(01-22-2020 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 10:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  There is actually a belt and suspenders method that captures the best of both methods, and kills the drawbacks.

Use the electronic machine, and, like current machines, show the choices on the screen to the user and say "Are these your choices"?

If yes, print out a receipt that has both a typed version of the choices, and a scannable code that denotes the choices.

When the receipt is acceptable, the voter hits 'Enter', then deposits the hard copy into a voting bin.

The e-vote tally can be insto-presto determined at the speeds of today's e-machines. If there is any question, a hard copy hard copy is preserved as 'backup and proof' that can be used to cross check the e-result.

I think some jurisdictions actually employ this dual methodology --- but the hard copy is pretty much hard insurance against e-tampering.

Doesnt help in the cases where some in some dorkball jurisdiction that doesnt have voter id where some scumbucket tells the worker they are joe blow and then votes for joe blow.

I believe this method was discussed at some point. I see little to no reason to delay the implementation of a hard copy backup, except for costs.

Your right that this would t protect against voter fraud, but as we all know, there is a lot of disagreement on this board regarding the prevalence of in-person voter fraud.

Considering that in one election when I was in California someone 'voted for me' (very off-cycle local election) I am all for voter ID.

There is no good reason to be against it. It's like being against people having driver's licenses.

Make ID's free for everyone and I can support it. Also make it easier to get the ID so you don't have to go to the DMV/OMV (whatever your state calls it) and potentially wait for hours to get the ID. Combine that with ranked-choice voting and making national elections a holiday (and maybe moving them to October so there are fewer weather issues on election day) and we have a nice little package of voting reform measures that the vast majority of the country can likely support.

So the idea of waiving the fee for those who cannot afford it isnt good enough? Seriously?

(01-22-2020 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the idea of waiving the fee for those who cannot afford it isnt good enough? Seriously?

That would probably be sufficient, but how much proof do you need to get a free ID? I honestly don't know, but I wonder what the bureaucratic administrative costs are for reviewing applications for a free ID.

(01-22-2020 11:05 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 10:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  There is actually a belt and suspenders method that captures the best of both methods, and kills the drawbacks.

Use the electronic machine, and, like current machines, show the choices on the screen to the user and say "Are these your choices"?

If yes, print out a receipt that has both a typed version of the choices, and a scannable code that denotes the choices.

When the receipt is acceptable, the voter hits 'Enter', then deposits the hard copy into a voting bin.

The e-vote tally can be insto-presto determined at the speeds of today's e-machines. If there is any question, a hard copy hard copy is preserved as 'backup and proof' that can be used to cross check the e-result.

I think some jurisdictions actually employ this dual methodology --- but the hard copy is pretty much hard insurance against e-tampering.

Doesnt help in the cases where some in some dorkball jurisdiction that doesnt have voter id where some scumbucket tells the worker they are joe blow and then votes for joe blow.

I believe this method was discussed at some point. I see little to no reason to delay the implementation of a hard copy backup, except for costs.

Your right that this would t protect against voter fraud, but as we all know, there is a lot of disagreement on this board regarding the prevalence of in-person voter fraud.

Considering that in one election when I was in California someone 'voted for me' (very off-cycle local election) I am all for voter ID.

There is no good reason to be against it. It's like being against people having driver's licenses.

Make ID's free for everyone and I can support it. Also make it easier to get the ID so you don't have to go to the DMV/OMV (whatever your state calls it) and potentially wait for hours to get the ID. Combine that with ranked-choice voting and making national elections a holiday (and maybe moving them to October so there are fewer weather issues on election day) and we have a nice little package of voting reform measures that the vast majority of the country can likely support.

Aren't they already free for those who cannot afford it? And the ones who cannot get them, how do they live in this society?

This is the ID used for gun sales, real estate transactions, credit sales, welfare benefits, just about everything in our society, and you want to make it easier to get without presenting proof of ID? What next, vending machine passports?

