Verifying A Voters ID

[RCow]

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]

 

If something is easily correctable, and quite possibly not the fault of the voter, it makes NO sense and quite un-democratic to take away what is a perfectly legitimate vote. Very often a voter will not be notified of the correct polling place, particularly after redistricting in suburban and urban areas. This country should do whatever it takes to protect the right, not look for technicalities to take it away.

 

The article makes a very poor case for not taking the step to count the vote. It's frightening that so many people here will not side with the voter. It smacks of elitism.

[DC Tom]

If something is easily correctable, and quite possibly not the fault of the voter, it makes NO sense and quite un-democratic to take away what is a perfectly legitimate vote.  Very often a voter will not be notified of the correct polling place, particularly after redistricting in suburban and urban areas.  This country should do whatever it takes to protect the right, not look for technicalities to take it away.

76803[/snapback]

 

Funny thing is, we don't have to look for technicalities...they just kind of find people who aren't paying attention.

 

But what I see in your post is you mixing your contexts: errors on the part of the state, and errors on the part of the voter. If a voter's not notified of the correct polling place...of course the responsibility for that particular !@#$-up should be on the state, and the voter shouldn't be disenfranchised. But if the state tells them repeatedly where the polling place is, and publicly publishes such information in easily accessible places, and the voter still can't get it right...tough stevestojan. It's not the state's responsibility to hold voters' hands through the entire process and give them a lollipop at the end for a job well-done. If the voter's error is an easily correctible error, though...then again, tough stevestojan. If it's easily correctible (e.g. not punching your stylus through the paper, but just denting it), the voter should have corrected it.

 

And it's the same standard I hold myself to. I screwed up my voter registration this year (put my signature on the wrong line). By your logic, since it's an easily correctible error, the Arlington Board of Elections should say "Hey, no big deal. You're still registered." Instead, once I found out (barely in time), I had to fix my own mess...which was entirely appropriate, since I'm the dumbass that didn't fully read the damned form. Had they notified me too late to fix it, I wouldn't be allowed to vote...which would be entirely appropriate, since I'm the dumbass that didn't fully read the damned form.

 

It's not about finding each and every technicality to screw the public. It's about treating adults like adults and holding them (and the state, for that matter) to a basic standard of responsibility commesurate with the seriousness of the matter. If someone dingbat in Florida can't be bothered to submit a properly punched ballot, it's NOT Florida's responsibility to discern the "intent of the voter" from a "dimpled chad". On the contrary, it's the voter's responsibility to make their intent clear and unambigouos to Florida.

[Chef Jim]

What I'm worried about happening is that if this election is close, and by all accounts it will be VERY close the losing side will probably be screaming fraud. 2000 set a very bad precedent for this and future elections. I can't wait.

[RCow]

Funny thing is, we don't have to look for technicalities...they just kind of find people who aren't paying attention.

 

But what I see in your post is you mixing your contexts: errors on the part of the state, and errors on the part of the voter.  If a voter's not notified of the correct polling place...of course the responsibility for that particular !@#$-up should be on the state, and the voter shouldn't be disenfranchised.  But if the state tells them repeatedly where the polling place is, and publicly publishes such information in easily accessible places, and the voter still can't get it right...tough stevestojan.  It's not the state's responsibility to hold voters' hands through the entire process and give them a lollipop at the end for a job well-done.  If the voter's error is an easily correctible error, though...then again, tough stevestojan.  If it's easily correctible (e.g. not punching your stylus through the paper, but just denting it), the voter should have corrected it. 

 

And it's the same standard I hold myself to.  I screwed up my voter registration this year (put my signature on the wrong line).  By your logic, since it's an easily correctible error, the Arlington Board of Elections should say "Hey, no big deal.  You're still registered."  Instead, once I found out (barely in time), I had to fix my own mess...which was entirely appropriate, since I'm the dumbass that didn't fully read the damned form.  Had they notified me too late to fix it, I wouldn't be allowed to vote...which would be entirely appropriate, since I'm the dumbass that didn't fully read the damned form. 

 

It's not about finding each and every technicality to screw the public.  It's about treating adults like adults and holding them (and the state, for that matter) to a basic standard of responsibility commesurate with the seriousness of the matter.  If someone dingbat in Florida can't be bothered to submit a properly punched ballot, it's NOT Florida's responsibility to discern the "intent of the voter" from a "dimpled chad".  On the contrary, it's the voter's responsibility to make their intent clear and unambigouos to Florida.

