Verifying A Voters ID

[OnTheRocks]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/19/145523.shtml

 

OK I have a question about this.

 

I live in NY State. When I go to my polling place, I am required to sign my name and the clerk matches my signature with the signature from my registration.

That book that has my signature is only at that polling place.

 

From the attached article I gather that is not the way it is in very state. If Mr or Mrs. Smith in Michigan goes to the wrong polling place, how is he/she allowed to vote? What is used to verify the person is a registered voter? And what is used to prevent that person from going to 6 different polling places and doing the same thing?

[spidey]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/19/145523.shtml

 

OK I have a question about this.

 

I live in NY State.  When I go to my polling place, I am required to sign my name and the clerk matches my signature with the signature from my registration.

That book that has my signature is only at that polling place.

 

From the attached article I gather that is not the way it is in very state.  If Mr or Mrs. Smith in Michigan goes to the wrong polling place, how is he/she allowed to vote?  What is used to verify the person is a registered voter? And what is used to prevent that person from going to 6 different polling places and doing the same thing?

76356[/snapback]

i live in NC and have NEVER EVER been asked for ID, just my name and address. When I lived in NY no one even asked my name but every poll worker at the firehall knew who I was.

[OnTheRocks]

i live in NC and have NEVER EVER been asked for ID, just my name and address.  When I lived in NY no one even asked my name but every poll worker at the firehall knew who I was.

76363[/snapback]

 

 

i am not talking about the fine citizens of Mayberry. I am talking about larger Metro areas.

[blzrul]

Mr. or Mrs. Public may NOT be allowed to vote, period.

 

I used to work on systems that electronically compiled the voter rolls and they're sorted by state, district...down to precinct.

 

Those things do change and polling places change. For example in some states since 9/11 polling places that were at schools have been moved to keep outsiders from going in during school hours (makes sense).

 

If a state doesn't send out an update the voter either has to know that their place has moved so they can check the paper (most publish the sites) but many people may not know their district or precinct this year because of the 2000 census - redistricting took place in many states.

 

SO when they show up to vote, tough beans. This is why I started the thread on Florida. People ARE being allowed to cast "provisional" votes, meaning that if they can find them on the rolls IN THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT ONLY the vote will count, otherwise it's discarded. There is NO WAY to refer a voter to their proper polling place when they show up at the wrong place.

 

This is really a question of IS and priorities I guess. Since the rolls are all stored electronically it should be possible to have remote/wireless access or at the very least a call center staffed by volunteers who do nothing but look up registrations.

 

It SHOULD be...but it's not.

[RCow]

Nearly everywhere a signature is the only verification. That's all that is needed. An election supervisor can challenge the authenticity of the voter but this is rare (except in minority areas). No matter what the voter is allowed to cast a provisional ballot that will later verify the voter. This type of fraud is very rare and is difficult to pull off on even a small scale.

 

As to the NewsMax "article" (do you really read it for news?): how come everytime the courts rule in favor of allowing a vote to be cast the Republicans go nuts? If someone is an eligble voter their vote should count. That's what a provisional ballot is supposed to ensure. The vote doesn't count until the person's ID is verified anyway.

 

Isn't it unAmerican and undemocratic to toss someone's vote on a technicality?

[spidey]

i am not talking about the fine citizens of Mayberry.  I am talking about larger Metro areas.

76366[/snapback]

Not in mayberry, I live in raleigh and the folks at the polling place dont know me from Adam. I am amazed they just ask name and address. I figure I could vote as many times as I wanted just be a different person at different polling places.

[IUBillsFan]

Isn't it unAmerican and undemocratic to toss someone's vote on a technicality?

76473[/snapback]

 

Are you talking about what Gore was trying to do with the military votes in 2000?

[blzrul]

Are you talking about what Gore was trying to do with the military votes in 2000?

76519[/snapback]

Well it's been said before if people are too stupid to complete a ballot or voter registration form, tough beans.

 

Or do we make exceptions for classes of people? Soo...military people are exempt from filling out forms properly but for the 200,000,000 other people who are eligible to vote, there's a different standard?

 

What about all those Halliburton people in Iraq, for example? They're not military. If they screw up their ballots, then what?

 

That's not democratic. The idea is that we're all equal (it says something like that in the declaration of independence doesn't it?) which means that the law is supposed to be applied to all citizens, equally.

 

Conservatives especially should see this as a slippery slope. Make allowances for the military, next the clergy may want it...then other "classes" of special interests. And after all, meaning no disrespect to our brave women and men in the service, but they are just another special interest group when it comes to this kind of discussion. A very important group to our country, but no better or worse than any other American citizen.

[IUBillsFan]

Well it's been said before if people are too stupid to complete a ballot or voter registration form, tough beans.

 

Or do we make exceptions for classes of people?  Soo...military people are exempt from filling out forms properly but for the 200,000,000 other people who are eligible to vote, there's a different standard?

 

What about all those Halliburton people in Iraq, for example?  They're not military.  If they screw up their ballots, then what?

 

That's not democratic.  The idea is that we're all equal (it says something like that in the declaration of independence doesn't it?) which means that the law is supposed to be applied to all citizens, equally. 

 

Conservatives especially should see this as a slippery slope.  Make allowances for the military, next the clergy may want it...then other "classes" of special interests. And after all, meaning no disrespect to our brave women and men in the service, but they are just another special interest group when it comes to this kind of discussion.  A very important group to our country, but no better or worse than any other American citizen.

76538[/snapback]

 

See I do agree it happens on both sides of the aisle...I know you ASSumed I didn't. Not everyone should be alloud to vote just because they reach a certain age.

