No ID required

I waited all day to vote, hearing how Chelsea Clinton had some trouble, some other high profile political figures had issues because they forgot their ID, etc... I was thinking... Good for the process to be so tight...

I grabbed my voter registration letter and went to vote, slapped it down on the table... the guy asked my name, I said Spicher.. He looked, didn't find it... then looked at the paper I put in front of him... "Oh... Spe...."

I said... "No... Spi..."

Then I looked at my voter reg... it says Specher... Whaddya know, he was right... Spe..

They never asked for ID, and didn't have any problem with my name being spelled wrong....

We're close enough to Chicago, this is not only acceptable, but expected.

 

I've never had to show ID in NJ, either. Every year I expect to, but every year it's
"Last Name?"
"Procopio"
"Michael?"
"Yes"
"OK. Sign here."

If you can look at a signature and mimic it, you could easily vote for someone else. Where I have to sign my name is right next to a photocopy of the signature on my registration. This system really needs to be changed.

 

No ID required here in NC. They don't compare your signature either, just name and address. As long as there's a registered voter with that info, you're in. I could easily have given my neighbor's name and address. They'd never know unless my neighbor tried to show up and vote later in the day.

SC is different. The governor of SC was one of those that forgot his ID and was turned away. Of course it was all on camera. His wife was in the background saying, "I told you to bring your card".

 

I almost forgot. A few years ago there was a big controversy over requiring the address, because it disenfranchises homeless people. The matter was settled by telling them to supply the address of the nearest homeless shelter. I don't see any possibility for fraud there...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CMonster @ Nov 8 2006, 09:41 AM) [snapback]345420[/snapback]</div>

It's much the same here in the UK where the ancient system of paper voting is still used although there has been much discussion about introducing an electronic system. But people don't trust electronics when it comes to voting. If only they knew how much fraudulent voting goes on! You walk into a polling station and give your name: Bill Bloggs. 1 Bloggish Street. If the clerk finds this name on the register you get a voting paper. You walk round the corner and come back in, then you say your name is Fred Bloggs, also at 1 Bloggish Street. You know that your brother Fred emigrated last year, but you still get a voting paper because the clerk is too busy to remember the appearance of voters who came in 10 minutes ago.

Another abuse is to put fictitious names on the form which comes round in October to register the annual voters' list. Unlikely that this will be checked.

The only consolation is that the system seems to work on the whole. If 60 million people give 45% votes to Noddy and 55% to Bigears, a telephone poll of about 5,000 randomly selected voters on the same day will give roughly the same percentage. In other words the whole expensive system for counting 60 million votes is unnecessary. You would have got a very similar result by polling only half a million.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Nov 8 2006, 07:48 AM) [snapback]345379[/snapback]</div>

Mostly, the poor. Mostly, those who can't afford a car, and therefore have to get around by public transportation. Mostly, those who are more concerned about feeding their family than going through the hassle of red tape in order to cast a vote they don't feel will make a difference anyway because of all the "voter irregularities" in the last 2 Presidential elections. It's difficult to convince people who already feel disenfranchised to get out and vote. Adding a picture ID requirement to people who otherwise don't have one hurts the poor.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Nov 9 2006, 12:22 AM) [snapback]346097[/snapback]</div>

:lol: Of course, if you'd gone to Bridgeport, you could probably have saved all that driving - just voted, gotten back in line, voted again, etc! Isn't that an old Cook County tradition?

 

My wife just commented on this, this morning, all they asked her was her name and if she still lives at 102 ------ dr ? she said yes and they gave her the ballot..... She was shocked they would tell her her address in a question that she could agree with and they had no way to prove she still lived there... ( Shes a Democrat)

Shes also says the picks this term seem dismal at best on the issues she would like to see addressed. Yes its quiet in our house during election time I vote for whom ever and she votes straight Dem...


I sent in an absentee ballot as Im dead too..... Another working stiff.. :lol: :lol:

 

oh come on... in WI a state id card costs $9 for four years. we're not talking about a substantial cost here. how do you prove who you are to *anybody* without some kind of picture id?