76816[/snapback]

 

The issue here is whether or not a provisional ballot should be counted even if someone a voter casts their provisional vote at the wrong precinct in the same county. Many here agree with NewsMax that the vote should be thrown out simply because the vote wasn't at the correct precinct. Others, like myself, would count the vote because it's an easily correctable and verifiable error. (BTW, the idea that someone can cast ballots in a number of precincts undetected is nearly impossible and certainly cannot succeed on a wide scale).

 

You, if I am correct, would say that if the state is at fault then count the ballot, if the voter is at fault, discard the ballot. Who is to determine the validity of each case? Shouldn't the vote count unless there is undeniable proof that the voter has sole blame? Who has the burden of proof -- the state or the voter? You talk about responsibilities and rights but which carries more weight? Does the blame lie with the voter who must fight for their right for their vote to count? Or does the state have the responsiblity to uphold that right unless they prove the voter lost the privilege due to clear irresponsible conduct? Do we hold a court case for each voter? What if they each claims they called the local board of election and they were verbally told the wrong polling place? Who's side would you take?

 

How are we to determine if someone has readily accessible information? Do we know for certain? Perhaps we should have a test - that seemed to work well during the Jim Crow days.

[DC Tom]

The issue here is whether or not a provisional ballot should be counted even if someone a voter casts their provisional vote at the wrong precinct in the same county.  Many here agree with NewsMax that the vote should be thrown out simply because the vote wasn't at the correct precinct.  Others, like myself, would count the vote because it's an easily correctable and verifiable error.  (BTW, the idea that someone can cast ballots in a number of precincts undetected is nearly impossible and certainly cannot succeed on a wide scale). 

 

I had no idea I was agreeing with NewsMax...it's my own opinion. If you screw up your vote, it gets thrown out. If the state screws it up, the state has to make it right. I am dead-set against state policies that disenfranchise people...I'm equally dead-set against taking away people's right to disenfranchise themselves, as I don't see it as the state's responsibility to put a literal or figurative band-aid on every literal or figurative self-inflicted boo-boo on people who refuse be responsible for themselves.

 

You, if I am correct, would say that if the state is at fault then count the ballot, if the voter is at fault, discard the ballot.  Who is to determine the validity of each case?  Shouldn't the vote count unless there is undeniable proof that the voter has sole blame?  Who has the burden of proof -- the state or the voter?  You talk about responsibilities and rights but which carries more weight?  Does the blame lie with the voter who must fight for their right for their vote to count?  Or does the state have the responsiblity to uphold that right unless they prove the voter lost the privilege due to clear irresponsible conduct?  Do we hold a court case for each voter?  What if they each claims they called the local board of election and they were verbally told the wrong polling place?  Who's side would you take?

 

Oversimplified drastically, but correct in essence (more accurate would be: if the state's at fault, fix the problem, if the voter's at fault, sucks to be them.) As for the test...the "reasonable person" standard applies in many other topics, why not here? In the case of polling places...has the election board made enough of a good-faith effort (print ads, mass mailings, voter registration notifications, whatever) such that a "reasonable person" would be able to discern their polling place? Not a difficult standard of assessing responsibility by any means.

 

How are we to determine if someone has readily accessible information?  Do we know for certain?  Perhaps we should have a test - that seemed to work well during the Jim Crow days.

77192[/snapback]

 

Yeah, let's resurrect Jim Crow laws. That's the argument I'm making, a racist one. We already have a test that establishes that standard, it's called properly casting your vote.

[_BiB_]

I find it bordering on the incredible that people can argue about whether or not to follow directions.

[Alaska Darin]

I find it bordering on the incredible that people can argue about whether or not to follow directions.

77518[/snapback]

Welcome to "government educated" society. We're so very much better off.

[erynthered]

Prior to moving this year, I made a list of company's and credit card company's I had to contact to inform them of my move, That's called being responsible. Plus I contacted the supervisor of elections in my county, and found out what the protocol was for getting things changed to my new address, SO I COULD VOTE!!!