I have had a DL for 60 years now. I have had to go to the DMV many times to renew. Never had to wait hours, not even AN hour. More like 15 minutes, max. But tell us, how long did you wait the last time you went?

Yes, some people have a tougher time than other is getting to the DMV. I am thinking specifically of those people in West Texas, New Mexico, the Southwest and the Mountain states who live 100 miles or more from a DMV. Maybe they could drop by the DMV when they make their biweekly trip to town for groceries. Or come in to see the doctor, or get a haircut, or all of the preceding. Point is, if you want it, you will get it, and if you don't care, then no amount of making it easy for you will make you get it.

I think early voting periods pretty well take care of the weather thing. I just go on the first pretty day. I never wait for that November date.

No problem with making Election Day a holiday, but wouldn't early voting alleviate that problem too? But it still, to me, boils down to those who want to participate will find a way to vote, and those who don't care will use their day to go fishing or something else.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

(01-22-2020 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have had a DL for 60 years now. I have had to go to the DMV many times to renew. Never had to wait hours, not even AN hour. More like 15 minutes, max. But tell us, how long did you wait the last time you went?

I lost my DL a couple years ago (of course, I subsequently found it somewhere stupid). But when I thought it was lost, I had to go to the DMV twice (it was my bad, I had something incorrect in the paperwork I brought during my 1st visit). Both waits were easily more than 60 minutes.

There are 2 DMV locations in New Orleans, but New Orleans doesn't have great public transportation and getting to them on a city bus from some parts of town would take a long time. Can make it tough for people with disabilities or people who don't drive.

(01-22-2020 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think early voting periods pretty well take care of the weather thing. I just go on the first pretty day. I never wait for that November date.

That is nice, but early voting locations are not always convenient. There are only 4 early voting sites in New Orleans and none of them are particularly convenient for me, compared to my local precinct. That is fine for me as I could drive to them if I wanted to, but again, what about someone with disabilities or who doesn't drive?

(01-22-2020 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the idea of waiving the fee for those who cannot afford it isnt good enough? Seriously?

Not really. The other major issue is access to a DMV, especially for rural population or hourly employees that don’t often have the ability to skip work in the middle of the day.

We should be trying to make voting as easy as possible for those that qualify - so if we add methods to verify ones ability to vote, we must simultaneously break down barriers to proving that status. Arguing against that stance makes it clear that voter suppression is a tangential goal.

I dont think that anyone here is arguing *for* making qualifying to vote hard as hell.

But your statement of 'break[ing] down barriers to proving that status' is idiotic. Take your 'break down the barriers' to its endpoint of 'zero barriers' you have 'just fking fill out a form, come one come all and vote'. Is that what you are advocating?

I mean, if that is your stance, you are literally taking a piss on the right to vote for those who actually enjoy the right in favor of giving it away like candy.

Kind of goes hand in hand with the concept of open borders for some, mind you.

The dual hardcopy/machine voting that Tang mentioned above seems like a reasonable approach. Except...Let me relate a real-life incident that occurred out here this past November in a hotly contested school bond election.
The dual system was in place. New electronic voting machines were being used. Late on election night the winner was announced. The bond had won by abut 16 vote. (26,000 votes cast). Lots of hurrahs. Lots of grumping. But wait.....the out of town ballots hadn't been counted!! After those were counted the next day...the bond issued FAILED by 24 votes. As you can imagine, after not too much discussion, a recount ensued.
The machine recount tally was unchanged. But the paper ballot was a bit off...by 850 votes!!! WTH?? Lots of head scratching. Lawyers getting ready. The State getting involved. Wait....turns out in the elections office there was a mysterious sealed ballot box with paper ballots, but nobody knew where it came from. Was it from the bond election? Or was it from elections past? A court order was obtained. The box was opened with much ceremony in front of election officials, lawyers, state officials, media...yep. the missing votes were in the box. In the confusion and crush of election night they had been literally put up on a shelf and forgotten.
Needless to say, everybody on both sides is pissed. And the outcome of the fiasco has been to undermine the confidence of everybody in the election process itself. And it wasn't fraud, or hacking it was human error.
And by the way, by law the election results had to be certified to the state within a specified period of time. And they were. However, those certified results are in conflict with the final count (supervised by a court-appointed judge). Can you say re-election???