 

At the very least, what about having to show a voter registration card? It may not have a photo, but it's ID. And if you're registered to vote you should have one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Nov 9 2006, 02:09 PM) [snapback]346350[/snapback]</div>

I'm registered, and I voted, but... my voters registratino card that I have is going on three years old, I don't get one every year, so that would do me no good.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(parrot_lady @ Nov 9 2006, 01:18 PM) [snapback]346355[/snapback]</div>

Mine's almost eight years old and I won't have to get a new one unless I move. It shows who I am, where I live, and that I'm registered to vote in my district. I think something like this should be the bare minimum of identification.

My drivers license doesn't have a photo on it. NJ had the brilliant idea a few years ago of allowing drivers to renew their licenses by mail. But you didn't get a photo license. I've had to carry my expired license with me as photo ID, and that's caused me no end of trouble.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxo @ Nov 9 2006, 03:38 AM) [snapback]346148[/snapback]</div>

I am afraid our ballots are considerably longer than yours. In Los Angeles County, it ran ten pages and had in excess of fifty races and ballot questions.

Here is a sample ballot.

 

We vote by mail here in Oregon.
Works great.
Other states should look into the process,
thank you,
Eric

 

Reminds me of how the GOP fought against allowing citizens to register to vote at the DMV in California.This was clearly an attempt to keep poor voters out of the system.They didnt want poor voters who have drivers licenses .And now they dont want poor voters without drivers licenses.
Heres info.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V7/28/ganz-m.html
"When Bill Clinton signed the 1993 Motor Voter bill, mandating states to offer on- the-spot voter registration at various government agencies, Republicans in California and several other states sought to undermine the new law by withholding critical funding and, later, by seeking court injunctions against its implementation. Although these officials justified their actions by warning that Motor Voter would increase voter fraud, partisan concerns may have been on their minds. Since nonvoters tend to be poorer than voters, many conservatives feared--just as many liberals hoped--that Motor Voter would produce a Democratic bonanza at the polls.These attempts to subvert the National Voter Registration Act, as Motor Voter is officially known, have failed in most cases. Although several states still lag behind in implementation, today most Americans can register to vote by mail or when they conduct the most routine government business, from applying for a driver's license to receiving public assistance. In addition, by shifting the responsibility for maintaining eligible voter lists from individuals, parties, and campaigns to the states, Motor Voter removes barriers to voting imposed 100 years ago--barriers that con tributed significantly to the low levels of twentieth-century U.S. voter turnout and unrepresentativeness of the electorate. No matter what the electoral impact today, this achievement brings us closer to the norm of universal voter registration typical of other industrial democracies. But those who believe that Motor Voter will on its own increase turnout significantly are mistaken, as are those who anticipate an automatic windfall for the Democratic Party. While the law removes significant obstacles to participation, the precipitous decline in turnout since the 1960s reflects a growing indifference to politics, not a lack of access to the voting booth. In the short term at least, Motor Voter will make the biggest dif ference to otherwise motivated citizens for whom registration is a significant obstacle to voting: those who are under 30 or who move frequently, not the poor. The former two groups' partisan orientation does not differ substantially from that of the electorate as a whole. What's more, these new voters will have a disproportionate impact in states where Democrats already struggle--states like Florida, Georgia, and Arkansas, all of which have long histories of restrictive registration laws.

The good news for progressives is that Motor Voter does offer political strategists new opportunities to mo bilize nonvoters by making the rolls more inclusive, creating more accurate lists of potential voters, and enrolling more young people than at any time since 18-year-olds got the vote in 1972. Yet the prospects for major increases in turnout and energizing Democratic politics hinge entirely on how--or, more precisely, on whether--orga nizers make use of these new opportunities. "

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 9 2006, 02:08 PM) [snapback]346397[/snapback]</div>

Couldn't get this link to work but I did look at the www.lavote.net site. Isn't life getting complicated? I wonder how many man-hours (or should that be 'people-hours' or 'lawyer-hours'?) were used in the preparation of all this stuff? But I suppose this is the alternative to high unemployment.