 

That being said I think someone in the military in a war zone should be granted a little more leeway than someone who can't fill out a ballot properly...IMO

[VABills]

Not sure that's true anymore guys. I thought the law just changed so you have to show ID and sign. I know we do at my polling place. Maybe VA only but I thought this was a federal change enact about 2 years ago.

 

Check that it was a 2002 law that require you to show ID only the first time at a federal election, after that you can sign in lieu of ID.

[Wacka]

In CA it's AGAINST the law for them to ask for ID when you vote. the only thing is a signature.

 

We should be up in arms about the massive dim voter fraud. Wetbacks voting, dead people voting, multiple voting, Paying people for votes, paying people in crack to sign up voters.

The dims are doing this at a ration of at least 100:1 as compared to the republicans.

 

How do you think JFK won in 1960- Daley got the dead vote out in Chicago.

[DC Tom]

Well it's been said before if people are too stupid to complete a ballot or voter registration form, tough beans.

 

Or do we make exceptions for classes of people?  Soo...military people are exempt from filling out forms properly but for the 200,000,000 other people who are eligible to vote, there's a different standard?

 

What about all those Halliburton people in Iraq, for example?  They're not military.  If they screw up their ballots, then what?

 

That's not democratic.  The idea is that we're all equal (it says something like that in the declaration of independence doesn't it?) which means that the law is supposed to be applied to all citizens, equally. 

 

Conservatives especially should see this as a slippery slope.  Make allowances for the military, next the clergy may want it...then other "classes" of special interests. And after all, meaning no disrespect to our brave women and men in the service, but they are just another special interest group when it comes to this kind of discussion.  A very important group to our country, but no better or worse than any other American citizen.

76538[/snapback]

 

I agree with you (and disagree with RCow - again, the right to vote implies the responsibility to do it correctly, i.e. get the technicalities right. It's one thing when the state !@#$s up, it's quite another when the individual !@#$s up and says "Well, my vote should count anyway.")

 

But I digress...I agree with you. Problem is, it doesn't always work that way in practice. In fact, I'd say it rarely works that way; either party is perfectly willing to selectively interpret and apply the law however it chooses to get an edge on the other...supposedly in the interest of "democracy", when it's easily the most undemocratic thing they do.

[DC Tom]

We should be up in arms about the massive dim voter fraud. Wetbacks voting, dead people voting, multiple voting, Paying people for votes, paying people in crack to sign up voters.

The dims are doing this at a ration of at least 100:1 as compared to the republicans.

76605[/snapback]

 

Bull. Both parties are equally corrupt, as they're both about nothing more than solidifying their own power. In fourteen days you'll see both sides pull out every trick in the book to win the election. In fifteen days, you'll see both sides pulling out every trick in the book to try to win the post-election selection...because if 2000 taught them anything, it's that the process of selecting a president begins in the courts the day after the votes are tallied.

[erynthered]

Bull.  Both parties are equally corrupt, as they're both about nothing more than solidifying their own power.  In fourteen days you'll see both sides pull out every trick in the book to win the election.  In fifteen days, you'll see both sides pulling out every trick in the book to try to win the post-election selection...because if 2000 taught them anything, it's that the process of selecting a president begins in the courts the day after the votes are tallied.

76643[/snapback]

 

2000 opened a pandoras box, more to follow I'm afraid.........

[spidey]

Not sure that's true anymore guys.  I thought the law just changed so you have to show ID and sign.  I know we do at my polling place.  Maybe VA only but I thought this was a federal change enact about 2 years ago.

 

Check that it was a 2002 law that require you to show ID only the first time at a federal election, after that you can sign in lieu of ID.

76551[/snapback]

Will let you know in two weeks. If I am not asked for ID or showing voter card or anything but name and address I plan on letting the polling folks know that its absurd that I can vote by just telling them who I am and what my address is.

[blzrul]

I agree with you (and disagree with RCow - again, the right to vote implies the responsibility to do it correctly, i.e. get the technicalities right.  It's one thing when the state !@#$s up, it's quite another when the individual !@#$s up and says "Well, my vote should count anyway.")

 

But I digress...I agree with you.  Problem is, it doesn't always work that way in practice.  In fact, I'd say it rarely works that way; either party is perfectly willing to selectively interpret and apply the law however it chooses to get an edge on the other...supposedly in the interest of "democracy", when it's easily the most undemocratic thing they do.

76638[/snapback]

Agreed. The military ballot thing in 2000 was pure political pandering. Had there been huge numbers of ballots coming in from, say, the Peace Corps, which you might think would tend to go the over way, I don't think there would have been much discussion about what to do with THEM if they were improperly executed.

 

All the parties care about is winning. Some are willing to go lower than others, on any given day. Too bad it's we who get stuck with the end result.

[Alaska Darin]

Agreed.  The military ballot thing in 2000 was pure political pandering. Had there been huge numbers of ballots coming in from, say, the Peace Corps, which you might think would tend to go the over way, I don't think there would have been much discussion about what to do with THEM if they were improperly executed. 

 

All the parties care about is winning.  Some are willing to go lower than others, on any given day.  Too bad it's we who get stuck with the end result.

76691[/snapback]

Those ballots were all protected by law - to include the Peace Corp.

 

Article

[blzrul]

Those ballots were all protected by law - to include the Peace Corp.

 

Article

76704[/snapback]

Aren't all ballots protected by law? Then the law must be equally applied to all. We are a nation of laws after good - the good, the bad and the extremely stupid, but laws nonetheless.

[Alaska Darin]

Aren't all ballots protected by law?  Then the law must be equally applied to all.  We are a nation of laws after good - the good, the bad and the extremely stupid, but laws nonetheless.

76706[/snapback]

Obviously you read the article.

[erynthered]

Then the law must be equally applied to all. We are a nation of laws after good - the good, the bad and the extremely stupid, but laws nonetheless

 

If the stupid would follow election laws, well.....................