I just recently heard of Obama's position you're referring to, and I had a different interpretation.
"Rigged" means a coordinated and malicious manipulation - this is something that before Trump no one had claimed (the GOP or otherwise). "Flawed", or even "fraud", is more subtle - for example, an electoral administrator miscounting votes due to strange patriotism, lack of training, indifference, or excessive partisanship.
I saw Obama's point as being rooted in "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence", and that actually rigging the election in the US (and getting away with it) is a lot more complex than it seems on surface. Sort of like faking the moon landing.
>"Rigged" means a coordinated and malicious manipulation - this is something that before Trump no one had claimed (the GOP or otherwise).
There were (and still are) wide spread claims that Republicans outright stole the results of the 2004 election in Ohio, going all the way to John Kerry himself.
Refusing to accept election losses has been a hallmark of Democrats in the last 20 years. They refuse to accept the 2000 election, said that Republicans stole the state of OH in 2004, and even now claim that the current Republican majorities in both the House and Senate are the result of "gerrymandering."
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING: We are on Hacker News where we should care about data.
Show some kind of data of this happening in a national campaign in America???? Show one election at a state or national level where this has happened. Also show how this happens? The only place this would even matter for President is in swing states. Show data and process then we can talk.
Right now your doing the best North Korean Propaganda ever and undercutting democracy with no data to show anything is rigged.
I prefer democracy and don't prefer a dictator. Why is it okay to destroy the American system to make it great again?
> Show some kind of data of this happening in a national campaign in America???? Show one election at a state or national level where this has happened.
There are no such examples. Voter fraud and election rigging is not an issue in the United States.
This is when people care about elections. Right now pretty much everybody, even non-Americans, is desperate for something sane to happen. Everyone is saying to themselves right now "surely there is a better way..."
This is the perfect time for a name like Harvard to say "yes, there is a better way, here it is..."
Similarly a lot of people are desperate for something insane to happen, particularly the media. The whole Trump spectacle has been an ad driving frenzy.
This is the wrong time to propose anything reasonable. We can't even get a hearing on a Supreme Court nomination.
Now is a time to be endured with some embarrassment until things quiet down. That'll be at least a year or two.
Unfortunately, the ones that have to decide whether to implement the suggestions in this report, are the same people that were put into power by the failing mechanisms behind the US' election system. Their hands are tied by the powerful lobbies that have sponsored their campaigns.
Would it not be possible to start gradually? I am just speculating a plan here, but start by implementing some of these suggestions that can be applied on a state level in some minor states first. It may be easier to lobby those local politicians for a change of rule.
A successful 'trial' (one might even be able to convince them by saying it's going to be a trial at first) might convince other state politicians and/or people elsewhere to implement similar systems in their own state.
Disclaimer: I am Danish and Denmark apparently ranks top in their PEI index.
I think that's a big part of what needs to happen. Make these changes at the state and local level, and eventually we might see some diversity at those levels. Then we'll be able to have a conversation on the national level. Like the original comment here says, Democrats and Republicans have no incentive to push for this because they benefit from the First-Past-the-Post voting we currently have.
Sure, you want to come over and be the one to tell one of the states that they are "minor"?
Joking aside...
understand that we don't actually have a national election system, or even a state one. Each one of the United States 3,142 counties runs an mostly independent election managed by an elected county election commissioner. Tallies for higher elections are reported upward from there. In some states there may be some unification as far as selecting common voting hardware across the state but in most places, even that is at the discretion of the county. So, to your original question, The federal government simply does not have the power to choose a "minor" state to run a trial in.
Their hands are tied by the powerful lobbies that have sponsored their campaigns.
You really think that, say, the pharma industry's lobbyists are going to invest resources in opposing, say, reform of gerrymandering, or of alternative voting systems?
I'd say it's a LOT more likely that the obstacle is the politicians themselves, because the emergent behavior of the status quo is that it insulates incumbents from competition.
Against: O'Keefe is not a perfect journalist, as agenda-driven as anyone anywhere
For: These people were on the payroll, fired right after it happened, and Bob Creamer met with Obama 300 times. https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald has done a great job "following the money" even if they are massively biased.
My vote is still up for grabs (tonight's debate might settle it), but a YUGE part of me does want to see an impartial investigation. The kind we won't get with Comey/Clinton/Lynch.
Side note - very good PR of them to drop the video right after Obama criticized Trump for his rigging claims.
The third debate most likely :). I have them at 1-1 so the winner of this debate will have won twice as many debates as the other. Small sample size I know.
If he is idiotic and has all of his points torn apart, I will have a hard time pulling the lever for him. Intelligence matters.
But if he wins, and then will have won 2 out of 3 debates against a person who spent a month home prepping for them and avoiding the people of this country, that would be very compelling.
It all depends on him making a full heel-face-turn for tonight's rubbermatch.
I completely don't agree with your "question redistricting". I'm voting for a person not a party.
For example, 3 is solidly not Hillary. Speakers she had at the DNC, tweets after Dallas shooting, on and on.
Trump is 100% pro-lgbt and has never been a christian, so 14 isn't him.
Trump also is for legalizing medicinal and letting states determine recreational, so 7 is him, not her (have a strong sense from things she's written that she won't legalize).
And the ones you earmarked as toss-ups etc are more him. They also are VERY important to ME, so not the non-issues you paint them as.
I was unaware of point 12. Trump is the only major party candidate in my lifetime who might actually do something as awesome as #12. I am still leaning towards a third-party candidate, but that does complicate my dislike for Trump. Thank you for sharing that.
It's doesn't matter above/beyond all issues, otherwise I'd be writing in Cruz, who I agree with on 3% of the issues.
If Trump had 10 or more extra IQ points, he would be an easier sell to me. I do feel his ridiculous energy levels might compensate for this and then some, not sure though.
I am amazed by the aggressiveness from both sides this time around.
People aren't even talking to each other anymore or listening. No one seems to want to find out why someone would pick a certain candidate over the other. Very sad and scary.
It's difficult when one side has a clear disinterest in using facts to back up their arguments. See evgen's comment in this thread for an immediate example. How do you have a reasonable discussion with someone whose standard of evidence for truth is conspiracy theory Youtube videos and right-wing conspiracy theory websites?
Presumably the same way as you have a reasonable discussion with someone whose standard of evidence is an unheard-of dating website that claims to be a UN member which is being conspired against by the UN, and who thinks anyone who finds this fishy is an evil Nazi rape supporter.
That was my general reaction too, followed by wondering if I should start backing away slowly - this was an actual situation I got an unexpected view of yesterday as a result of a whole bunch of Clinton supporters latching onto some dubious claims and refusing to let go, no-one on that side being willing to challenge it, and their claims spilling over slightly into the HN comments. This election is pretty well post-truth.
AFAICT, the one who brought up the Project Veritas was a European who is not very likely to fall cleanly into one "side" or another of our politics.
It seemed to me to be a legitimate question for an outsider to ask: these videos seem to be showing evidence of voter fraud, so how do American liberals defend their opposition to voter ID? Whether this is a credible source or not is one thing, but the guy who brought them up seemed to be making a good-faith attempt at fact-based reasoning and understanding. In any case, he clearly is not in any way representative of the side you seem to be referring to (American conservatives).
I mostly consider myself a liberal, but this cycle I see BOTH sides almost entirely divesting themselves of facts. For Trumpites, this takes the form of making up random shit, and for liberals, this takes the form of screaming racist/homophobic/xenophobic/Islamophobic at the slightest provocation, even when there's no necessary logical connection to make that claim. For instance, the idea that anyone who wants proper borders and citizenship procedures to be followed must be a racist. Not only is it illogical, that kind of name-calling directly contributes to Trump's success by making "normal" people in "flyover country" feel like they have nowhere else to go.
In short, it is not really constructive or true to pretend like all the facts are on one side and all the problems are on the other.
I understand your point, but please don't equate a poor kneejerk reaction from citizens with "making up random shit" by elected officials. They are not equivalent and "both sides are equally bad!" is bullshit.
I'm not saying both sides' arguments have equal merit. The problem I'm talking about is that we don't hear the arguments, facts, and logic anymore, from either side. Just name-calling and vitriol, for the most part.
I am not just talking about the actions of "some Democrats" here. It's more than just some, but HRC herself is not at all innocent of inciting racial and gender-based tension for her own political gain. I can provide numerous examples if you need them.
I think the Democrats would win on the merits on most issues, but neither they nor their opponents are even discussing the issues anymore.
As for the question of "who is worse" on non-factual issues, like the many despicable antics of Trump versus the hypocrisies and distortions of HRC, it's not a question I'm interested in or a game I wish to play. It seems to me that partisans on both sides will conclude the other side is worse, and there is no available standard for resolving it.
I agree. I had a conversation last night trying to remember if any other time in recent history was this bad. GWB was compared to Hitler quite a lot on the fringe and MSNBC, and Obama had the whole muslim/birther thing on the other fringe and FOX, but on whole most people were pretty level headed.
I wonder if social media, where you gain followers with extreme comments, has led to this? My FB feed is story after story of either Trump will launch nukes his first day in office or the terrorist will take out the US on Clintons first day. The hyperbole just drowns out any rational argument.
> People aren't even talking to each other anymore or listening.
In fairness to "people," a perfectly open minded person could have lost patience with "This Clinton scandal will totally blow your mind!" way back in the nineties. If you've been carefully parsing the soundness of every manufactured Clinton scandal since the early nineties, I feel for you.
Having "lost patience" isn't being "a perfectly open-minded person", especially in light of the wikileaks etc. The media collusion, the FBI info, Combetta/Stonetear, the obvious health issues, etc.
The main issue is whether or not you believe that's business as usual. And it might be, I'm not discounting that.
> Having "lost patience" isn't being "a perfectly open-minded person"
Having lost patience is a function of applying heuristics to the never-ending, time-consuming task of evaluating information. I'd say open-mindedness refers more to an outlook, a goal or an attitude. They're not mutually exclusive. I get that the language is imprecise.
A person who simply dismissed every incoming datum which fell into the "This Clinton scandal will totally blow your mind!" category would have been right very close to 100% of the time, which is a pretty good heuristic. If need be, that same person can simply wait for the evidence to mount and then alter their opinion.
I have pity for anyone who really feels obligated to separate the wheat from the chaff (in the interest of open-mindedness!) when it comes to every outraged Clinton news item.
There seems to be a bimodal distribution occurring.
In previous election cycles, I've been party to some passionate discussions. This time around, it seems that there are a bunch of people shouting vitriol, but there also some who are making an effort to be dispassionate and rational, even more so than in past elections.
So in elections past, there would always be moderately vigorous disagreement, now we have either really nasty stuff, or people honestly trying to understand each other.
