Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Election reformed stalled by, who else, elected officials   ( divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1690 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Feb 2002 at 5:24 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

65 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2002-02-27 05:27:02 PM  
Meet me on Capitol Hill. I'll bring the torches, you bring the pitchforks.
2002-02-27 05:27:58 PM  
Politicians make my head hurt.
2002-02-27 05:29:19 PM  
damn democrats
2002-02-27 05:29:30 PM  
wow, that's never happened before.
2002-02-27 05:29:42 PM  
Problems created means job security.
2002-02-27 05:30:00 PM  
I thought it was kind of interesting to see that Christopher Dodd, one of the senators from Connecticut, was one of the few Democrats who opposed the bill. Not surprising, seeing as his father was kicked out of the Senate for bribery or something...
2002-02-27 05:33:14 PM  
Before commenting, read the article. The amendment that they're battling over is one that would make it possible to register to vote without showing a photo ID. I don't see a good reason not to require people to establish their identity when they first register to vote.
2002-02-27 05:33:18 PM  
You mean, they are actually taking steps to ensure another Florida incident doesn't occur? By that, I of course mean people with the same names of Felons and Ex-Felons having their vote thrown away. Estimated to be about 50,000 odd votes done away because of that, in Florida.
2002-02-27 05:33:48 PM  
The amendment, sponsored by Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), would allow newly registered voters to prove their identity through verification of their signature. As drafted, the Senate election reform bill would require first-time voters to produce a photo identification card like a driver's license or some other document to establish their identity when they voted.
Yeah, I can see why this bill was sponsored. I mean, what would illegal immigrants do if they couldn't obtain ID in Kentucky? Not vote?
2002-02-27 05:34:17 PM  
Democrats standing for legitimate election reform is as likely as Charlton Heston standing for the end of guns. :)

2002-02-27 05:36:13 PM  
To summarize, Democrats want first time voters to be able to verify their identity with a signature, Republicans want photo ID.

I was actually ready to side with the Republicans until I read that this will affect Oregon's vote-by-mail process.

Additionally, why is this only for first time voters? Shouldn't all voters be required to prove their identity? Or are we simply looking for more ways to discourage people from voting? Yeah, I know it's reaching, but can you think of any better reasoning?

2002-02-27 05:36:46 PM  

fark you.
2002-02-27 05:36:46 PM  
im so totally farkin shocked
2002-02-27 05:37:54 PM  
Schumer argued that without the change the Senate bill would make it more difficult for immigrants, the elderly and others to vote. "If you think of a nice, middle class person with lots of credit cards and two cars in the garage, [the document requirement] is no problem," he said. "But think of the new immigrant who doesn't have a card."

If you're here legally, you have a photo ID, and Chuck knows it. This argument is garbage (and Chuck knows that, too).
2002-02-27 05:38:57 PM  
I understand your objection, 3Horn, and I think that there SHOULD be checking of identity at all elections. Which includes Oregon's vote-by-mail process; surely they could go to a post office and have a postal worker certify the mail?
2002-02-27 05:39:36 PM  
Thanks Democrats. Thanks Republicans. fark YOU ALL.
2002-02-27 05:39:46 PM  
Got to side with the GOP on this one. I'm in Louisiana, where voter fraud is refined to an art form, and they have got to require more than a signature. That's just common sense.
2002-02-27 05:40:37 PM  
Oregon's voting process still seems like it can be potentially used for massive fraud.
2002-02-27 05:45:19 PM  
Umm...lets not let the illegal imagrants vote...kthx?
2002-02-27 05:45:29 PM  
The problem with a photo-ID is there are not many forms of it aside from a driver's license. Many people, primarily lower class obviously, do not have cars or therefore drivers licenses. Such a requirement would favor the Republican voter demographic, so naturally Republicans favor it.

