<p>
</p>
<p>They could just register at their college address.</p>
<p>If the college is in a state that intentionally makes it difficult for students to register, then at least make sure that they know the absentee ballot procedure for their existing registration in case they are unable to register where they are living now.</p>
<p>Of course, votes for presidential electors are much more important in states considered to be swing states, as opposed to solid red/blue states.</p>
<p>College query - the fact that you/our kids are starting early to understand the out of state voting regs for college students is great. It is the ones who wait until the last minute who usually run into difficulty.</p>
<p>I don’t buy the “i don’t have time or there are too many hoops to jump through excuses”. Communities and church groups are willing to travel to the people, but somehow this isn’t good enough. For those employed or on government assistance there must be social security cards. Can’t we figure out a way to use those as step one? The government has my finger prints on file and it took all of 5 seconds to link my name to my prints (on a hand held device) Maybe they could just microchip us…</p>
<p>I can see requiring an ID to register to vote. I don’t know how much fraud really goes on and if it really influences the outcome of elections though. In MN you can register to vote at the polling place, day of the election. It pretty much wipes out any excuses for not voting. I can see where an ID would be helpful in that situation.</p>
<p>IMHO it’s easy to build a case either way. Here’s the tiebreaker:</p>
<p>One-party rule.</p>
<p>
This is what I believe and not only should it be provided, it should be provided conveniently. As I said in the other thread and which I stand by, there are so many aspects of our national life that involve presenting ID that anyone who doesn’t have it is disenfranchised in countless unacceptable ways. I find that completely unacceptable. Getting ID isn’t that difficult for healthy people where I am, but the organization with which I have volunteered for decades does arrange car pools for anyone who has mobility issues and asks for the assistance. I can imagine (although I don’t know for sure) that it is much harder in rural areas or areas without adequate public transportation. That being the case, I would find it a proper use of governmental funds to have mobil units going to different places on an announced schedule. In my particular area, we don’t have Metrocard machines (those are the cards for using the subway and buses), which is an enormous hardship for the elderly and poor in getting to medical appointments and conducting the business of life. The MTA provides mobil units to hospitals, senior centers, housing projects and transportation hubs on a pre-set schedule. It works very well.</p>
<p>
I don’t agree that it is thin evidence. 86 cases doesn’t equate to 86 votes and we all know elections that have been swung on less and there are several important races that very likely were stolen over the decades.</p>
<p>But that’s neither here nor there. I reject the notion that it is acceptable for any American citizen to be excluded from full participation in national life. If they need to be a little inconvenienced to receive the benefits and we as a society need to prioritize funding for this, it’s all good.</p>
<p>Since voting requires judgment and cognitive function, I suggest that each voter present proof … a certificate of some kind … of having passed a recent psychological assessment.</p>
<p>How about honorable discharge papers?</p>
<p>Even if just 86 people “cheated”, doesn’t mean it’s not an issue. Hell, the SAT rules got changed because of 14 students. To be able to vote, one should have some kind of photo ID. If the government can provide that for free, I’m ok with that.</p>
<p>Yeah, just what we need. Another way to discourage people from voting. </p>
<p>After all, people are just breaking down the doors at polling places in record numbers, aren’t they? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Of course, discouraging the “wrong” people from voting is the entire impetus behind this. It is one of those things that sounds reasonable on the surface, but the devil is in the details.</p>
<p>
No. It really isn’t. The devil is the desire to keep the “wrong” people from fully participating in national life. Why would ANYONE support that?</p>
<p>
That’s why it’s less about voting and more about full access. Since we know, based on the fact that plaintiffs can’t be found, that lack of ID doesn’t actually prevent people from voting, it is beyond clear that the point of opposing government-provided identification is to marginalize those people who can’t get it themselves.</p>
<p>What we need is a combination of Federal and State bureaucracies tasked with all these voting-related issues. So let me propose The Department of the American Way. Since it’s well established that the most populous states have the greatest problem regulating voter fraud … as evidenced by the fact that they haven’t stamped it out, despite ample time and resources … it’s clear we need to staff The Department with responsible individuals from the least populous states. I suggest we give elected officials from those least-populous states authority to nominate staff members. The head of the majority political party in each least-populated state can be tasked with confirming the nominees.</p>