That latter group is promising. On the other hand, does it portend a two-tier electorate, one that's really trying to do democracy, and the other (larger) group just shouting populist shibboleth?
Start with http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-vi... and go from there regarding the validity of these videos. tl;dr is that the 'reporter' in this case has a history of making misleading videos by collecting out of context quotes and then splicing in different video segments that make these out of context ones seem sinister.
Given that people have already been fired/quit and others are distancing there must be some truth to these videos. Is there any link attacking the validity of the video itself and not the source?
There does not have to be truth for people to decide to fall upon their swords to avoid any suggestion of a scandal. Given how apparently gullible people are the simple fact is that whether it is true or not does not matter, nor does the actual context in which the conversations occurred. If you worked for a campaign and I had a bar conversation with you about how voting fraud might happen and then only saved/broadcasted the part after your initial "we do everything we can to prevent it, but if you were to ask me how it could happen given existing safeguards then..." bit of the conversation then I would expect to read about you getting fired or quitting the next day as well.
To examine the validity of the video we would actually need all of it, but that is not the point for O'Keefe. His goal is to maintain his street cred with the trumpistas and ratfucking part of the community that might keep paying him after having fallen so far with his last few failed attempts. Given the source and this source's history of manipulating videotaped conversations on multiple occasions to create a narrative that does not match what actually happened, it is smarter to start assuming the videos are a lie and asking for proof that this is not another case of misleading edits. Show me the whole tape or I will assume O'Keefe is telling lies again.
On July 19, 2010, Shirley Sherrod was fired from her appointed position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture.[1][2] Her firing was an administration reaction to media reports on video excerpts from her address to an event of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in March 2010 and commentary posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart on his website.[3] Based on these excerpts, the NAACP condemned Sherrod's remarks as racist and U.S. government officials called on the official to resign. But, after a longer version of her address was reviewed and her remarks were understood to be about the importance of overcoming personal prejudices, the NAACP and White House officials apologized. In addition, United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack apologized for the firing and offered Sherrod a new position.
I read that Snopes article this morning, and the thing is, those criticisms don't apply to this new PVA video. Especially so in the second part that was released today, the clips are not at all edited together or taken out of context. Scott Foval essentially has an extended conversation with the undercover reporter in which he lays bare the criminal conspiracy that his organization is attempting to concoct.
The clips are edited together, though. That was my first thought when watching the video. There are a lot of cuts. I get that it might just be for time, to show only the most relevant stuff. But it may also be to make it look worse than it is. Without the full conversation, we can't know.
I thought that about part I, that maybe some of the really terrible lines ("I've payed mentally ill homeless people to do some crazy shit!" or whatever) could be jokes taken out of context, but part II released today is less cobbled together. I don't see how there can be any doubt about the criminal intentions that Scott Foval and Bob Creamer had, and their respective firing and resignation are further evidence of that.
If PV wanted their stuff taken seriously at this point, they would always offer full videos for actual journalists to review and edit. They could license the content and amplify the impact of their work. Instead, they do a hack job to fit their purpose.
None of this is really new, it's just proof is finally coming out. The problem is Trump is so dislikable that it shadows how dislikable Clinton is herself. If the GOP had put forward anyone else other than Trump (and maybe Cruz), this would not even be a race. I'm baffled by people who enthusiastically support either of these two.
Personally I enthusiastically support Clinton because she has inclusionary policies - for a country with such a terrible (and continuing) history of exclusion, it's the right step forward.
I believe she said "half of his supporters" were in that basket and then -specifically- stated that the other half "are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." Sounds inclusionary to me.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ - I'd say at least half of those are "inclusionary". Definitely the first 8 if you want to pick up on specific ones.
He is obviously pro-Trump (me too btw), but there seem to be proven links between some of the people shown in the videos and HRC's campaign.
Notably Zulema Rodriguez who bragged that she took part in inciting the Chicago protest has received payments from the Clinton campaign a few days before the protests (listed on the FEC website - link: https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transactio... )
What's also interesting is that most people shown in the videos are contributors to Huffington Post and some of them switch between sometimes being a contributor and sometimes being mentioned as "activist" with a fake name. Aaron Black wrote one article as a Catholic priest and another one as a gay man suffering from AIDS. (I get the impression that Huffington Post and really most of the media just makes up stories or that they are being played)
> deepening party polarization over electoral procedures, the vulnerability of electronic records to hacking, and the impact of deregulating campaign spending, compounding the lack of professional standards of electoral management.
All of these things people have rightly been complaining about for years. It would be good to get some recognition of them.
> Section 4 considers pragmatic reforms designed to strengthen U.S. electoral laws and procedures, recommending expanding secure and convenient registration and balloting facilities, [...] and strengthening impartial dispute resolution mechanisms.
.. but here we hit the problem: too many Americans no longer really believe in "impartiality". This is the guiding theme of the Trump campaign, that anyone who disagrees with them is a lying partisan.
Not to mention that the Republican party have spent years working against "convenient registration", instead preferring partisan disenfranchisement through voter ID and similar measures.
>> .. but here we hit the problem: too many Americans no longer really believe in "impartiality". This is the guiding theme of the Trump campaign, that anyone who disagrees with them is a lying partisan.
These two sentences put together are just a perfect gem.
As a European I don't understand how requiring an ID to vote is disenfranchising voters? It just stinks of voter fraud, and in light of the latest Project Veritas videos I can only conclude that the establishment parties and democrats in this case are engaged in massive electoral fraud and fight these initiatives not on principle but to maintain mechanisms by which they can influence the result.
It's just weird, especially since the US has been very vocal in judging others with regards to their electoral processes. Pot calling the kettle black it seems.
If you believe the project veritas videos you should look harder at the source and his history of creating misleading videos. The problem is that in the US it is quite possible to get along just fine without a government-issued ID; mandating such ID can be considered a barrier to voting since it is actually inconvenient to get such an ID in the first place. Your assumption that there is massive electoral fraud in the US is simply incorrect and in fact there is far more voter fraud across Europe than there is in the US. Most voting in the US occurs in-person, and in such cases voter fraud is incredibly rare (as in less than 100 known cases over billions of ballots cast.)
You mean, if I believe my own eyes and ears rather than someone insulting me on the internet? You're funny.
If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. Civic responsibility is not an inconvenience, it's what keeps civilization running. Taking a few moments out of your daily routine to be informed and choose your government is the least one should expect.
If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all.
And when those people without IDs happen to be poor and minority voters, so much the better, right? Getting a government ID is not 'taking a few moments out of your daily routine', or we would not be having this conversation. How about you ask an American how fast and easy it is for them to just waltz in the the DMV and walk out a few minutes later with their shiny new ID card. State IDs are done by the same agency, and a lot of those poor people have one or two jobs they are working where taking an entire day to get an ID could cost them serious money or their job itself.
I think in the US you have to have an ID to get a job. Last time I looked at an I-9, it required 1) proof of citizenship or right to work (GC); 2) proof of identity.
If you take a look at the actual documents which are required for an I-9, they are a lot more flexible than what are required by most of the voter ID laws the courts are throwing out left and right. The proof of citizenship can be a birth certificate or a social security card, while the proof of identity can be a school ID, a local government ID card or a military ID. If you started your job before 1986 you never needed to provide the information, nor would you if you were a retiree or on disability.
You're repeatedly making the argument that requirements to obtain ID are too onerous. Perhaps what's broken is the process for getting that ID. Let's look for ways to streamline that process so that it's less of a burden.
The popular idea is that "it's your responsibility to vote", and that we should get as many people as possible to do so.
Thank god Mike Rowe, somewhat of an opinion leader, is showing how dumb that is. For democracy to work, we need educated, we'll-informed voters. If you're voting on a whim, without having invested the time necessary to understand the issues thoroughly, then you're part of the problem.
If voter ID restrictions serve to weed out people who aren't willing to make an investment in being a good voter, then I'm all in favor of it.
Given the fact that numerous voter ID laws have been invalidated over the past year due to blatant attempts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters (c.f. North Carolina, Texas, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc) I wonder if your objection is really about being a 'good' voter.
No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here. It was suggested that someone who cannot obtain a voter ID that meets the requirements in many states is somehow now a 'good voter'. It has been shown repeatedly over the past few months that the objective, and consequence, of most of these voter ID laws has been to drive down voting by poor and minority voters. The logical conclusion seems to be that poor and minority voters, who have difficulty obtaining these voter IDs, must not be 'good voter(s)' and perhaps should be 'weed(ed) out' of the voting pool. The question of motive is right there staring us in the face.
No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here
Not at all. I told you what my reasoning was, and you decided that I was lying. That doesn't seem to be arguing in good faith.
It may be true that there's a differential in the impact of the rules. But (a) that doesn't mean that rules were secretly crafted for that reason, or (b) that I wouldn't feel the same way about rules having a differential that affected the more affluent to a greater degree.
Assuming evil intent on the part of your opponent is a sure-fire way to ensure that you can never reach any common ground.
When several voter ID laws have been shown to be explicitly about disenfranchisement based upon race and poverty (c.f. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...) I don't really need to accept your claim of good faith on this issue. You claimed that acquisition of a voter ID is some necessary demonstration of being well-informed or willing to make an investment when in fact the rules WERE crafted specifically to disenfranchise minority voters. Until you address this issue directly there is no common ground to be found and I will happily continue to beat you in court and at the ballot box.
- if someone shows up to vote and doesn't have an ID, take their photo
At least with the third option, you don't require that people spend TWO days (one to get the ID, one to vote) but only ONE day (show up to vote, get picture taken), and it would eliminate the "voter fraud" that may or may not exist
This is too true. While I think that ID should be free and required for voting, I am concerned that either of the two parties will exploit it for their own advantage.
(I support ID in theory because another form of disenfranchisement is dilution of voting power; if someone is able to vote twice, that reduces the power of people who vote once. Not sure I support it in practice).
> A 2009 study found that 84.2% of white registered voters in Indiana had access to photo ID to comply with that state's ID law, as compared to 78% of black voters on the rolls there
Getting an ID takes time and money. To get such an ID, you have to go through institutions like the DMV which do not have convenient opening hours or are in inconvenient locations.
Many people, especially poor people, cannot afford to take the time to jump through the hoops to get an ID - and this is explicitly intended by those who write such voter ID laws. There have been several instances where conversations were leaked that revealed the purpose behind voter ID laws being not fraud prevention (which is overkill anyway) but keeping Democrat-leaning groups from voting.
Then again, your main source is Project Veritas, which despite the name is spearheaded by convicted fraudster James O'Keefe. His MO is to lie and deceive to advance his ultra-conservative cause, so anything that comes from him is to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.
Of course, even he might stumble upon something real, but so far his videos have always been edited to show what he wants, instead of reality.
I don't understand. ID is something everyone needs over there, no? Elections are after every 4 yours, people really can't take time to fix this problem?