Just thought I'd share.

(01-22-2020 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think that anyone here is arguing *for* making qualifying to vote hard as hell.

But your statement of 'break[ing] down barriers to proving that status' is idiotic. Take your 'break down the barriers' to its endpoint of 'zero barriers' you have 'just fking fill out a form, come one come all and vote'. Is that what you are advocating?

I mean, if that is your stance, you are literally taking a piss on the right to vote for those who actually enjoy the right in favor of giving it away like candy.

Kind of goes hand in hand with the concept of open borders for some, mind you.

That's not my stance.

My stance is that if we want to pass voter ID laws so we can verify that only eligible voters are voting, and only voting once, they should be coupled with legislation that makes it as easy as possible for those eligible voters to obtain that proof.

My end goal is to make it as easy as possible for eligible voters to vote. What is your end goal?

(01-22-2020 01:33 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  The dual hardcopy/machine voting that Tang mentioned above seems like a reasonable approach. Except...Let me relate a real-life incident that occurred out here this past November in a hotly contested school bond election.
The dual system was in place. New electronic voting machines were being used. Late on election night the winner was announced. The bond had won by abut 16 vote. (26,000 votes cast). Lots of hurrahs. Lots of grumping. But wait.....the out of town ballots hadn't been counted!! After those were counted the next day...the bond issued FAILED by 24 votes. As you can imagine, after not too much discussion, a recount ensued.
The machine recount tally was unchanged. But the paper ballot was a bit off...by 850 votes!!! WTH?? Lots of head scratching. Lawyers getting ready. The State getting involved. Wait....turns out in the elections office there was a mysterious sealed ballot box with paper ballots, but nobody knew where it came from. Was it from the bond election? Or was it from elections past? A court order was obtained. The box was opened with much ceremony in front of election officials, lawyers, state officials, media...yep. the missing votes were in the box. In the confusion and crush of election night they had been literally put up on a shelf and forgotten.
Needless to say, everybody on both sides is pissed. And the outcome of the fiasco has been to undermine the confidence of everybody in the election process itself. And it wasn't fraud, or hacking it was human error.
And by the way, by law the election results had to be certified to the state within a specified period of time. And they were. However, those certified results are in conflict with the final count (supervised by a court-appointed judge). Can you say re-election???

Just thought I'd share.

All I can say is OOF. That election supervisor had a rough one.

(01-22-2020 01:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think that anyone here is arguing *for* making qualifying to vote hard as hell.

But your statement of 'break[ing] down barriers to proving that status' is idiotic. Take your 'break down the barriers' to its endpoint of 'zero barriers' you have 'just fking fill out a form, come one come all and vote'. Is that what you are advocating?

I mean, if that is your stance, you are literally taking a piss on the right to vote for those who actually enjoy the right in favor of giving it away like candy.

Kind of goes hand in hand with the concept of open borders for some, mind you.

That's not my stance.

My stance is that if we want to pass voter ID laws so we can verify that only eligible voters are voting, and only voting once, they should be coupled with legislation that makes it as easy as possible for those eligible voters to obtain that proof.

My end goal is to make it as easy as possible for eligible voters to vote. What is your end goal?

"As easy as possible" cannot be effortless. A voter ID card with photo just requires a photo and a one page form of basic information, but your side is arguing that even that is too much to ask. Those who object to even the most simplistic form of ID are clearly arguing for the equivalent of no formal ID at all.

Acceptable forms of ID include passports and driver's licenses. You can't buy them at Wal-mart, and for good reason. "As easy as possible" isn't easy.

(01-22-2020 02:09 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think that anyone here is arguing *for* making qualifying to vote hard as hell.