(Turns off brain)

I like puppies!!!
2002-02-27 05:47:27 PM  
I think that there are "Non-driver's IDs" in most states, WarmBeer.
2002-02-27 05:47:43 PM  
WarmBeer - Any DMV in the country, or at least the states I've lived in, will give you a state picture ID for like 5 or 10 bucks. They can give them out for free, for all I care.
2002-02-27 05:48:32 PM  
[image from too old to be available]

proving that maybe it isn't a good idea to let people vote. :)

2002-02-27 05:53:43 PM  
Valid points on both sides. Now my brain really hurts.
2002-02-27 05:53:54 PM  
All states have a non-driver ID

I didnt have a car for several years, you can go to a local police station, or the post office to get one
2002-02-27 05:57:49 PM  
"When you roll my state on a matter we care about, just know we're not going quietly into the night,"

I'm moving to Oregon, where voting by mail really matters.
2002-02-27 05:59:50 PM  
I'm an Oregoonian and I really don't like the vote by mail because of the big chance of fraud. Yeah they do have a nice little sworn statement that says no one coerced you but big deal; if someone is committing voter fraud, I really doubt that will stop them. I even tried to continue going to the polls but there aren't any in most elections. Tne idea was it would cut voting costs by not have to open and staff polling places and increase voter participation. So far only the first has worked. If someone can't be bothered to drop by the poll booth on the way home from work, what makes politicians think the same person will take time to vote and mail it in? There is a lawsuit contesting the "poll tax" in the form of a stamp. The suit says that requiring a voter to "pay" for a stamp is a poll tax which is illegal. I have no idea how this is supposed to be different from requiring people to pay to use fuel by driving (in most cases) to the polling place.
2002-02-27 06:01:45 PM  
The USA is founded upon the concept of revolution, of turning-over. Indeed, it is an institutionalized concept within the laws of the country. But when, in the course of human events, the practice becomes far different than the concept, it become a duty to every citizen to exercise the fundamental right of choice expressed in unity. A faulty program cannot be fully trusted to debug itself. The fall from human ideals to feral self-interest is easy and quick. True reformation requires a 'death' of a part of the self. But even if, as the saying goes, the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak. It takes an extraordinary will to overcome the instinct for survival. Governmental systems are based upon the ordinary. The drive for power, position and money is ordinary. A sacrifice of the self for duty is not. The government of the US is based upon corporate structure. Like any vital company, it is based upon an expansionist policy. We, the people, are the 'stockholders'. As long as we allow this structure to be based upon the concept of the gaining of riches through the advancement past and power over your fellow 'man, we will never gain the ideal of representation of the common 'man through a respected and beloved peer.
No fundamental change to this process will ever be generated from within. But, we are the people. And, power is to the people.
2002-02-27 06:03:29 PM  
Correction: GOP Fails to Kill Democrat Amendment

Should read: GOP Fails to Kill Democrat fags
2002-02-27 06:04:33 PM  
attention: anyone who posts "Democrats are dumb" or "Republicans are dumb" as the essential content of your comment: guess who looks stupid?



i'm not kidding. the world knows that the internet is filled to the brim with two equally dogmatic groups of bored dirty liberals and way-too-smug, truly annoying 'conservatives'. these terms are empty. your comments are empty.

get the fark over your political affiliation and stop defining everything you do by it already, *please*.
2002-02-27 06:07:03 PM  
God damn it, Styrene!
I'm at work!
You are the total a55hole!
2002-02-27 06:08:29 PM  
Yo, Styrene, don't post NSFW pics. Link to them and label them as such.

Mods, a little help here?
2002-02-27 06:11:49 PM  
Mods, please delete picture above . . .

Sounds like the Dems are trying even harder to stuff the ballot box. First motor-voter, and now this. There is an easy solution:

Only citizens of the U.S. can vote. Earn your right to vote by becoming a full citizen of the U.S.
2002-02-27 06:15:21 PM  
people who define themselves as republicans or democrats, without hesitation, are idiots.
2002-02-27 06:20:20 PM  
2002-02-27 06:25:12 PM  
Motorvoter and Signature verification are not meant to stuff the ballot box they are meant to make it easier for people to vote. Most of the people who do not vote say that their reason for it is because it is to much of a hassle.