I'm euro but with the whole id thing I agree with Republicand. This whole system screams FRAUD.
Not really, in many cases. And no, a LOT of people can't afford to take time off in the US. Their employment systems really are that fucked up in certain cases. Plus, not all IDs are valid for voting!
Hell, it's a hassle here in Switzerland to get your ID renewed. We don't need it to vote, though.
Sorry, but that's a stupid excuse. Getting an ID takes time everywhere. For how long are they valid? If you use that excuse, Americans don't have time for a lot of things. Getting an ID should be a priority. It's common sense.
I don't understand Americans. One side thinks Earth is 6000 years old and other think that having ID to vote is racist. What is this bullshit?
It doesn't take the same amount of time everywhere though. It took me almost an hour last time I did it because the trip was 10 minutes each way plus waiting plus the actual procedure. That's in Switzerland, and if it were this efficient in the US, it would be a bad excuse.
However, with all the bullshit requirements (often introduced specifically to make it harder for people to get ID), overworked agencies and much greater distances involved in the US, the same process easily takes multiple hours - in a good case!
Taking a day off is seriously not possible for many people in the US.
And voter ID in principle isn't racist. In practice, though, it is:
"With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans." and
"The bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess."
are direct quotes from a federal court striking down voter ID laws in North Carolina.
That's intentional and that's why voter ID is treated as a racist idea.
To get your first ID in my state, you need to provide proof of signature, birthdate, social security number and residency.
The closest government office to me is a 15 min drive, 30 min bus ride, or a hour and a half walk.
The wait varies but I would say an hour minimum from my experience. The fee is between 10 and 20 dollars depending on your age.
All of these offices are only open during regular business hours(8 to 5:30 Monday through Friday. Closed on weekends).
Getting my first ID was a four hour and a half hour affair. I was lucky enough that my dad was able to take off work and also drive me. A quarter of my time was spent at the bank getting my Social security card out of my safety deposit box(we tried to use a photo copy but they only accept the actual card).
Renewing a license is easier because you just need the expired license, but my last renewal took 2 hours.
The process sucks and I imagine it sucks even more if you don't have a car or have a job that is m-f 9-5(or can't easily take a day off)
No, for many people they would never need an ID until it came time to vote. The problem with most of these newly enacted voter ID laws are the additional restrictions on what type of ID is permitted, and the extra burden on getting said forms of ID. It's not so much the requirement of having proof of identification, as 31 states have had such laws for years.
For example, in some states, I would no longer be able to use my government-issued military ID -- which arguably has stricter requirements for obtaining than a driver's license. A lot of these new laws weren't enacted to reduce fraud (which isn't even that prevalent), but to make it harder for certain classes of voters to exercise their right to vote.
I live 75km from the biggest city. After every 4 years I need to fill a form I want a new ID. Wait. Then go and pick up new ID. Spending time the government building, as we all know bureaucracy is slow. I don't have a driving licence and don't drive. My friend helps me or I take a bus. This allows me to vote and do other necessary things where I have to identify myself and travel.
How is the system different in America? What are the problems? How many years does it take for the ID to expire?
I've heard this, but Indiana's voter ID law went to the Supreme Court [0]. The plaintiffs were unable to find a single case of someone who was unable to obtain an ID as a result of the law. Further, it was possible to vote early (up to 30 days before the election) by filling out a ballot at city hall -- so you didn't even need to go on the official election day.
It seems that if the ID is provided free of charge, then it does not burden the individual any more than normal voting does.
Individuals most likely not to have the required ID are poor, and while the ID itself may be free of charge, the burden of obtaining it is not. Once you factor in time waiting, traveling and lost wages (many people don't have paid leave in the U.S.), that ID may very well cost them $75 - $400. For those living pay check to pay check, that may be a considerable amount of money. That's not necessarily the same burden as taking time off to vote, as most individuals won't need to, as their polls open early or after working hours unlike a DMV. Most states also have time off to vote laws, and some even require that it's paid time off.
Let's say you want to obtain a voter ID in South Carolina, for example, because you have no other photo ID. You'll need to present a birth certificate. What, can't find yours? Good luck, you'll need a photo ID to obtain a new copy of that birth certificate.
Perhaps you are an 18-year old high schooler in Alabama eligible to vote for the first time. You don't have a driver's license, because you can't afford a car and don't drive. Your closest DMV is 40 miles away and only open one day out of the week. There's no public transportation, so you'll have to coordinate a ride with someone who can take you on a day the DMV is open. Previously, this voter would be able to show up to their polling site on the day of the election with a bank statement and vote.
It would be one thing if voter fraud was prevalent and all these new measures needed enacted, but there isn't. The rate of fraud in U.S. elections is close to zero. Instead, they're yet another set of hurdles voters, particularly minorities and the poor, face when asserting their right to vote.
And since that time there have been numerous examples of legislative disenfranchisement via restrictive voter ID laws. You really have a hard-on for this one case, as though it somehow makes all forms of voter ID laws somehow magically valid. Law doesn't work that way, and the specifics of how this was implemented in Indiana vs the many other states which have tried even more restrictive forms of voter id and been slapped back by the courts should be a clue to you that this area is far from settled.
These are not hypotheticals, there are specific examples of legislators being caught on the record trying to craft voter ID laws such that they had the greatest effect upon poor and minority voters. We are still waiting on your to address these issues instead of repeatedly posting a link to this one case that happened to be the trigger for all of these laws that have now been found to be illegal.
Also, why is it important who is doing the journalism to uncover the fraud? Sure, I don't have to agree with their interpretation, but I can plainly see and hear what was said.
Organization of payed protesters to disrupt a political opponent and lay blame on another political opponent. Massive voter fraud by way of out-of-state voters.
I don't doubt for a second that the other side is doing very similar things. The problem is this election both sides seem to be united to stop the outsider, which should make people think.
Okay, so... your first mistake was watching the Project Veritas videos, and your second mistake was believing them.
In the US, there is no federally-issued photo ID. The most common ID is a state-issued driver's license, but not everyone is licensed to drive. States can issue photo ID cards which can be used in voting, but not everyone has one, they cost money, and can be difficult to obtain.
I live in North Carolina. Our voter ID law was recently struck down by a federal court as being clearly intended to disenfranchise minority voters. Here's an explanation:
There's only one type of vote fraud that voter ID laws have a hope of defending against, which is in-person voter impersonation. In-person voter impersonation statistically doesn't happen in the U.S, and there's a reason.
In-person voter impersonation is just about the least efficient and highest risk way to manipulate an election. You would need to physically go to a polling station, impersonate a registered voter, hope nobody recognizes you as not that person, cast a vote, hope that person doesn't actually show up later to vote, and then travel to another polling station to do it again. And also hope nobody just notices that you voted at both places, a real concern in this age of ubiquitous cameras. You have something like 18 hours at most to do this, so with optimistic assumptions, an individual could vote maybe 36 times at a high risk of getting caught.
Even something like absentee ballot fraud is more efficient and less risky. However, absentee ballot fraud is still less efficient than gray and even positive/legal uses of your time.
Gray methods would mostly include voter suppression in districts that don't favor your outcome. The town I grew up in made national news this last primary for having a massive traffic snarl and long lines around its single polling station, after closing the second one for budgetary reasons. People were giving up after waiting multiple hours to vote. There may not be anything illicit there (certainly nothing provable), but you can see how that might be done "accidentally".
Positive and legal methods would mostly include things like voter registration drives, phone work to remind and encourage people to vote, and even physically transporting people to the polls.
I'm really interested in how you came to these conclusions as it seems you have trivialized the basic cognitive ability of the people who might engage in these acts.
> In-person voter impersonation is just about the least efficient and highest risk way to manipulate an election.
That is incorrect, as it is done in almost every election for the last 2 decades (iirc). I remember multiple stories about democratic fraud from as far back as 1994 (I usually vote democrat). "Hope nobody recognizes you" is not a concern across county lines, much less state lines. Did you even take a moment to read up on how it HAS been done? Republicans are much bigger on the absentee fraud. It's also very effective (and cost effective).
Since nothing much has been done in the past 20 years, I don't expect anything to change when you inevitably find people on camera.
So, one source out of the first random 3 that duckduckgo gave me considers in-person voter impersonation to be a substantial problem. It cites a Heritage Foundation report containing "Nearly 300" cases. This is less than the 537 votes by which Bush defeated Gore in Florida, and spread across 50 states and more than 30 years, but it's possible that each of these instances could include many fraudulent votes. The report is linked, though, so we can just break it down. The instances citing impersonation are:
Shasta Nicole Crayton, Alabama, 2004, impersonated one person and was caught by one of the means I specifically listed
Eugene W. Victor, New Mexico, 2015, impersonated one person and turned himself in
Gary Copeland, Tennessee, 2011, impersonated two people and was caught by voter ID laws. Credit where it's due, there is some positive effect here.
Mary Lou Simpson, Tennessee, 2005, impersonated one person, unspecified how she was caught.
Hazel Brionne Woodward, Texas, 2015, got her son to impersonate her husband and was caught when the husband showed up to vote.
Reyna Almanza, Texas, 2011, got her son to impersonate his brother, who was incarcerated. Unspecified if she was caught just by someone noticing that or by other means.
Doris McFarland, Washington, 2005, cast her husband's absentee ballot. This appears to me to be mis-characterized absentee fraud, but I'll count it anyway.
Robert Victor Holmgren, Washington, 2005, "cast a ballot for his recently deceased wife". That seems unlikely to have been done in person, but I'll count it anyway.
That's nine votes across more than a decade and five states.
There are a number of instances of duplicate voting, which is where you vote as yourself in multiple jurisdictions, and registration fraud, where you register as multiple individuals. Voter ID laws plausibly prevent those, but it seems more sensible, efficient, and effective to take measures to protect the integrity of the voter registry instead of verifying identity at the polls. After all, if one wants to do this in a state with voter ID laws, all one needs to do is use absentee ballots.
You're right that absentee fraud is relatively effective (which is why all parties do it). It's just less cost effective before a certain point than making sure legitimate votes for you are cast, and legitimate votes for your opponent are not.
> Since nothing much has been done in the past 20 years, I don't expect anything to change when you inevitably find people on camera.
You can arrest those people and try them for election fraud, as has happened in the past.
I'm not going to get into parsing the video you watched, but the source raises monumental red flags when it comes to any sort of journalistic integrity. Project Veritas is the same folks who did the widely discredited hack-editing to swat at Planned Parenthood and ACORN. They are partisan hacks well-understood to be either the pot or the kettle.
To your point on American, entrenched parties controlling and applying many of the levers of power, that is mostly a forgone conclusion. The only way out is for one party to splinter cleanly and then the other could as well. The parties seed, raise, and harvest grist for the mills to feed the party itself.