But your statement of 'break[ing] down barriers to proving that status' is idiotic. Take your 'break down the barriers' to its endpoint of 'zero barriers' you have 'just fking fill out a form, come one come all and vote'. Is that what you are advocating?

I mean, if that is your stance, you are literally taking a piss on the right to vote for those who actually enjoy the right in favor of giving it away like candy.

Kind of goes hand in hand with the concept of open borders for some, mind you.

That's not my stance.

My stance is that if we want to pass voter ID laws so we can verify that only eligible voters are voting, and only voting once, they should be coupled with legislation that makes it as easy as possible for those eligible voters to obtain that proof.

My end goal is to make it as easy as possible for eligible voters to vote. What is your end goal?

"As easy as possible" cannot be effortless. A voter ID card with photo just requires a photo and a one page form of basic information, but your side is arguing that even that is too much to ask. Those who object to even the most simplistic form of ID are clearly arguing for the equivalent of no formal ID at all.

Acceptable forms of ID include passports and driver's licenses. You can't buy them at Wal-mart, and for good reason. "As easy as possible" isn't easy.

Most of the arguments I have seen from "my side," and what I have argued about, is the burdensome nature of going to the DMV to get the ID.

DMVs are not numerous, especially in rural areas, and they are typically only open during normal business hours. This can be arduous for people with limited mobility, living in rural areas, or with hourly jobs.

Ways to fix that include opening more DMV locations, implementing ID drives, where under-served areas are able to get official IDs at a specific location during extended hours, developing a way to apply for, and get, an ID remotely, and on, and on. I'm certain we can find creative solutions that allow for more secure elections AND increasing the number of people with the identification that many want.

I'm not arguing that we can get to a place where getting an ID is effortless - even voting requires some sort of effort. I am arguing that we recognize that there are ways to reduce the burdens put on people if we make voter ID a requirement.

I mean, why argue against this stance? Or do you just want to argue against what "my side" says, as opposed to engaging in what I, a real person, is saying?

The issue is that, no matter what efforts are made to provide easier access, the progressives will *always* trot out the Larry from Wisconsin sob story and its ilk. That is, along the implied charge of how horrible the racism is that one actually has the fing temerity to ask one who wants to vote to 'prove up' that they are who they are.

Yep, one page of basic info is *still* apparently too much to ask. The horrors!!!!! But it begets the ongoing 'Racism' saga, so I can absolutely understand why it will be an issue that will *never* be solved for one side.

I would lay dollars to donuts that if every state opened a DMV desk manned 23.7 hours/day, each desk no more than a mile from the next nearest one there still would be beers and tears stories (oh, and the implied racism charge.)

(01-22-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 02:09 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think that anyone here is arguing *for* making qualifying to vote hard as hell.

But your statement of 'break[ing] down barriers to proving that status' is idiotic. Take your 'break down the barriers' to its endpoint of 'zero barriers' you have 'just fking fill out a form, come one come all and vote'. Is that what you are advocating?

I mean, if that is your stance, you are literally taking a piss on the right to vote for those who actually enjoy the right in favor of giving it away like candy.

Kind of goes hand in hand with the concept of open borders for some, mind you.

That's not my stance.

My stance is that if we want to pass voter ID laws so we can verify that only eligible voters are voting, and only voting once, they should be coupled with legislation that makes it as easy as possible for those eligible voters to obtain that proof.

My end goal is to make it as easy as possible for eligible voters to vote. What is your end goal?

"As easy as possible" cannot be effortless. A voter ID card with photo just requires a photo and a one page form of basic information, but your side is arguing that even that is too much to ask. Those who object to even the most simplistic form of ID are clearly arguing for the equivalent of no formal ID at all.

Acceptable forms of ID include passports and driver's licenses. You can't buy them at Wal-mart, and for good reason. "As easy as possible" isn't easy.

Most of the arguments I have seen from "my side," and what I have argued about, is the burdensome nature of going to the DMV to get the ID.

DMVs are not numerous, especially in rural areas, and they are typically only open during normal business hours. This can be arduous for people with limited mobility, living in rural areas, or with hourly jobs.

