It was remarkably little trouble. There was no line. I'm hoping that means we have enough polling stations in the area (or that most potential voters are at work or school at this hour) rather than that no one is bothering
( Read more... )
except the impression you have is wrong...it isn't from the idea of people staying in one place, but because in the US south, after blacks were granted the right to vote, they were frequently disenfranchised as a result of not having 'enough ID', or 'the right ID', or *any* ID at times... Even now, that's a standard way of discouraging voters; to stand around the line (until told to leave) at the polling place and tell people that they need 2 pieces of id, or it has to be a driver's license and nothing else is acceptable, yadda yadda. It wasn't until MLK and his organization made a huge effort in registration drives in the south that that started to be turned against the people who chose that way of harassment (live in Atlanta long enough and the amount of knowledge one has about MLK and black rights in the south seeps into your brain).
It does seem as though an ID requirement could be handled honestly--PA seems alright. A wide range of IDs (only required for new registrants) are acceptable: just about any picture ID or rent receipt or utility bill and probably some I've forgotten.
Leaving too much room for fraud strikes me as almost as bad as intimidating voters.
In theory, requiring voters to be able to read and write could be handled honestly.
In the United States, in living memory, it was so consistently and deliberately used for undemocratic purposes that it's hard to believe that it wouldn't be used that way again (and the Constitution was amended to ban literacy requirements for voting).
The identification method New York uses is simple: they have a copy of each voter's signature, and you have to sign in when you vote. (I don't know what they use for illiterates.)
Just got back from voting, and I was encouraged to hear that there was a record turnout in just the first few hours. And they're expecting another rush towards the end of the work day. I didn't get asked for ID, but then, who would make up a last name like mine? *grinz* We still have the punch cards here, but unlike Fla. there's never been a problem. Seems to work quite well, I checked for hanging chads and it was all clean. All the choices on one side, one office per page, flip through the book, punch the card, off you go. Easy. *shrugs* I guess there's no way to completely idiot proof life tho, let alone elections.
Translation: "Where are your papers?" This is a libertarian speaking?
I live in a suburban precinct and know most of the people who work my polling place, so I've never actually been asked for ID. I disapprove of ID on principle for anything less than access to nuclear facilities. I don't even approve of photos on operators' permits (they are not not not "licenses" dammit!); I hate the way social security #s are rapidly being required for every financial Xaction larger than $1.98; and if they ever actually manage to push through this "National ID" thing I will either emigrate, assassinate Larry Ellison, or both.
Oy. Sorry, Nancy. I'll calm down now. It's the stress of having to vote for a schmuck as the only alternative to a ****head.
I'm also in a suburban precinct; I've voted many times and only once knew a poll worker by sight. Generally I agree that there's too much IDing, but elections seem like a good case for it. (Requiring verifiable voting machines has got to be more important, though.)
My libertarianism has occasional slippage. I'm not sure whether this is a problem.
The NY solution of requiring a duplicate signature is probably good enough. I'm a calligrapher, and I'm betting it would take me at least a couple of hours, maybe a good bit more, to learn to do a good fast copy of a signature from memory. I suspect that the vast majority of people couldn't do it at all.
I had to sign in at the poll, but I can't remember whether there was a photocopy of my signature there.
Imho, all voters *should* be asked for ID. My impression is that the default of no ID is based in the idea that people live in the same place long enough that they'd be known to the poll workers.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's based in the idea that Americans aren't traditionally required to carry IDs. Some of us like it that way.
I got out and voted. I urged everyone I knew to go and vote. I asked everyone I knew if they were going to the polls. I didn't ask anyone I knew who they were voting for. One thing to promote voting, another to ask about politics.
Never discuss race, relition or politics. You might find out someone thinks differently than you do. I really don't feel like justifying my position to someone who can't listen to a difference of opinion and be reasonable.
Comments 9
except the impression you have is wrong...it isn't from the idea of people staying in one place, but because in the US south, after blacks were granted the right to vote, they were frequently disenfranchised as a result of not having 'enough ID', or 'the right ID', or *any* ID at times... Even now, that's a standard way of discouraging voters; to stand around the line (until told to leave) at the polling place and tell people that they need 2 pieces of id, or it has to be a driver's license and nothing else is acceptable, yadda yadda. It wasn't until MLK and his organization made a huge effort in registration drives in the south that that started to be turned against the people who chose that way of harassment (live in Atlanta long enough and the amount of knowledge one has about MLK and black rights in the south seeps into your brain).
Reply
It does seem as though an ID requirement could be handled honestly--PA seems alright. A wide range of IDs (only required for new registrants) are acceptable: just about any picture ID or rent receipt or utility bill and probably some I've forgotten.
Leaving too much room for fraud strikes me as almost as bad as intimidating voters.
Reply
In theory, requiring voters to be able to read and write could be handled honestly.
In the United States, in living memory, it was so consistently and deliberately used for undemocratic purposes that it's hard to believe that it wouldn't be used that way again (and the Constitution was amended to ban literacy requirements for voting).
The identification method New York uses is simple: they have a copy of each voter's signature, and you have to sign in when you vote. (I don't know what they use for illiterates.)
Reply
Reply
Translation: "Where are your papers?" This is a libertarian speaking?
I live in a suburban precinct and know most of the people who work my polling place, so I've never actually been asked for ID. I disapprove of ID on principle for anything less than access to nuclear facilities. I don't even approve of photos on operators' permits (they are not not not "licenses" dammit!); I hate the way social security #s are rapidly being required for every financial Xaction larger than $1.98; and if they ever actually manage to push through this "National ID" thing I will either emigrate, assassinate Larry Ellison, or both.
Oy. Sorry, Nancy. I'll calm down now. It's the stress of having to vote for a schmuck as the only alternative to a ****head.
Reply
Reply
The NY solution of requiring a duplicate signature is probably good enough. I'm a calligrapher, and I'm betting it would take me at least a couple of hours, maybe a good bit more, to learn to do a good fast copy of a signature from memory. I suspect that the vast majority of people couldn't do it at all.
I had to sign in at the poll, but I can't remember whether there was a photocopy of my signature there.
Reply
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's based in the idea that Americans aren't traditionally required to carry IDs. Some of us like it that way.
Reply
Never discuss race, relition or politics. You might find out someone thinks differently than you do. I really don't feel like justifying my position to someone who can't listen to a difference of opinion and be reasonable.
KG
Reply
Leave a comment