I would suggest massive voter fraud is not feasible. There are many quality checks that limit the potential. There are disconnects in how many Americans think about the registration and voting process which, when played out, inspire suspicions or contempt. Busing voters, encouraging political engagement from the religious pulpit, etc. We have or can get the data. Between census, voter roles, etc. Fraud can be detected and surfaced - but it rarely is.
Also, all sober reviews of voting has supported the argument that the ID issue follows the narrative that one tribe is trying to apply ID laws to disenfranchise to their benefit and the other is trying to enfranchise to their benefit. Nobody stakes a purer claim to virtue on the matter. But, in a democracy enfranchisement > disenfranchisement, so in this case, Democrats are in closer alignment with the spirit of democracy.
In terms of how and why voter ID is being used in recent US cycles, review North Carolina where they collected and applied data on voter access to certain types of valid ID (there are multiple) and then applied that data for max political effect. It's a turf war. You won't find Republicans arguing to hand out voter ID's or making it trivial to get them. Just picking certain forms of ID to make it more cumbersome for certain people to vote.
I would like to propose the following counter-argument: not everyone who supports voter ID is doing so because they want to disenfranchise a certain class of voter; not everyone who opposes voter ID wants to commit fraud.
From there, we can assume that there is a reason to have Voter ID, and that is that it prevents a certain type of disenfranchisement: the dilution of your vote because someone else votes twice. That is, Voter ID ensures that nobody gets more than the 1 vote they are allotted in a Democracy.
There have been successful voter ID laws, and they usually are successful because they are bipartisan. Specifically, in Crawford v. Marion, the Supreme Court found that it was legal to have a voter ID law that included
(1) the ability to vote up to 30 days before the election at a courthouse, and
(2) free voter ID.
Further, the plaintiffs were unable to provide a single case of anyone who was unable to vote as a result of this law.
So, while voter ID is currently a controversial and partisan topic, it doesn't need to be: it is possible to both ensure that people only vote once, and ensure that they also get to vote.
If the inconvenience is greater than the reward why go to the effort? What you claim to be a certain type of disenfranchisement is more commonly known as voter fraud, and the sort of voter fraud which showing an ID at the polling place seeks to combat DOES NOT HAPPEN. Prove that there is a problem before you seek to erect any additional roadblock between the citizenry and the polling booth.
Why is it that people who oppose Voter ID are able to provide hypotheticals without any evidence, but people who support it have huge requirements for evidence? I sense that the anti-Voter ID crowd uses the following arguments:
Sorry, not even going to try to deal with propagandist mouthpieces like RT or freep, but lets look at the others.
What you have are _concerns_ about voter registration and indications that some people may have submitted multiple mail-in votes. Please note that none of the cases mentioned in these articles touched in-person voting. They primarily talking about things like dead people still being on voter registration rolls (because dead people have this annoying habit of not filling out the paperwork to properly close accounts after the die it seems), cases where registration information does not match data on other government databases (because we all know that data entry is a perfect science and so any case where we have two different records for the same person is obviously a case of attempted fraud), and a few cases of people who submitted absentee or mail-in ballots and then also voted in person.
Lots of 'alleged', a few instances of 'concern' regarding what might possibly happen, and a small handful of cases where voting other than in-person polling was abused.
In short, you have a big, fat, nothingburger. Over the billions of ballots cast in the past decade this is the best you can do I guess, which proves my point that this is not a problem.
You have yet to prove that there are instances where Voter ID laws led to disenfranchisement, yet you require that everyone who supports Voter ID provide immense evidence that you will accept.
But you will never accept any evidence, because you have already convinced yourself that it's not a problem, and thus don't have to provide any evidence yourself.
It has been shown repeatedly, but I will just link you to a nice story by the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...) regarding the 4th Circuit Court utterly destroying the North Carolina voter ID law a couple of months ago as being strictly about disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters. If you read the ruling (linked to in the article) the court shows exactly how the conditions of the law were decided and evidence that such conditions were specifically aimed to disenfranchise these voters.
I do not need to dig hard to provide such evidence because the courts are doing quite well at digging them up. On the other hand, you fail again and again to show that in-person voter fraud is actual a problem in this country. If you wish to create additional constraints on exercising a fundamental right I am sorry, but we are going to require you to actually make the case that these constraints are serving democracy and not just your desire to keep poor and minority voters out of the polling booth.
And since that time numerous appellate courts have found that voter id laws which go beyond the limited requirements in the Crawford case were explicitly designed to create an excessive burden and to disenfranchise voters.
The integrity of our elections is not at risk, but the rights of many citizens to vote is being risked by adding additional burdens on casting a ballot. I guess letting them into the polling booth scares you for some reason, but I and others are not going to compromise on this issue and when we continue to win in court and in the elections the one who is going to have to deal with it is you.
You know ... you honestly believe that anyone who disagrees with you is racist.
I would support sending teams of people to provide help with voter registration every 10 years the same way we do the census. This would be even more proactive than what you're proposing.
You assume that everyone who disagrees with you has bad intentions, and it's simply not true. I suspect that you sincerely believe that everyone who disagrees with you is evil. I'm not sure what will ever convince you that it's not true... but it's not going to be a discussion on the internet.
I'm done -- you don't want to discuss, as everyone else on HN does. You want to continually believe that you're right and anyone who has a different opinion is a closet racist.
On this specific issue there is no problem to be solved, so the question of why you are seeking to impose a solution leads directly to questions regarding your motives.
I have stated quite clearly that in-person voter fraud is not a problem, you have failed to demonstrate that it is a problem, and have continued to cling to a solution that is both unnecessary and has been shown to be easily manipulated to disenfranchise poor and minority voters. I am not assuming that everyone who disagrees with me is racist, but I am looking at your insistence on adding addition burdens to solve a non-problem and it leads me to conclude that you are, in fact, a closet racist. All evidence leads in that direction and I have no particular reason to think otherwise. If you were here in front of me I would say it to your face.
Sorry if this bothers you, but since we are just talking past each other at this point and no one else is bothering to read or examine a thread that has been long-since buried you can be assured that your little secret is quite safe. I do not assume that everyone who disagrees with me is evil and know that I am quite often wrong in many cases, but in this specific instance you have continued to fail to make any substantive case in favor of voter id and continue to cling to this cause even in the face of direct evidence of its risks.
> Why is it that people who oppose Voter ID are able to provide hypotheticals without any evidence, but people who support it have huge requirements for evidence?
One side is claiming racism. We are such a vigorously anti-racist society, claims of racism dramatically tilt the field.
I think you mean that one side is showing over and over in court that the objective of those pushing strict voter ID laws is to disenfranchise poor and minority voters and therefore any such restrictions have a high bar to cross.
No, I mean that numerous examples over the past few years have shown that partisans of a single political party have been using the loophole provided by that case to try to pass laws which are trivially shown to be aimed at disenfranchising people. Luckily, we have lots of good examples now of cases working their way up the appeals process and once they get cert before a new court the Crawford decision will likely be overturned.
There are European countries which don't require ID (for example the UK). The thing you're perhaps missing is that if you don't have a compulsory national identity card of some kind, then many people will not have an easily available 'official' ID. The problem is worse in the states because so many people don't own a passport.
In any case, there is very little evidence for substantial voter fraud in the US as far as I'm aware.
The general point about the US being perhaps overly smug about its democracy is valid however. Just not because of a lack of voter ID requirement (in fact, the introduction of requirements is more likely a source of undermining democracy there).
There are European countries which don't require ID (for example the UK). The thing you're perhaps missing is that if you don't have a compulsory national identity card of some kind, then many people will not have an easily available 'official' ID. The problem is worse in the states because so many people don't own a passport.
In any case, there is very little evidence for substantial voter fraud in the US as far as I'm aware.
The general point about the US being perhaps overly smug about its democracy is valid however. Just not because of a lack of voter ID requirement (in fact, the introduction of requirements is more likely a source of undermining democracy there).
I really think the problem is binary worldview. Trump shows a very binary worldview either your great can't do no wrong or your horrible and can't do no good. So nothing good can come from an opposing side. This hurts in any kind of collaboration and drags our national government to stalemates and laws that could make a suspected terrorist your don't get to buy guns to be staled.
The logical facility is genetic
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
I believe most of the EU countries which have national identity systems make them mandatory, at minimal cost - and it's a government obligation to make available suitable facilities. Slightly different situation where you don't have one class of people less likely to have valid ID.
Interesting, at least in all German speaking countries it is required to show an ID.
Still, who is disenfranchised by having this requirement? Here no one is because everyone has an ID, even poor people. (you are even required by law to carry an ID with you even when you just walk on the street, in case police needs to identify you for whatever reason)
> I believe most of the EU countries which have national identity systems make them mandatory, at minimal cost
Yes, it cost €22,80 in Austria and it's valid for 10 years. (for poor people it's for free)
No, that's not true either. I've never had to show ID here in Switzerland, not least because I mostly vote by mail.
And, since I think it's the same in Switzerland and Austria, you're not required to carry ID but if the Police need to establish your identity and you don't carry ID, they can take you to the police station.
> No, that's not true either. I've never had to show ID here in Switzerland, not least because I mostly vote by mail.
Actually yes, it is 100% correct that you need an ID to go vote at the physical voting booth. (I was asked every time and everyone else who was standing in line too)
The mechanism for voting via mail is different, but you still require an ID. The card can only be sent to an address where you have registered yourself to be living, and the registration has to be done with an ID.
Also the card isn't just dropped in your mailbox, it can only be handed to you or someone (in person) who is also registered to be living at the exact same address. (for example your wife)
If no one is at home you have to go to the post office and get it by showing your ID.
I really doubt that Swiss authorities will just send cards for voting via mail to arbitrary addresses for arbitrary persons (or even made up persons). There must be some kind of registration of every person with an ID that proves he/she is living at a certain address as a basic requirement before you can get this. (or it's a cultural difference between us)
From what I know the process is even stricter in Germany than here.
In Germany you get an invitation card to vote put into your mailbox. In more than 90% of the cases you only show that card at the voting booth. If your identity is in doubt (e.g. your age doesn't seem to match the one in the voter's list) you need to show an ID. The polling clerks can require you to show an ID for any reason (or without one) but usually that doesn't happen.
If you want to vote by mail the ballot is put into your mailbox without any additional ID verification.
It's important to note that while the ID is not free, people are by law required to have one and almost all do. The fee is also taken into account when social benefits are calculated. You also are required to register your residence whenever you move and all the letters regarding an election outlined above are only sent to that address.
.. and the objection in the US is that not everyone has an ID, it's not free, not required by law, and not equally available to all citizens.