Oregon with its mail in voting is one of the more progressive states in the union making it easier for people to get their votes heard. If you compare our voting laws with the rest of the democratic countries in the world you will find that we have some of the most restrictive. Most of the Republican opposition to election reform is that they do not want more people voting. Because once again most people who do not vote regularly tend to have liberal leanings, and the Republican party fears these people getting off their asses and vote... so the strategy is, make voting as dificult as possible.
2002-02-27 06:26:59 PM  
2002-02-27 06:30:46 PM  
I am disgusted that the Republicans would find another way to prevent people from voting. Count all the votes. All should be allowed to vote early and often!
2002-02-27 06:33:25 PM  
I like Oregons vote by mail system. It makes it alot easier to vote. Maybe we should have to show ID to register not to vote, wouldn't really hamper the vote by mail around here (which if they try to get rid of I'm storming the capital with a torch and a pitchfork *grins*)
2002-02-27 06:35:50 PM  
It's not always so easy for lower-class individuals to obtain a non-driver photo ID either. The paperwork required may seem trivial to middle-class individuals sitting in front of their new Dell, but some states require a lot to obtain a photo ID. The DMV doesn't accept food stamps either.
2002-02-27 06:37:35 PM  
yeh it was nearly impossible for me to get my ID. Reason being my mother didn't have a copy of my birth certifcate (required for ID) and Arizona where I was born requires proof of identity (namely a drivers license or state ID card) to get a copy of a birth certificate.
2002-02-27 06:38:08 PM  
but at least I could register to vote even if I couldn't get my drivers license or a job.
2002-02-27 06:40:08 PM  
Continue the bribery! Bribery is a good thing. Anyone who wants to stop the bribery of congress is a Pinko in league with Bin Laden! Can't you Smellocrtats and Repulsicans see that bribery is the AMERICAN WAY??!! LONG LIVE BRIBERY OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!
2002-02-27 06:58:57 PM  
I'm failing to see a problem with requiring people to show a photo ID when they vote.
2002-02-27 07:05:35 PM  
Ouroborus there are some cities where many people do not have state issued photo IDs. New York is a prime example, most people on New York do not drive any where so they do not bother buying a car or getting drivers liscences. Hence they do not have a state issued photo ID that would be accepted at a polling station.

Also many times the poor who cannot afford to buy cars do not get drivers liscences. They either live close enough to their work that they can walk there or they take public transportation. And many states have extra requirements for a non-driving state photo ID like needing proof of birth (read: birth certificate). But this presents a catch-22 as many states require that you show a state issued picture ID to get access to your birth certificate.

One of two things needs to happen. They either need to make it less restrictive to obtain a state issued picture ID, or they need to make it so that to vote you do not need a picture ID.
2002-02-27 07:06:02 PM  
Duh. I mean, guess what - Republicans don't WANT everyone to be able to vote. Rich people are DEFINITELY in the minority, and the more people in general that can vote, the less chance a republican has of winning.
2002-02-27 07:11:07 PM  
2002-02-27 07:30:21 PM  
The usual conservative ditto heads are avoiding this thread like the plague.
2002-02-27 07:34:14 PM  
Code_A: I wandered around to the state of Texas site with regards to getting a photo ID (ID or DL).

In Texas it is possible to get a photo ID with an "original or certified copy of court order with name and date of birth" and a social security card.

I'm not sure what constitutes a "court order" in this instance but it looks like one can get an ID without a birth certificate. Personally, of the options you present, I'd like to make it easier to get your birth certificate, rather than easier to get an ID. Presenting a photo ID, at least in my mind, makes it harder for someone to easily commit voter fraud. It can still be done, but it is not as easy as just wandering to each polling place and signing a name.
2002-02-27 07:53:08 PM  
Ouroborus in all elections there is going to be a probability of voter fraud. The laws as they are stop casual voter fraud but not whole-sale voter fraud. The difference between the two is that casual voter fraud is getting IDs of some dead people and stuffing the ballot box with their names. It is easy to detect after the fact and correct, and tends to be done by "interested parties" of a candidate, and rarely at the candidates behest.

Whole-sale voter fraud is a little more difficult to prove but does go on. It tends to be done by companies and government agencies to discourage a group of people from voting a certain way through extortion. Sadly the laws for this are not well defined as those that stop casual voter fraud. Some examples of this in the past is in the 1890s factory fore-men used to fire people who left work to go to vote, or they would state the day before an election if X candidate won the election not to bother coming to work. A couple of more recent incidents have been police setting up road blocks between a poor neighborhood and a voting center, their presence tends to discourage poor voters from going to vote out of fear of being hassled by the police (many poor people do not trust police officers).

Casual voter fraud only has an effect on small local elections where there are less than 10,000 votes to decide an election, and they tend to have no appreciable effect on larger elections. The other kind has been known to sway much larger elections in a district but very rarely. When it comes down to it, voter fraud is not a real threat to our democratic system, because for it to be undetectable it has to be left small, and in so doing it makes it ineffective as a means of swaying a vote even in close races.
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.