 

Also, prior to the primaries, I did a recon of where I would be voting. I received my voting card with my new address a week later. And voted in the primaries.

 

 

If people don't care enough, about making sure they're informed enough, to make sure they'll be able to vote, then screw'em. I have no sympathy for ignorance.

[RCow]

I had no idea I was agreeing with NewsMax...it's my own opinion.  If you screw up your vote, it gets thrown out.  If the state screws it up, the state has to make it right.  I am dead-set against state policies that disenfranchise people...I'm equally dead-set against taking away people's right to disenfranchise themselves, as I don't see it as the state's responsibility to put a literal or figurative band-aid on every literal or figurative self-inflicted boo-boo on people who refuse be responsible for themselves.

Oversimplified drastically, but correct in essence (more accurate would be: if the state's at fault, fix the problem, if the voter's at fault, sucks to be them.)  As for the test...the "reasonable person" standard applies in many other topics, why not here?  In the case of polling places...has the election board made enough of a good-faith effort (print ads, mass mailings, voter registration notifications, whatever) such that a "reasonable person" would be able to discern their polling place?  Not a difficult standard of assessing responsibility by any means.

Yeah, let's resurrect Jim Crow laws.  That's the argument I'm making, a racist one.     We already have a test that establishes that standard, it's called properly casting your vote.

77510[/snapback]

 

 

With all due respect, you really haven't addressed the question. Where is the burden of proof? Are you assuming the voter screwed up or the state? How are these cases rectified? I can only assume you believe there is a low standard of state "good faith" and almost entirely place the burden of proof on the voter; in other words, the voter is guilty and his voting rights are taken away unless they can prove they were given erroneous information or at the very least, not adequate information.

 

What if they simply said "I was told to go to this place" and it was wrong? How can they prove it? Phone records, taped conversations? What IS the good faith effort? Very few people (other than, say, you) subcribes and/or reads the paper from cover to cover everyday; how many mailings should the state/county send? Are the pieces accurate, clear? How do you know someone recieved it? What if they don't have access to the internet or don't have the skills to locate the correct information?

 

In most parts of the country the polling place is obvious. There simply aren't many places to vote and in some cases there is only one within miles. Not so in heavy suburban and urban areas where a polling place could change very often.

 

The point of a provisional ballot is to ensure that every vote is counted in the event of a questionable voter (not registered, noncitizen, accidently kicked off the rolls, etc) and to sort it out later. It's much more democratic to challenge the voters status and toss the vote than to turn someone away and not have a chance to vote.

 

As an aside, I believe we should always do whatever we can to count a vote and make voting as convienent and easy as possible. Hopefully there will come a time when we have nationwide early voting, be able to cast a ballot anywhere in a state (very important to commuters) and other ways to encourage participation.

 

That's not babysitting it's encouraging democracy.

[RCow]

I find it bordering on the incredible that people can argue about whether or not to follow directions.

77518[/snapback]

 

I find it incredible that the same people who always say government can do NOTHING right continue to side with government over personal rights in discussions regarding voting processes.

[_BiB_]

I find it incredible that the same people who always say government can do NOTHING right continue to side with government over personal rights in discussions regarding voting processes.

77612[/snapback]

 

That said, I can't believe people will actually argue about following directions. If voting is important to someone they bear the responsibility to make sure it's done right. No one should be expected to do it for them. If the rules are silly, the rules are silly. They're still rules.

[RCow]

That said, I can't believe people will actually argue about following directions. If voting is important to someone they bear the responsibility to make sure it's done right. No one should be expected to do it for them. If the rules are silly, the rules are silly. They're still rules.

77627[/snapback]

 

I suppose of much more of a libertarian than the so-called libertarians on this board. I believe the goal is to do whatever we can to preserve an individuals right to vote over the state's possible "silly" rules. The "well, that's the way it is" argument should make libertarians choke.

[DC Tom]

I suppose of much more of a libertarian than the so-called libertarians on this board.  I believe the goal is to do whatever we can to preserve an individuals right to vote over the state's possible "silly" rules.  The "well, that's the way it is" argument should make libertarians choke.

77638[/snapback]

 

And that is a bad argument. "The way it is" is the way it is because elected officials made it that way. If election laws are VSF in any given jurisdiction, it's not an unsolvable problem...but it IS the responsibility of the electorate to vote in the proper people to fix it, not whine to the courts to grant "special case" exceptions because the laws as created by the elected legislature suck.