(There is lots of very specific history of attempts to bar black people from voting or otherwise participating in society. The simplest argument that these laws are discriminatory is that those proposing them intended them that way:
"Last week, during the federal trial on Wisconsin’s voter-ID law, a former Republican staffer testified that GOP senators were “giddy” about the idea that the state’s 2011 voter-ID law might keep Democrats, particularly minorities in Milwaukee, from voting and help them win at the polls. “They were politically frothing at the mouth,” said the aide, Todd Allbaugh.")
Do not conflate the american voting ID system with a national ID. One is an extra hurdle that opens the door for extra arbitrary barriers (pass this test before you can get an ID), the other is something everyone already has.
Maine has "Ranked Choice Voting Initiative" (Question 5) on the ballot this election. If their citizens vote for it, they'll be able to cast first, second and third choice ballots.
In theory, that should prevent the 3rd party spoiler effect from happening while allowing them to vote their conscious.
In the last two election cycles, they split the "left" vote and allowed a far right governor to get elected.
With Ranked Choice, you get to pick your first choice. If that person didn't get enough votes, your second choice will have your vote instead.
I think they're the first one in the country to do this. I hope they enact this and we can watch the States truly be laboratories for election improvements.
Ranked choice voting is not good enough, it has far too many flaws like not amounting to majority rule. In fact it only encourages fringe candidates who have more to gain and end up getting disproportionately represented in when voting ends
This system is used for many elections globally, and my understanding is that it's widely considered to be quite fair. I'm struggling to understand your specific objections.
I think the problem (at least theoretically) is that second-choice votes are not weighted. It could've been e.g. 1 for first choice, 0.5 for second and so on. Because obviously your second choice candidate is not as good to you as the first one, but some not-so-good candidates can get more votes. In fact I can even see some potential patterns for manipulation here.
That isn't a problem; the impact of your vote is inherent in the ranking, so lower preferences are automatically "worth less" than higher ones. I don't see a particular pattern that would allow for manipulation. AFAIK it's fairly resistant to tactical voting and manipulation by withdrawal.
This is less of a problem if there are more than two established parties that can expect to get the vast majority of the votes. With multiple real choices, smaller parties don't have to be "fringe".
Mainah here, ill certainly be voting for it. Im sure there are already ads circulating explaining how it will cause cancer and is wrong for Maine. Think of the children!
> Approval voting is a single-winner voting method used for elections. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.
Seems pretty similar, but simpler. Just thinking about it Id prefer something like a "Strongly Disapprove, Somewhat Disapprove, Approve, Somewhat Approve, Strongly Approve" on all candidates. Most people should be familiar with that and then you could "downvote" ones you strongly dislike, and its weighted.
The problem with that is you effectively give partisans two votes: a strong approval for their guy and a strong disapproval of your guy.
It's worth noting that there is a mathematical discipline of studying voting systems. Approval has been studied quite extensively and seems to have fewer flaws than most other methods—though it has been proven that no method can be perfect.
Approval voting is my favorite, too - for single-winner elections. But no single-winner voting system beats proportional representation systems [1] when it comes to electing Congress members, legislatures, councils, etc.
Everyone gets much better representation when "their candidate" can actually get a seat at the table, instead of having one party/candidate "take it all" (in that local region of theirs). It also spurs collaboration [2] and "bridge-building" rather than division and obstruction as it happens with the FPTP in the U.S. (and elsewhere)
My biggest hope is that Canada is closing-in on a proportional representation voting system, and adopts it within the next year. That could (or should) make it an election issue for 2018 and 2020 in the U.S., too.
This is ok if the only goal is to give a voice to all voters. But proportional representation produces all too often unworkable majorities and grand coalitions. Just look at Italy's postwar history for why pure PR is not to be recommended.
I also prefer Approval Voting (although if it were an approval vote, I would approve of both Approval Voting and Ranked Choice, heh).
One question to ask yourself to figure out which system you like better is what the outcome should be of this election:
Candidate 1 is loved by 55% of the population and despised by 45%. Candidate 2 is loved by 45% of the population and despised by 55%. Candidate 3 is tolerated by 85%.
Approval Voting would choose Candidate 3. IRV would choose Candidate 1. Who "should" be elected?
Under approval voting, wouldn't the people who love candidate 1 realize that they should vote strategically, and not approve of candidate 3 on their ballots, causing candidate 1 to win this election?
Approval voting, because "approval" has ambiguous meaning that varies from voter to voter, is crap for most public elections. (It's good for certain kinds of votes where "approving" can be tied to some concrete meaning, generally not secret-ballot elections. E.g., if you are in a social group voting on a shared activity, where "approval" is a binding commitment to participate if the action is chosen by the group, while disapproval is an opt-out or at least a non-commit, approval makes sense.
Numerical scale rankings have similar problems (especially as there is empirical evidence that numerical rankings for similar actual levels of satisfaction are assigned differently in different cultures (e.g., ethnic) even within, say, the US. Again, there are circumstances other than usual candidate voting where the numerical scale can be tied to a concrete commitment to make the meaning of the markings consistent and such voting useful (e.g., when they are tied to an amount that one would pay to get or avoid a particular outcome), but they are generally a bad idea for electing candidates. Ranked ballots is pretty much the system that provides the most information with relatively consistent meaning from each voter for circumstances like public, secret-ballot, free elections of candidates. (Different election methods using ranked ballots do a better or worse job of using that information, of course.)
The two-round French Presidential style isn't a bad idea, either. Vote for your conscience during round 1, vote defensively if you want to round 2. At least we gauge the popularity of the round 1 contenders instead of never giving them a chance for fear of splitting the vote.
It may not be a bad idea, but it's in no way better than ranked choice, and ranked choice is still incredibly simple. There wouldn't be any point to using it.
As I've commented before, the US primary system is surprisingly similar to this kind of voting, apart from requiring the voters to partition themselves by party first. The US system is the opposite of Instant Runoff Voting, effectively "agonisingly slow runoff voting" (how long is it between the primaries and the election?)
The primaries in the US, while conceptually similar, is very different because the French two round system is intended to allow other parties by letting you test the waters first.
Incidentally, I wasn't even allowed to vote for the primaries in my state since it requires me to register as a member of the party six months prior.
You can vote your conscience in round 2 only. In round 1, your best strategy is to only vote for one of the top three frontrunners, so you don't waste your vote.
And suppose your favorite frontrunner would probably lose a head to head contest with your third favorite frontrunner. Then you may want to vote for your second favorite frontrunner, to make sure she gets into the runoff and has a chance to defeat your #3.
This is on our ballot because the last two gubernatorial elections included a third party that pulled Democratic votes leading to Paul LePage becoming governor once with 38.1% oft he vote and the second time with 48.2% of the vote.
The second time wasn't too bad, but 38%?! Would have been nice to see the second pick for the folks who didn't pick the independent in the first election. Pretty sure the Dems would have carried the election with a serious majority.
Now Maine is a bit of a national embarrassment with a governor who can't go a single month without insulting someone or criticizing others for playing politics in ... wait for it ... politics.
was hoping to see some mention of the "third party problem", that is, voters can't express their preference for a so-called "alternate" candidate without taking votes away from their second preferred choice. IMO allowing some form of ranked voting, while this is completely politically untenable in the near future, should at least be part of the discussion. Because it also clarifies how without such a system (given the electoral college system in place as well, which I think is a good thing), voting for an "alternate" candidate really does help the opponent of your second choice.
For all offices except the president, I believe all public advertising/campaigning should be restricted to people who reside in the state. No PACs, no national parties, no outside financing. The candidates are supposed to represent the people of their state, to take money or other influence from anyone else is inappropriate. I suppose this could be implemented at the state level.
I find the American rule of having one representative per district flawed, as it gives an unfair advantage to large parties. In the Swiss system, I can cast 20 votes if my state has 20 representatives. This allows a party who get 5% of the votes to win a seat. Also, voters are free to vote across party lines as they like, but one can vote at most twice for the same candidate. That allows to influence the ranking of candidates within parties, which is for example not possible in Germany, where the voters can only choose between pre-arranged lists provided by the parties. The Swiss voting system allows for much more elaborate voting strategies than any other. I, for example, usually start with the list of my preferred party and then remove all lawyers and career politicians, because I think they are over-represented. I wonder why there aren't many countries that copy the Swiss system of electing the parliament. Maybe because it gives more power to the voters than typical politicians feel comfortable with?
Academia affords one to spend a lifetime on an issue. Author had '99 citing. If your thing is elections then you have to write about this.
Only a revolt by the people will change the election process significantly - or Lawmakers vote ++ if they think they will get more votes/representation. I do not believe this report or 100 others will impact elected officials. Sure, having a leading university will get quotes but not action.
I do not believe our system is in peril. I do not believe our system needs to be fixed. I do not believe this election is rigged. I trust the outcome.
I do hope there are more "normal" people in the political pipeline in future years so our choices can be better.
Life has so many choices. The choice to vote for president is only one.
I agree with your one comment. Only true revolt will cause a change. People don't really care in the end. As long as they have an iPhone and Netflix and a 50" Samsung, who really cares? Everyone complains a little but there is no
real movement. As bad as things are (and could get), the fact is that they are objectively pretty freaking great.
197 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 228 ms ] thread"Rigged" means a coordinated and malicious manipulation - this is something that before Trump no one had claimed (the GOP or otherwise). "Flawed", or even "fraud", is more subtle - for example, an electoral administrator miscounting votes due to strange patriotism, lack of training, indifference, or excessive partisanship.
I saw Obama's point as being rooted in "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence", and that actually rigging the election in the US (and getting away with it) is a lot more complex than it seems on surface. Sort of like faking the moon landing.
There were (and still are) wide spread claims that Republicans outright stole the results of the 2004 election in Ohio, going all the way to John Kerry himself.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the...
Refusing to accept election losses has been a hallmark of Democrats in the last 20 years. They refuse to accept the 2000 election, said that Republicans stole the state of OH in 2004, and even now claim that the current Republican majorities in both the House and Senate are the result of "gerrymandering."
Except when Democrats claimed Bush stole the election. Otherwise no one has ever...
Show some kind of data of this happening in a national campaign in America???? Show one election at a state or national level where this has happened. Also show how this happens? The only place this would even matter for President is in swing states. Show data and process then we can talk.
Right now your doing the best North Korean Propaganda ever and undercutting democracy with no data to show anything is rigged.
I prefer democracy and don't prefer a dictator. Why is it okay to destroy the American system to make it great again?
There are no such examples. Voter fraud and election rigging is not an issue in the United States.
"As of August 2010, Dominion voting machines are used in 600 jurisdictions in 22 states" - wikipedia
This is the perfect time for a name like Harvard to say "yes, there is a better way, here it is..."
This is the wrong time to propose anything reasonable. We can't even get a hearing on a Supreme Court nomination.