Ways to fix that include opening more DMV locations, implementing ID drives, where under-served areas are able to get official IDs at a specific location during extended hours, developing a way to apply for, and get, an ID remotely, and on, and on. I'm certain we can find creative solutions that allow for more secure elections AND increasing the number of people with the identification that many want.

I'm not arguing that we can get to a place where getting an ID is effortless - even voting requires some sort of effort. I am arguing that we recognize that there are ways to reduce the burdens put on people if we make voter ID a requirement.

I mean, why argue against this stance? Or do you just want to argue against what "my side" says, as opposed to engaging in what I, a real person, is saying?

The bitterly-contested Texas voter ID law is considered to be one of the strictest in the nation. ID requirements are summarized here:
Texas Voter ID law

The law includes provisions for voting without photo ID if obtaining one would be overly burdensome, allows senior citizens to used expired forms of ID if the information on them is still correct, and various other concessions - and this is one of the stricter voter ID laws currently on the books.

Voting rights advocates fought it tooth-and-nail.

It's obvious to anyone not being deliberately obtuse, that what the opponents of this bill want is essentially the ability to vote without showing ID at all.

Serious question.

Who are these people who don’t have a valid government issued photo ID and how do they exist in today’s society? Seems like there is little you can do of import that does not require such an ID. Why should voting, probably the most important thing, be any different?

If an ID-less person needed an ID to say, access government assistance, do you think they couldn’t find a way/get assistance to get that ID or would they just say it’s not convenient or too much trouble? Seems if it is important enough, folks find a way.

And I understand I may get blasted as the “-ist”’of the day for asking this question, but my question is sincere. I’m trying to understand the concern.

(01-22-2020 12:47 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have had a DL for 60 years now. I have had to go to the DMV many times to renew. Never had to wait hours, not even AN hour. More like 15 minutes, max. But tell us, how long did you wait the last time you went?

I lost my DL a couple years ago (of course, I subsequently found it somewhere stupid). But when I thought it was lost, I had to go to the DMV twice (it was my bad, I had something incorrect in the paperwork I brought during my 1st visit). Both waits were easily more than 60 minutes.

There are 2 DMV locations in New Orleans, but New Orleans doesn't have great public transportation and getting to them on a city bus from some parts of town would take a long time. Can make it tough for people with disabilities or people who don't drive.

(01-22-2020 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think early voting periods pretty well take care of the weather thing. I just go on the first pretty day. I never wait for that November date.

That is nice, but early voting locations are not always convenient. There are only 4 early voting sites in New Orleans and none of them are particularly convenient for me, compared to my local precinct. That is fine for me as I could drive to them if I wanted to, but again, what about someone with disabilities or who doesn't drive?

If I have a handicap placard do I count as a person with disabilities? I have difficulty walking very far, but I can walk.

My sister doesn't drive. No problem. The political parties make sure all the people in the homes vote.

I think what you are really saying is, what about somebody with disabilities, no money, no friends, and who cannot get volunteers from community services and/or political parties to help them with every step of the process. What if they don't read, or live under a bridge, or ....whatever. What if they live in a cave?

Your solutions will not cover all the what-ifs. I think mine covers 99.9999999% of the people in the country.

I guess your New Orleans/Louisiana systems must be really inefficient. My guess is that the paperwork for a lost license is more at fault for the abnormally long waits. My visits have been for renewals. Walk in, get in line (if there is one), step up, take the eye test. I have not applied for a new license in 60 years. But I took three sons to get their first licenses, none of them took that long. Heck, the twins didn't take that long together.

Yes, voting locations are not always convenient. Maybe we need to have a voting location on every corner. Even then some would say they are too difficult to get to. Have walk a full block, and what if it is raining and the voter doesn't have an umbrella? What if, what if, what if.