[RCow]

And that is a bad argument.  "The way it is" is the way it is because elected officials made it that way.  If election laws are VSF in any given jurisdiction, it's not an unsolvable problem...but it IS the responsibility of the electorate to vote in the proper people to fix it, not whine to the courts to grant "special case" exceptions because the laws as created by the elected legislature suck.

77645[/snapback]

 

"Whine to courts?" The people are to blame? You can't be serious. You're doing extreme gymnastics on this one, Tom. "Bad" argument, eh? If that's the case I don't see how you can be very proud of the stuff pounding out on your keyboard today.

[Alaska Darin]

I suppose of much more of a libertarian than the so-called libertarians on this board.  I believe the goal is to do whatever we can to preserve an individuals right to vote over the state's possible "silly" rules.  The "well, that's the way it is" argument should make libertarians choke.

77638[/snapback]

Care to rephrase that first sentence so that it makes sense? I imagine it was yet another unimaginative attempt to slam me, so try and do better.

 

Voting is a process. There are rules because if there weren't individuals and groups would abuse them in ways we've seen in the past. It's obviously a delicate balance and there is responsibility on both sides to make sure it's fair to everyone.

[DC Tom]

"Whine to courts?"  The people are to blame?  You can't be serious.  You're doing extreme gymnastics on this one, Tom.  "Bad" argument, eh?  If that's the case I don't see how you can be very proud of the stuff pounding out on your keyboard today.

77664[/snapback]

 

Yes, the people are to blame. The people elect the legislators who pass the laws. That's the whole point of a democratic system. How can you argue for "every vote counts no matter what" and then turn around and say the people are divorced from and have no responsibility for the very system determined by those votes?

[DC Tom]

With all due respect, you really haven't addressed the question.  Where is the burden of proof? Are you assuming the voter screwed up or the state? How are these cases rectified?  I can only assume you believe there is a low standard of state "good faith" and almost entirely place the burden of proof on the voter; in other words, the voter is guilty and his voting rights are taken away unless they can prove they were given erroneous information or at the very least, not adequate information.

 

What if they simply said "I was told to go to this place" and it was wrong?  How can they prove it?  Phone records, taped conversations?  What IS the good faith effort?  Very few people (other than, say, you) subcribes and/or reads the paper from cover to cover everyday; how many mailings should the state/county send?  Are the pieces accurate, clear?  How do you know someone recieved it?  What if they don't have access to the internet or don't have the skills to locate the correct information?

 

In most parts of the country the polling place is obvious.  There simply aren't many places to vote and in some cases there is only one within miles.  Not so in heavy suburban and urban areas where a polling place could change very often. 

 

The point of a provisional ballot is to ensure that every vote is counted in the event of a questionable voter (not registered, noncitizen, accidently kicked off the rolls, etc) and to sort it out later.  It's much more democratic to challenge the voters status and toss the vote than to turn someone away and not have a chance to vote. 

 

As an aside, I believe we should always do whatever we can to count a vote and make voting as convienent and easy as possible.  Hopefully there will come a time when we have nationwide early voting, be able to cast a ballot anywhere in a state (very important to commuters) and other ways to encourage participation. 

 

That's not babysitting it's encouraging democracy.

77606[/snapback]

 

Burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate that they made a "good faith effort" to notify the public (not the individual voter, which is where I think we're having a major disconnect. As amorphous a concept as "the public" is, I believe government's responsibility lies there, rather than to every single individual). And my standard for "good faith" is actually pretty high. Personally, I wouldn't consider an effort to be "good faith" for a major metropolitan area (such as Arlington, where I am) unless it included at the very least: having the information accurate and availabie online, included with the registration forms, sent via mass mailings aside from that, via phone (be it through a help desk or touch-tone menu), and published in widely-read local newspapers...such that a "reasonable person" could be expected to find the information with a minimum of hassle.

 

Now, if the state can prove that (which shouldn't be too hard, really), any burden of proof should be on the voter. If information is publicly and widely (and demonstrably) disseminated, the burden SHOULD be on the select couple of individuals who couldn't be bothered to pay attention and need their hands held.