Now is a time to be endured with some embarrassment until things quiet down. That'll be at least a year or two.
E.g. the electoral voting system is flawed. And the DNC purging 200,000 voters in Brooklyn makes it rigged.
It all depends on your narrative if you accept it or not.
A successful 'trial' (one might even be able to convince them by saying it's going to be a trial at first) might convince other state politicians and/or people elsewhere to implement similar systems in their own state.
Disclaimer: I am Danish and Denmark apparently ranks top in their PEI index.
Joking aside...
understand that we don't actually have a national election system, or even a state one. Each one of the United States 3,142 counties runs an mostly independent election managed by an elected county election commissioner. Tallies for higher elections are reported upward from there. In some states there may be some unification as far as selecting common voting hardware across the state but in most places, even that is at the discretion of the county. So, to your original question, The federal government simply does not have the power to choose a "minor" state to run a trial in.
You really think that, say, the pharma industry's lobbyists are going to invest resources in opposing, say, reform of gerrymandering, or of alternative voting systems?
I'd say it's a LOT more likely that the obstacle is the politicians themselves, because the emergent behavior of the status quo is that it insulates incumbents from competition.
It is an 'independent academic study.' What I want to know is, have these people been lobbying Congress to implement their suggested changes at all?
Against: O'Keefe is not a perfect journalist, as agenda-driven as anyone anywhere
For: These people were on the payroll, fired right after it happened, and Bob Creamer met with Obama 300 times. https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald has done a great job "following the money" even if they are massively biased.
My vote is still up for grabs (tonight's debate might settle it), but a YUGE part of me does want to see an impartial investigation. The kind we won't get with Comey/Clinton/Lynch.
Side note - very good PR of them to drop the video right after Obama criticized Trump for his rigging claims.
If he is idiotic and has all of his points torn apart, I will have a hard time pulling the lever for him. Intelligence matters.
But if he wins, and then will have won 2 out of 3 debates against a person who spent a month home prepping for them and avoiding the people of this country, that would be very compelling.
It all depends on him making a full heel-face-turn for tonight's rubbermatch.
I
1 - am rabidly pro-choice
2 - think the second amendment is pretty good as is, maybe with a few additional checks.
3 - default pro-cop but think we have too many laws
4 - like the wall but not a fan of massive deportations
5 - would not like to have the migrant influx that europe has, even if the crisis is partly our fault
6 - anti-PC
7 - pro pot-legalization (that's actually more repub this go-round)
8 - believe in climate change
9 - pro-israel
10 - want liberal supreme court justices
11 - think we are taking a very naive approach to the risk of terrorism in order to avoid offending many groups
12 - massively turned on by this https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps...
13 - have to admit if you put them in a box and made them play jeopardy with only geographic/polysci questions, he would get killed.
14 - want less of the typical pro-jesus anti-gay slant the old guard GOP has had (admittedly that's not him but is the Silver Fox at his side)
Disagree with: other half of 4, probably 11
Republicans agree with: half of 2, 3, half of 4
Republicans disagree with: 1, other half of 2, 3, other half of 4, 7, 8, 10, 14
Toss-ups, non-issues, and uselessly vague include 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12.
I dunno, it seems pretty clear-cut to me.
For example, 3 is solidly not Hillary. Speakers she had at the DNC, tweets after Dallas shooting, on and on.
Trump is 100% pro-lgbt and has never been a christian, so 14 isn't him.
Trump also is for legalizing medicinal and letting states determine recreational, so 7 is him, not her (have a strong sense from things she's written that she won't legalize).
And the ones you earmarked as toss-ups etc are more him. They also are VERY important to ME, so not the non-issues you paint them as.
There's a few others like this. But I have to go.
And you are undecided.
If Trump had 10 or more extra IQ points, he would be an easier sell to me. I do feel his ridiculous energy levels might compensate for this and then some, not sure though.
A sane person can't vote for either of them.
But a good citizen's duty is to vote. Write my name on it.
If you vote for Trump you're a bigot. If you vote for Hillary you're a hypocrite.
People aren't even talking to each other anymore or listening. No one seems to want to find out why someone would pick a certain candidate over the other. Very sad and scary.
It seemed to me to be a legitimate question for an outsider to ask: these videos seem to be showing evidence of voter fraud, so how do American liberals defend their opposition to voter ID? Whether this is a credible source or not is one thing, but the guy who brought them up seemed to be making a good-faith attempt at fact-based reasoning and understanding. In any case, he clearly is not in any way representative of the side you seem to be referring to (American conservatives).
I mostly consider myself a liberal, but this cycle I see BOTH sides almost entirely divesting themselves of facts. For Trumpites, this takes the form of making up random shit, and for liberals, this takes the form of screaming racist/homophobic/xenophobic/Islamophobic at the slightest provocation, even when there's no necessary logical connection to make that claim. For instance, the idea that anyone who wants proper borders and citizenship procedures to be followed must be a racist. Not only is it illogical, that kind of name-calling directly contributes to Trump's success by making "normal" people in "flyover country" feel like they have nowhere else to go.
In short, it is not really constructive or true to pretend like all the facts are on one side and all the problems are on the other.
I am not just talking about the actions of "some Democrats" here. It's more than just some, but HRC herself is not at all innocent of inciting racial and gender-based tension for her own political gain. I can provide numerous examples if you need them.
I think the Democrats would win on the merits on most issues, but neither they nor their opponents are even discussing the issues anymore.
As for the question of "who is worse" on non-factual issues, like the many despicable antics of Trump versus the hypocrisies and distortions of HRC, it's not a question I'm interested in or a game I wish to play. It seems to me that partisans on both sides will conclude the other side is worse, and there is no available standard for resolving it.
I wonder if social media, where you gain followers with extreme comments, has led to this? My FB feed is story after story of either Trump will launch nukes his first day in office or the terrorist will take out the US on Clintons first day. The hyperbole just drowns out any rational argument.
In fairness to "people," a perfectly open minded person could have lost patience with "This Clinton scandal will totally blow your mind!" way back in the nineties. If you've been carefully parsing the soundness of every manufactured Clinton scandal since the early nineties, I feel for you.
The main issue is whether or not you believe that's business as usual. And it might be, I'm not discounting that.
Having lost patience is a function of applying heuristics to the never-ending, time-consuming task of evaluating information. I'd say open-mindedness refers more to an outlook, a goal or an attitude. They're not mutually exclusive. I get that the language is imprecise.
A person who simply dismissed every incoming datum which fell into the "This Clinton scandal will totally blow your mind!" category would have been right very close to 100% of the time, which is a pretty good heuristic. If need be, that same person can simply wait for the evidence to mount and then alter their opinion.
I have pity for anyone who really feels obligated to separate the wheat from the chaff (in the interest of open-mindedness!) when it comes to every outraged Clinton news item.
In previous election cycles, I've been party to some passionate discussions. This time around, it seems that there are a bunch of people shouting vitriol, but there also some who are making an effort to be dispassionate and rational, even more so than in past elections.
So in elections past, there would always be moderately vigorous disagreement, now we have either really nasty stuff, or people honestly trying to understand each other.
That latter group is promising. On the other hand, does it portend a two-tier electorate, one that's really trying to do democracy, and the other (larger) group just shouting populist shibboleth?
To examine the validity of the video we would actually need all of it, but that is not the point for O'Keefe. His goal is to maintain his street cred with the trumpistas and ratfucking part of the community that might keep paying him after having fallen so far with his last few failed attempts. Given the source and this source's history of manipulating videotaped conversations on multiple occasions to create a narrative that does not match what actually happened, it is smarter to start assuming the videos are a lie and asking for proof that this is not another case of misleading edits. Show me the whole tape or I will assume O'Keefe is telling lies again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod
More election-year BS leaking onto everything.
edit: sigh. the pro-[candidate] downvote brigade is ever present. This election cannot be over soon enough.
Leave this sort of crap to Reddit.
Notably Zulema Rodriguez who bragged that she took part in inciting the Chicago protest has received payments from the Clinton campaign a few days before the protests (listed on the FEC website - link: https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transactio... )
What's also interesting is that most people shown in the videos are contributors to Huffington Post and some of them switch between sometimes being a contributor and sometimes being mentioned as "activist" with a fake name. Aaron Black wrote one article as a Catholic priest and another one as a gay man suffering from AIDS. (I get the impression that Huffington Post and really most of the media just makes up stories or that they are being played)
> deepening party polarization over electoral procedures, the vulnerability of electronic records to hacking, and the impact of deregulating campaign spending, compounding the lack of professional standards of electoral management.
All of these things people have rightly been complaining about for years. It would be good to get some recognition of them.
> Section 4 considers pragmatic reforms designed to strengthen U.S. electoral laws and procedures, recommending expanding secure and convenient registration and balloting facilities, [...] and strengthening impartial dispute resolution mechanisms.
.. but here we hit the problem: too many Americans no longer really believe in "impartiality". This is the guiding theme of the Trump campaign, that anyone who disagrees with them is a lying partisan.
Not to mention that the Republican party have spent years working against "convenient registration", instead preferring partisan disenfranchisement through voter ID and similar measures.
These two sentences put together are just a perfect gem.
It's just weird, especially since the US has been very vocal in judging others with regards to their electoral processes. Pot calling the kettle black it seems.
If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. Civic responsibility is not an inconvenience, it's what keeps civilization running. Taking a few moments out of your daily routine to be informed and choose your government is the least one should expect.
And when those people without IDs happen to be poor and minority voters, so much the better, right? Getting a government ID is not 'taking a few moments out of your daily routine', or we would not be having this conversation. How about you ask an American how fast and easy it is for them to just waltz in the the DMV and walk out a few minutes later with their shiny new ID card. State IDs are done by the same agency, and a lot of those poor people have one or two jobs they are working where taking an entire day to get an ID could cost them serious money or their job itself.
Thank god Mike Rowe, somewhat of an opinion leader, is showing how dumb that is. For democracy to work, we need educated, we'll-informed voters. If you're voting on a whim, without having invested the time necessary to understand the issues thoroughly, then you're part of the problem.
If voter ID restrictions serve to weed out people who aren't willing to make an investment in being a good voter, then I'm all in favor of it.
EDIT: s/week/weed/
Not at all. I told you what my reasoning was, and you decided that I was lying. That doesn't seem to be arguing in good faith.
It may be true that there's a differential in the impact of the rules. But (a) that doesn't mean that rules were secretly crafted for that reason, or (b) that I wouldn't feel the same way about rules having a differential that affected the more affluent to a greater degree.
Assuming evil intent on the part of your opponent is a sure-fire way to ensure that you can never reach any common ground.
I don't think this has a place on HackerNews?
- require an ID to vote;
- make it difficult to get an ID: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/alabamas-dmv-shutdown...