<p>When I registered to vote in California, I didn’t even have to prove I was an American citizen. There’s really something wrong with that. People have registered their pets to vote just to prove the point.</p>
<p>In the last election, there were cases of people voting more than once in different states. Surveys were done showing people were registered to vote in Florida and New York, for instance. </p>
<p>The whole system needs to be cleaned up.</p>
<p>You folks are putting two issues together. The first issue is identifying the voter, to ensure that the person appearing to vote is the person they say they are. There are a fair number of photo id’s which would accomplish this. </p>
<p>The second issue is registering to vote. Most of these new laws are extremely onerous in terms of documents required. You don’t have to prove you are who you say you are, but also that you are a citizen, and also that you are a resident of the state. If you can’t find or don’t have a birth certificate (and, for women who changed their names, a marriage certificate), you’re either out a lot of time and money to get one; or, as we’ve seen from some of the stories here, you’re just SOL.</p>
<p>The more stringent laws combine the two.</p>
<p>It seems to me perfectly okay to require some kind of ID, so long as it’s reasonable. But as soon as you start to talk about solving the problem reasonably, you’ve missed the whole point of the laws. You’re smoking something if you think these laws are really about identifying people.</p>
<p>The best solution as far as I’m concerned would be to put into place whatever id requirements you want, but to exempt anyone who legally voted prior to the passage of the law.</p>
<p>
For me, part of reasonable is accessible. I do think there is a societal responsibility to make absolutely sure that anyone who needs ID and can’t get it easily on their own, has a path to do so.</p>
<p>Absolutely, you should have to prove that you are a citizen when registering to vote.</p>
<p>“Not sure how a state has the right to mandate requirements for federal elections… perhaps state and federal elections should be held separately?”</p>
<p>Federal elections are not organized by the federal government. According to the Constitution, each state decides how they want to run the election for the selection of a representative from their state for an elected office. </p>
<p>Examples of voter fraud-I owned and lived in a multi family house. A year that we had a contentious election, I went to vote and noticed on the voting rolls two new names that were supposed to have my building as their home address. That’s how you create fraudulent votes. I honestly do not know of any country in the world where you go to vote and do not have to present either the national photo id, or their national voting booklet that also has a photo.</p>
<p>SCOTUS, in a decision written by Justice Stevens has ruled that the IN law is constitutional. People confuse a state photo election id like in IN that is given for free and the state even has mobile units where they come to a person’s house to issue that id, with the requirements for a DL photo id that one has to pay as the local RMV agency and transportation works are being funded by the fees collected from issuing DL. One needs a state/military/federal issued photo id to collect federal welfare benefits, get on a plane, enter the DOJ, cash a check. Why should not we require that one shows a photo id to vote?</p>
<p>"… you’re just SOL."</p>
<p>And I’m perfectly fine with that … so long as we’re only excluding those who tend to vote for the WRONG party.</p>
<p>I deposited a check in my daughter’s bank account yesterday … no cash withdrawal. The check was issued in both our names but only I signed it as she is away at school. To deposit … deposit only … I had to provide picture i.d. and my thumbprint on the check.</p>
<p>Then I stopped by a store where to purchase something with my credit card, I also had to show my driver’s license. (Yes, I could have paid cash.)</p>
<p>My husband flew on a plane last week. As his Driver’s License had expired and he only had a paper one while in the renewal process, he took along his passport, just in case he needed a photo i.d. to fly. Good thing he had that passport, as the airline really wanted that photo.</p>
<p>So … yes … to photo i.d. to vote. Obviously, it’s required for many things of much less import.</p>
<p>I also do not think that college students should be allowed to vote in the town they go to school, unless they can prove they are independent adults. I used to live in an area where the student population was multiple times the local residents. The incompetent rep would get a 50k salary being elected at the school board, 60k for the city council, and another 70k being a state rep. But would be elected every time in a landslide by the college students. Did he care about us? He was usually no show at school board or other meetings as he was too busy with his law practice.</p>