For me, the early voting is convenient in both time and location. Early voting is done at one location in this county, at the county courthouse. About a 3 mile drive for me. Right in the middle of the post office, the tax office, the hospital, a day care, a bunch of banks, a bunch of other places lots of people go to often. Not a burden to drop in and vote. Usually takes about 15 minutes, including parking. But if I waited until election day, my polling location is about 12 miles out in the boondocks, down a winding two lane country road with no center stripe. Went there once, but that was because I let my time get away from me.

No bus service here, but we do have shuttles that take handicapped people to places they need to go. I presume a trip to the county courthouse or the DMV would not be out of line. What if the handicapped person was called as a defendant in a case? Case dismissed, too inconvenient?

I am well acquainted with rural areas, including West Texas. Used to have an office in Presidio. I live in one now. Your excuses for not registering to vote or not voting would be just as valid for not ever buying groceries or not ever seeing a dentist or never getting a haircut. Oh, those poor people - it is not convenient for them to go to town. They have to live their whole lives on the ranch.

I have known people who were shut in, people who are handicapped, people who don't drive. They want to do something, they find a way to get it done. If they don't care, it doesn't matter how easy you make it for them.

And where in the constitution does it say voting must be "convenient"? I bet it was very inconvenient in 1840. Walk to town, abandoning the farm in the middle of a workday - not convenient. But the people who cared about voting found a way.

The whole thing boils down to this: people who want to vote find a way. People who don't care, will just sit home and find excuses. It seems fishy to me the excuses the Democrats make up to make it easy for a person with no ID to vote. I am not swayed by your anecdotal evidence. I am swayed by personal experience and common sense. I have given reasonable solutions to the problems you find.

(01-22-2020 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would lay dollars to donuts that if every state opened a DMV desk manned 23.7 hours/day, each desk no more than a mile from the next nearest one there still would be beers and tears stories (oh, and the implied racism charge.)

I would take that bet in a heartbeat.

(01-22-2020 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Your excuses for not registering to vote or not voting would be just as valid for not ever buying groceries or not ever seeing a dentist or never getting a haircut. Oh, those poor people - it is not convenient for them to go to town. They have to live their whole lives on the ranch.

Voting is a right and privilege that has constitutional and statutory protections. Unlike buying groceries, seeing a dentist, and getting a haircut. So I'm OK with the government doing a little more to help people vote than it does for those other things. Incidentally, none of those other things requires a specific form of ID.

I'm honestly not even a huge anti-voter ID law person. My opinion is that it is a very small problem compared to some of the other voting and ballot access issues. I have a little sympathy for Larry from Wisconsin, don't get me wrong, but not a lot.

I don't think the government should be intentionally making it harder for citizens to vote but I agree that overall voter ID laws affect very few voters, especially when there are provisional ballots and free ID cards available.

(01-22-2020 05:41 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Your excuses for not registering to vote or not voting would be just as valid for not ever buying groceries or not ever seeing a dentist or never getting a haircut. Oh, those poor people - it is not convenient for them to go to town. They have to live their whole lives on the ranch.

Voting is a right and privilege that has constitutional and statutory protections. Unlike buying groceries, seeing a dentist, and getting a haircut. So I'm OK with the government doing a little more to help people vote than it does for those other things. Incidentally, none of those other things requires a specific form of ID.

I'm honestly not even a huge anti-voter ID law person. My opinion is that it is a very small problem compared to some of the other voting and ballot access issues. I have a little sympathy for Larry from Wisconsin, don't get me wrong, but not a lot.

I don't think the government should be intentionally making it harder for citizens to vote but I agree that overall voter ID laws affect very few voters, especially when there are provisional ballots and free ID cards available.

Funny, so is the right to keep and bear arms. What other "rights" in the Constitution make it to the 'Big is strident about' as opposed to those that are glossed over?

(01-22-2020 05:30 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would lay dollars to donuts that if every state opened a DMV desk manned 23.7 hours/day, each desk no more than a mile from the next nearest one there still would be beers and tears stories (oh, and the implied racism charge.)

I would take that bet in a heartbeat.

Don't bet what you cannot afford to lose.