- require an ID to vote
- issue ID's for free
- if someone shows up to vote and doesn't have an ID, take their photo
At least with the third option, you don't require that people spend TWO days (one to get the ID, one to vote) but only ONE day (show up to vote, get picture taken), and it would eliminate the "voter fraud" that may or may not exist
(I support ID in theory because another form of disenfranchisement is dilution of voting power; if someone is able to vote twice, that reduces the power of people who vote once. Not sure I support it in practice).
This really is the crux of the issue, and I think it's a great idea. Prevent fraud, make everyone's life easier at the same time.
For example:
> A 2009 study found that 84.2% of white registered voters in Indiana had access to photo ID to comply with that state's ID law, as compared to 78% of black voters on the rolls there
Then again, your main source is Project Veritas, which despite the name is spearheaded by convicted fraudster James O'Keefe. His MO is to lie and deceive to advance his ultra-conservative cause, so anything that comes from him is to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Of course, even he might stumble upon something real, but so far his videos have always been edited to show what he wants, instead of reality.
I'm euro but with the whole id thing I agree with Republicand. This whole system screams FRAUD.
Hell, it's a hassle here in Switzerland to get your ID renewed. We don't need it to vote, though.
I don't understand Americans. One side thinks Earth is 6000 years old and other think that having ID to vote is racist. What is this bullshit?
However, with all the bullshit requirements (often introduced specifically to make it harder for people to get ID), overworked agencies and much greater distances involved in the US, the same process easily takes multiple hours - in a good case! Taking a day off is seriously not possible for many people in the US.
And voter ID in principle isn't racist. In practice, though, it is: "With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans." and "The bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess." are direct quotes from a federal court striking down voter ID laws in North Carolina. That's intentional and that's why voter ID is treated as a racist idea.
The closest government office to me is a 15 min drive, 30 min bus ride, or a hour and a half walk.
The wait varies but I would say an hour minimum from my experience. The fee is between 10 and 20 dollars depending on your age.
All of these offices are only open during regular business hours(8 to 5:30 Monday through Friday. Closed on weekends).
Getting my first ID was a four hour and a half hour affair. I was lucky enough that my dad was able to take off work and also drive me. A quarter of my time was spent at the bank getting my Social security card out of my safety deposit box(we tried to use a photo copy but they only accept the actual card).
Renewing a license is easier because you just need the expired license, but my last renewal took 2 hours.
The process sucks and I imagine it sucks even more if you don't have a car or have a job that is m-f 9-5(or can't easily take a day off)
The whole process sounds regular bureaucracy like in every other country. You need ID everywhere (at least in developed countries) to vote.
Having ID is common sense. It all sounds political pseudo-problem.
For example, in some states, I would no longer be able to use my government-issued military ID -- which arguably has stricter requirements for obtaining than a driver's license. A lot of these new laws weren't enacted to reduce fraud (which isn't even that prevalent), but to make it harder for certain classes of voters to exercise their right to vote.
I live 75km from the biggest city. After every 4 years I need to fill a form I want a new ID. Wait. Then go and pick up new ID. Spending time the government building, as we all know bureaucracy is slow. I don't have a driving licence and don't drive. My friend helps me or I take a bus. This allows me to vote and do other necessary things where I have to identify myself and travel.
How is the system different in America? What are the problems? How many years does it take for the ID to expire?
It seems that if the ID is provided free of charge, then it does not burden the individual any more than normal voting does.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...
Let's say you want to obtain a voter ID in South Carolina, for example, because you have no other photo ID. You'll need to present a birth certificate. What, can't find yours? Good luck, you'll need a photo ID to obtain a new copy of that birth certificate.
Perhaps you are an 18-year old high schooler in Alabama eligible to vote for the first time. You don't have a driver's license, because you can't afford a car and don't drive. Your closest DMV is 40 miles away and only open one day out of the week. There's no public transportation, so you'll have to coordinate a ride with someone who can take you on a day the DMV is open. Previously, this voter would be able to show up to their polling site on the day of the election with a bank statement and vote.
It would be one thing if voter fraud was prevalent and all these new measures needed enacted, but there isn't. The rate of fraud in U.S. elections is close to zero. Instead, they're yet another set of hurdles voters, particularly minorities and the poor, face when asserting their right to vote.
You're hypotheticals are just that: hypothetical.
These are not hypotheticals, there are specific examples of legislators being caught on the record trying to craft voter ID laws such that they had the greatest effect upon poor and minority voters. We are still waiting on your to address these issues instead of repeatedly posting a link to this one case that happened to be the trigger for all of these laws that have now been found to be illegal.
If Law X is legal, and I support Law X, then stop telling me Law Y is illegal -- it's irrelevant.
Also, why is it important who is doing the journalism to uncover the fraud? Sure, I don't have to agree with their interpretation, but I can plainly see and hear what was said.
Organization of payed protesters to disrupt a political opponent and lay blame on another political opponent. Massive voter fraud by way of out-of-state voters.
I don't doubt for a second that the other side is doing very similar things. The problem is this election both sides seem to be united to stop the outsider, which should make people think.
In the US, there is no federally-issued photo ID. The most common ID is a state-issued driver's license, but not everyone is licensed to drive. States can issue photo ID cards which can be used in voting, but not everyone has one, they cost money, and can be difficult to obtain.
I live in North Carolina. Our voter ID law was recently struck down by a federal court as being clearly intended to disenfranchise minority voters. Here's an explanation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...
If that was the criteria for consuming information, no one should ever watch/read any media outlet.
Also, I still don't understand why I should not believe what was said in the video?
Well, you can get a passport. But that's a whole different process.
In-person voter impersonation is just about the least efficient and highest risk way to manipulate an election. You would need to physically go to a polling station, impersonate a registered voter, hope nobody recognizes you as not that person, cast a vote, hope that person doesn't actually show up later to vote, and then travel to another polling station to do it again. And also hope nobody just notices that you voted at both places, a real concern in this age of ubiquitous cameras. You have something like 18 hours at most to do this, so with optimistic assumptions, an individual could vote maybe 36 times at a high risk of getting caught.
Even something like absentee ballot fraud is more efficient and less risky. However, absentee ballot fraud is still less efficient than gray and even positive/legal uses of your time.
Gray methods would mostly include voter suppression in districts that don't favor your outcome. The town I grew up in made national news this last primary for having a massive traffic snarl and long lines around its single polling station, after closing the second one for budgetary reasons. People were giving up after waiting multiple hours to vote. There may not be anything illicit there (certainly nothing provable), but you can see how that might be done "accidentally".
Positive and legal methods would mostly include things like voter registration drives, phone work to remind and encourage people to vote, and even physically transporting people to the polls.
> In-person voter impersonation is just about the least efficient and highest risk way to manipulate an election.
That is incorrect, as it is done in almost every election for the last 2 decades (iirc). I remember multiple stories about democratic fraud from as far back as 1994 (I usually vote democrat). "Hope nobody recognizes you" is not a concern across county lines, much less state lines. Did you even take a moment to read up on how it HAS been done? Republicans are much bigger on the absentee fraud. It's also very effective (and cost effective).
Since nothing much has been done in the past 20 years, I don't expect anything to change when you inevitably find people on camera.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naa...
http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/11/nearly-300-cases-the-exten...
http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/2588/how-many-kn...
So, one source out of the first random 3 that duckduckgo gave me considers in-person voter impersonation to be a substantial problem. It cites a Heritage Foundation report containing "Nearly 300" cases. This is less than the 537 votes by which Bush defeated Gore in Florida, and spread across 50 states and more than 30 years, but it's possible that each of these instances could include many fraudulent votes. The report is linked, though, so we can just break it down. The instances citing impersonation are:
Shasta Nicole Crayton, Alabama, 2004, impersonated one person and was caught by one of the means I specifically listed
Eugene W. Victor, New Mexico, 2015, impersonated one person and turned himself in
Gary Copeland, Tennessee, 2011, impersonated two people and was caught by voter ID laws. Credit where it's due, there is some positive effect here.
Mary Lou Simpson, Tennessee, 2005, impersonated one person, unspecified how she was caught.
Hazel Brionne Woodward, Texas, 2015, got her son to impersonate her husband and was caught when the husband showed up to vote.
Reyna Almanza, Texas, 2011, got her son to impersonate his brother, who was incarcerated. Unspecified if she was caught just by someone noticing that or by other means.
Doris McFarland, Washington, 2005, cast her husband's absentee ballot. This appears to me to be mis-characterized absentee fraud, but I'll count it anyway.
Robert Victor Holmgren, Washington, 2005, "cast a ballot for his recently deceased wife". That seems unlikely to have been done in person, but I'll count it anyway.
That's nine votes across more than a decade and five states.
There are a number of instances of duplicate voting, which is where you vote as yourself in multiple jurisdictions, and registration fraud, where you register as multiple individuals. Voter ID laws plausibly prevent those, but it seems more sensible, efficient, and effective to take measures to protect the integrity of the voter registry instead of verifying identity at the polls. After all, if one wants to do this in a state with voter ID laws, all one needs to do is use absentee ballots.
You're right that absentee fraud is relatively effective (which is why all parties do it). It's just less cost effective before a certain point than making sure legitimate votes for you are cast, and legitimate votes for your opponent are not.
> Since nothing much has been done in the past 20 years, I don't expect anything to change when you inevitably find people on camera.
You can arrest those people and try them for election fraud, as has happened in the past.
To your point on American, entrenched parties controlling and applying many of the levers of power, that is mostly a forgone conclusion. The only way out is for one party to splinter cleanly and then the other could as well. The parties seed, raise, and harvest grist for the mills to feed the party itself.
I would suggest massive voter fraud is not feasible. There are many quality checks that limit the potential. There are disconnects in how many Americans think about the registration and voting process which, when played out, inspire suspicions or contempt. Busing voters, encouraging political engagement from the religious pulpit, etc. We have or can get the data. Between census, voter roles, etc. Fraud can be detected and surfaced - but it rarely is.
Also, all sober reviews of voting has supported the argument that the ID issue follows the narrative that one tribe is trying to apply ID laws to disenfranchise to their benefit and the other is trying to enfranchise to their benefit. Nobody stakes a purer claim to virtue on the matter. But, in a democracy enfranchisement > disenfranchisement, so in this case, Democrats are in closer alignment with the spirit of democracy.
In terms of how and why voter ID is being used in recent US cycles, review North Carolina where they collected and applied data on voter access to certain types of valid ID (there are multiple) and then applied that data for max political effect. It's a turf war. You won't find Republicans arguing to hand out voter ID's or making it trivial to get them. Just picking certain forms of ID to make it more cumbersome for certain people to vote.
From there, we can assume that there is a reason to have Voter ID, and that is that it prevents a certain type of disenfranchisement: the dilution of your vote because someone else votes twice. That is, Voter ID ensures that nobody gets more than the 1 vote they are allotted in a Democracy.
