of photo ID you can obtain for free. Usually it's in the same format as a driver's license, and obtained from the same place (the Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Land Transportation, the name varies). There's a fee to obtain a driver's license, but a photo ID card (in the same format as a driver's license but marked "NOT LEGAL FOR DRIVING" or similar wording) can be obtained for free, by going through the same process as getting a driver's license (bring something to prove your identity, get your photo taken, wait for the card to be printed) but without taking a driving-skills test. And before someone asks "what about the people who can't prove their identity"? Well, I can actually give an anecdote. I know someone who ended up in that situation: away from home for college, couldn't get her birth certificate or anything else, and needing to replace her passport that was lost. (She is American but had grown up overseas because of her parents' job, hence why she had a passport but no driver's license when she went off to college). She had quite a time of it at first, since every "prove your identity" requirement circled back around to another form of ID. But she was eventually able to get a fishing license just by swearing under penalty of perjury that she was indeed (name). With that in hand, she got another form of ID (I think a library card, though there my memory is iffy), then with two forms of ID she could get something else, and then eventually she was able to get that non-driver's ID card... and then was able to prove who she was to get her lost passport reissued. That all happened nearly 30 years ago so I can't swear to the details. But the point is, photo ID cards are widely available, and it's normal to be asked for one. So as long as the law specifies that acceptable forms of photo ID include X, Y, and Z (where X, Y and Z are forms that most people would already have, and that are normal and in common use), and as long as at least one of those forms can be obtained without a fee (which as I said, is true in all U.S. states that I'm aware of, please mention any exceptions you know about because I'd like to know) then it will pass Constitutional muster. |
| |
| ▲ | rmunn an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not entirely sure mandatory voting is wise in a country the size of the United States, but I'm with you on the voter ID and the rationale. I was shocked to learn that with everything else that requires photo ID, it's not required to vote in American elections. (At least, in some locations; laws vary from place to place). That just looks bad. My personal opinion is that if people think they can benefit from cheating, a certain number will do so. It's just human nature. We're seeing more and more of this with LLM cheating on the rise in universities. So there's always going to be a certain number of people who want to vote fraudulently — after all, if the right person gets into office, it'll probably benefit you. Your taxes might be lowered, or your government handouts might be increased, or whatever other reason you have for preferring one politician over another. Preference alone does not mean that people will vote fraudulently: after all, most legitimate voters also prefer one politician over another. But the easier you make it to cheat, the more people will cheat successfully: among those who wanted to cheat but didn't, usually the only reason they didn't is because they couldn't see how to get away with it. So photo ID to vote just seemed like common sense to me, along with other measures like ballot boxes kept in a publicly-visible place until they're opened, to help prove that nobody has tampered with them. (Read up on the 1946 elections in Athens, TN sometime — there, the fraud was being done by the sheriff and his cronies who would take the ballot boxes away, "count" them in private with no outside observers present, and announce that surprise surprise, the sheriff's crony had won the election again). |
| |
| ▲ | rsingel 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | This sounds like some third-hand anecdata. Trump et al (Chris Kobach, for one) have spent millions of dollars trying to find voter fraud and they have all come up with zilch. And you have some memory of some account from someone 12 years ago in a state you can't remember saying that a third of voters had someone pretend to be them? If this were close to true, it wouldn't be some blog post that you can't remember; it would have been a national scandal and it would have been something that we would never forget because the election stealer conspiracy theorists would never let it go. Really, you should just delete this post as it's irresponsible and lacks any data. | | |
| ▲ | rmunn 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The point I'm trying to make is that I agree with the parent comment to mine, which pointed out that transparency is essential to protect people's confidence in the voting process, especially when people are loudly claiming that someone committed fraud. The more open the process, the easier it is to prove that it's legitimate. |
|
| |
| ▲ | derektank an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yet so few people go the next step and say, “Let’s do away with the secret ballot itself.” It really is a recent invention, American democracy survived nearly 100 years before the Australian ballot was adopted. There are obviously concerns (vote buying, organized crime, etc) but they can be dealt with. And public voting would almost completely eliminate concerns about the voting process itself being subverted by a malign actor. | | |
| ▲ | rmunn 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > There are obviously concerns (vote buying, organized crime, etc) but they can be dealt with. I don't think they can be dealt with. But I'm willing to listen to your ideas. How would you deal with vote buying? How would you stop the scenario where a guy says "I'll give you $1,000 if you vote for candidate X" (or "I know where you live, I'll break your kneecaps if you vote for candidate Y")? | |
| ▲ | skew-aberration an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Vote buying/intimidation is just too big a vector, IMO. I would never accept that risk. It's transitive too - you can pay/intimidate the people who enforce the no paying/intimidating rule. | |
| ▲ | y1n0 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would never vote again if it wasn’t anonymous. Retaliation is real. |
|
|
|