There have been successful voter ID laws, and they usually are successful because they are bipartisan. Specifically, in Crawford v. Marion, the Supreme Court found that it was legal to have a voter ID law that included
(1) the ability to vote up to 30 days before the election at a courthouse, and
(2) free voter ID.
Further, the plaintiffs were unable to provide a single case of anyone who was unable to vote as a result of this law.
So, while voter ID is currently a controversial and partisan topic, it doesn't need to be: it is possible to both ensure that people only vote once, and ensure that they also get to vote.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...
Why is it that people who oppose Voter ID are able to provide hypotheticals without any evidence, but people who support it have huge requirements for evidence? I sense that the anti-Voter ID crowd uses the following arguments:
Step 1: Deny that a problem exists
Step 2: Deny that the evidence exists
Step 3: Pretend that you are still correct
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/10/18/state-alleges-...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fra...
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2016/...
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/electi...
https://www.rt.com/usa/363097-texas-investigation-voter-frau...
What you have are _concerns_ about voter registration and indications that some people may have submitted multiple mail-in votes. Please note that none of the cases mentioned in these articles touched in-person voting. They primarily talking about things like dead people still being on voter registration rolls (because dead people have this annoying habit of not filling out the paperwork to properly close accounts after the die it seems), cases where registration information does not match data on other government databases (because we all know that data entry is a perfect science and so any case where we have two different records for the same person is obviously a case of attempted fraud), and a few cases of people who submitted absentee or mail-in ballots and then also voted in person.
Lots of 'alleged', a few instances of 'concern' regarding what might possibly happen, and a small handful of cases where voting other than in-person polling was abused.
In short, you have a big, fat, nothingburger. Over the billions of ballots cast in the past decade this is the best you can do I guess, which proves my point that this is not a problem.
But you will never accept any evidence, because you have already convinced yourself that it's not a problem, and thus don't have to provide any evidence yourself.
I do not need to dig hard to provide such evidence because the courts are doing quite well at digging them up. On the other hand, you fail again and again to show that in-person voter fraud is actual a problem in this country. If you wish to create additional constraints on exercising a fundamental right I am sorry, but we are going to require you to actually make the case that these constraints are serving democracy and not just your desire to keep poor and minority voters out of the polling booth.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...
Politics is about compromise -- deal with it.
I would support sending teams of people to provide help with voter registration every 10 years the same way we do the census. This would be even more proactive than what you're proposing.
You assume that everyone who disagrees with you has bad intentions, and it's simply not true. I suspect that you sincerely believe that everyone who disagrees with you is evil. I'm not sure what will ever convince you that it's not true... but it's not going to be a discussion on the internet.
I'm done -- you don't want to discuss, as everyone else on HN does. You want to continually believe that you're right and anyone who has a different opinion is a closet racist.
I have stated quite clearly that in-person voter fraud is not a problem, you have failed to demonstrate that it is a problem, and have continued to cling to a solution that is both unnecessary and has been shown to be easily manipulated to disenfranchise poor and minority voters. I am not assuming that everyone who disagrees with me is racist, but I am looking at your insistence on adding addition burdens to solve a non-problem and it leads me to conclude that you are, in fact, a closet racist. All evidence leads in that direction and I have no particular reason to think otherwise. If you were here in front of me I would say it to your face.
Sorry if this bothers you, but since we are just talking past each other at this point and no one else is bothering to read or examine a thread that has been long-since buried you can be assured that your little secret is quite safe. I do not assume that everyone who disagrees with me is evil and know that I am quite often wrong in many cases, but in this specific instance you have continued to fail to make any substantive case in favor of voter id and continue to cling to this cause even in the face of direct evidence of its risks.
One side is claiming racism. We are such a vigorously anti-racist society, claims of racism dramatically tilt the field.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...
In any case, there is very little evidence for substantial voter fraud in the US as far as I'm aware.
The general point about the US being perhaps overly smug about its democracy is valid however. Just not because of a lack of voter ID requirement (in fact, the introduction of requirements is more likely a source of undermining democracy there).
In any case, there is very little evidence for substantial voter fraud in the US as far as I'm aware.
The general point about the US being perhaps overly smug about its democracy is valid however. Just not because of a lack of voter ID requirement (in fact, the introduction of requirements is more likely a source of undermining democracy there).
The logical facility is genetic
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
Who exactly is disenfranchised by this? Illegal Immigrants? Dead People?
The identity requirements are managed at the registration stage: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registr... : every UK adult has an NI number (corresponding to US SSN), which is free to obtain.
I believe most of the EU countries which have national identity systems make them mandatory, at minimal cost - and it's a government obligation to make available suitable facilities. Slightly different situation where you don't have one class of people less likely to have valid ID.
Still, who is disenfranchised by having this requirement? Here no one is because everyone has an ID, even poor people. (you are even required by law to carry an ID with you even when you just walk on the street, in case police needs to identify you for whatever reason)
> I believe most of the EU countries which have national identity systems make them mandatory, at minimal cost
Yes, it cost €22,80 in Austria and it's valid for 10 years. (for poor people it's for free)
And, since I think it's the same in Switzerland and Austria, you're not required to carry ID but if the Police need to establish your identity and you don't carry ID, they can take you to the police station.
Actually yes, it is 100% correct that you need an ID to go vote at the physical voting booth. (I was asked every time and everyone else who was standing in line too)
The mechanism for voting via mail is different, but you still require an ID. The card can only be sent to an address where you have registered yourself to be living, and the registration has to be done with an ID.
Also the card isn't just dropped in your mailbox, it can only be handed to you or someone (in person) who is also registered to be living at the exact same address. (for example your wife)
If no one is at home you have to go to the post office and get it by showing your ID.
I really doubt that Swiss authorities will just send cards for voting via mail to arbitrary addresses for arbitrary persons (or even made up persons). There must be some kind of registration of every person with an ID that proves he/she is living at a certain address as a basic requirement before you can get this. (or it's a cultural difference between us)
From what I know the process is even stricter in Germany than here.
If you want to vote by mail the ballot is put into your mailbox without any additional ID verification.
It's important to note that while the ID is not free, people are by law required to have one and almost all do. The fee is also taken into account when social benefits are calculated. You also are required to register your residence whenever you move and all the letters regarding an election outlined above are only sent to that address.
(There is lots of very specific history of attempts to bar black people from voting or otherwise participating in society. The simplest argument that these laws are discriminatory is that those proposing them intended them that way:
"Last week, during the federal trial on Wisconsin’s voter-ID law, a former Republican staffer testified that GOP senators were “giddy” about the idea that the state’s 2011 voter-ID law might keep Democrats, particularly minorities in Milwaukee, from voting and help them win at the polls. “They were politically frothing at the mouth,” said the aide, Todd Allbaugh.")
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...
Note that most of the states in the small map that imposed voter ID requirements for 2016 are south of the Mason-Dixon line.
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...
In theory, that should prevent the 3rd party spoiler effect from happening while allowing them to vote their conscious.
In the last two election cycles, they split the "left" vote and allowed a far right governor to get elected.
With Ranked Choice, you get to pick your first choice. If that person didn't get enough votes, your second choice will have your vote instead.
I think they're the first one in the country to do this. I hope they enact this and we can watch the States truly be laboratories for election improvements.
http://scorevoting.net/TarrIrv.html
And irrelevant, since IRV performs worse with 100% honest voters than Score or Approval with 100% strategic.
Score Voting and Approval Voting are simpler and better.
http://scorevoting.net/CFERlet.html http://www.electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv
Clay Shentrup Co-founder, The Center for Election Science
"If we had Ranked Choice Voting last election, we wouldn't have Paul LePage today."
> Approval voting is a single-winner voting method used for elections. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
It's worth noting that there is a mathematical discipline of studying voting systems. Approval has been studied quite extensively and seems to have fewer flaws than most other methods—though it has been proven that no method can be perfect.
Everyone gets much better representation when "their candidate" can actually get a seat at the table, instead of having one party/candidate "take it all" (in that local region of theirs). It also spurs collaboration [2] and "bridge-building" rather than division and obstruction as it happens with the FPTP in the U.S. (and elsewhere)
My biggest hope is that Canada is closing-in on a proportional representation voting system, and adopts it within the next year. That could (or should) make it an election issue for 2018 and 2020 in the U.S., too.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWPx8hmd4pQ
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS62N5b5L7Y
One question to ask yourself to figure out which system you like better is what the outcome should be of this election:
Candidate 1 is loved by 55% of the population and despised by 45%. Candidate 2 is loved by 45% of the population and despised by 55%. Candidate 3 is tolerated by 85%.
Approval Voting would choose Candidate 3. IRV would choose Candidate 1. Who "should" be elected?
http://scorevoting.net/UtilFoundns.html
So the right answer is presumably #3, although you didn't specify exact utilities so I don't know for sure.
Numerical scale rankings have similar problems (especially as there is empirical evidence that numerical rankings for similar actual levels of satisfaction are assigned differently in different cultures (e.g., ethnic) even within, say, the US. Again, there are circumstances other than usual candidate voting where the numerical scale can be tied to a concrete commitment to make the meaning of the markings consistent and such voting useful (e.g., when they are tied to an amount that one would pay to get or avoid a particular outcome), but they are generally a bad idea for electing candidates. Ranked ballots is pretty much the system that provides the most information with relatively consistent meaning from each voter for circumstances like public, secret-ballot, free elections of candidates. (Different election methods using ranked ballots do a better or worse job of using that information, of course.)
Incidentally, I wasn't even allowed to vote for the primaries in my state since it requires me to register as a member of the party six months prior.
And suppose your favorite frontrunner would probably lose a head to head contest with your third favorite frontrunner. Then you may want to vote for your second favorite frontrunner, to make sure she gets into the runoff and has a chance to defeat your #3.
The second time wasn't too bad, but 38%?! Would have been nice to see the second pick for the folks who didn't pick the independent in the first election. Pretty sure the Dems would have carried the election with a serious majority.
Now Maine is a bit of a national embarrassment with a governor who can't go a single month without insulting someone or criticizing others for playing politics in ... wait for it ... politics.
My take.
Academia affords one to spend a lifetime on an issue. Author had '99 citing. If your thing is elections then you have to write about this.
Only a revolt by the people will change the election process significantly - or Lawmakers vote ++ if they think they will get more votes/representation. I do not believe this report or 100 others will impact elected officials. Sure, having a leading university will get quotes but not action.
I do not believe our system is in peril. I do not believe our system needs to be fixed. I do not believe this election is rigged. I trust the outcome.
I do hope there are more "normal" people in the political pipeline in future years so our choices can be better.
Life has so many choices. The choice to vote for president is only one.