I don’t think you have been looking hard enough.
2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. 39 states use these guidelines as a basis for their election procedures and equipment requirements.
They went into effect in 2007, and address the issue of verifiable vote counts.
Let’s talk for a minute about a little thing called the “status quo” and changing it. When you want to change the established stature of law, you should have a good reason for doing so. For example, if you want to tighten voter registration, you should present reason the believe that it is necessary. If this cannot be demonstrated, then there is no reason to change the law. Especially not when it has side-effects like this. It’s like how, when you don’t have a headache, you don’t take medicine for it (especially not when the medicine has a harmful side-effect!).
But hey, you know what, let’s ignore all that. Let’s pretend that it doesn’t matter in the slightest, and just talk bout the idea that the second part of your post makes a whit of difference. It doesn’t. First off, what’s Marion, a court case? Please cite. I’d like to know the context, because saying “someone is unable to get an ID” is like saying “someone is unable to walk 10 miles to work each day”. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who couldn’t (even cripples or the wheelchair-bound could technically do that 10-mile walk if it’s in an urban area), but then again you’d also be hard-pressed to find someone who would want to, and for a lot of people, that 10-mile walk is unfeasible and cuts far too much time out of a day where they are already spending god knows how many hours working, still need to try to find another part/full-time job.
Just about everyone can get the license (if they give up a day’s wages for the money and about half a day that really needs to be spent working to get the damn thing). That doesn’t mean that it’s a realistically viable option for them most of the time. It may mean going without food for a day or so. So please don’t act like that anyone “can” get an ID makes everything OK. It really, really doesn’t. And when you look at the motivation for this, and see that at the same time that they’re doing this, they’re also closing DMVs in the poorest areas… Yeah. Fuck that.
8 people in California. Well, it’s something. But is it more widespread? Or is it just 8 people in California? Cuz that’s for all intents and purposes nothing.
Assuming said outreach program actually works, this would be a great solution. Better/more polling stations is also something I advocate. But the problem, of course, is ensuring that we have it free and easy-to-get. >.>
I’m sorry, but these machines do not provide for transparent, verifiable elections, regardless of guidelines. Any software complex enough to handle the function of recording and tabulating an election cannot ever be guaranteed to be bug free. No guideline can change that. I can pull out my IT credentials if you’d like.
Where I vote we simply push buttons to register our choices. I have absolutely no proof that my choices are recorded accurately, and there is no way for anyone to determine if the totals accurately reflect the intentions of the voters.
There is no way to do a meaningful recount with these machines. You push a button and you get a count. A recount just means doing the same thing again.
All we have are the promises of some people that the machines meet some dubious guidelines. Do they really? I have no idea, and neither do you.
We should not have to depend on the word of anybody that our votes are being counted accurately. Elections are supposed to be transparent, publicly observable, and verifiable.
Votes that are counted on chips and hard drives are none of those things.
The only way to make elections transparent, observable, and verifiable (and thus legal) is to have hard copy records created by the original voter. Those records have to be counted publicly with observers from all interested parties, and those records must be available for a recount if any questions arise.
THAT is the issue that true believers in election integrity should be fighting for. Fraud by individual voters is a distant second or third behind that.
I find your post intelligent, perceptive, and accurate. To the extent that my opinion is at variance with yours, I wlll amend mine to fit.
That I don’t care what goes on in a state hundreds of miles away, to one person, to watch a 10 minute video, after being given a description of what happened in it?
Simply that the Democrats have always been pro-legalization of illegal immigrants because they apparently tend to vote Democrat.
That’s not the claim - the claim is that the Democrats want to legalize them so they can vote.
For all we know, the Democrats are already targeting getting the legal minorities and poor registered and out to vote.
LOL. I’m not sure if this is sarcasm or not. I appreciate your support, I think.
You got us, Curly, got us dead to rights. Not a leg to stand on. We are trying to get people to vote. Might of got away with it, too, not for you. Damn!
I can’t speak for every liberal, but I’ve never even heard this idea expressed or intimated.
I, personally, feel that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I do not endorse illegal immigration. However, for those here that can be productive members of society, I welcome thee.
How can I fault these people for seeking a better life for themselves and their families? Especially when their own governments are such a mess that legal immigration most likely isn’t even an option. I feel that, in their shoes, I would do the same thing. These people travel hundreds of miles over harsh terrain and through dangerous conditions to seek a better life. That’s nothing short of courageous.
Probably been posted before but will post it again:
Well, but there’s obviously more to it than that. I mean, if it were suggested to me that Democrats are in favour of a policy of amnesty and route to citizenship for illegal immigrants simply because they think said immigrants are more likely to vote Democratic, I suppose I’d see that as a silly but vaguely defensible position. But when someone says, emphasis mine:
that’s a qualitively different claim.
Ach, well, it’s kind of off-topic anyhow, and I can’t reasonably ask you to defend someone else’s point of view. But I don’t think this was an unreasonable thing to challenge, and I don’t think the challenge has been answered.
Thanks. 
Now let’s see if there are any conflicting sources forthcoming… Inb4nothing
I concur with your sentiments in that post.
In truth, though, so does everyone else - on both sides of this debate. It’s so glaringly, screamingly obvious what’s going on. Of course, those on the right can’t just come out and say “we’re trying to stop the proles from voting because they’ll likely vote against us.” Some do, right enough, but most are not so shameless.
But as someone way, way upthread said, we’re all adults here. We know what this is about.
It’s not like the right hasn’t tried to discourage voting before. Why is it so unlikely that that’s what is going on now?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; it probably ain’t a goose!
It is simply about voter suppression in demographics that tilt Democratic.
Are they after the fraud in fancy neighborhoods ? If they look, I am sure they will find it. Then we can stop elections completely because the results can not be relied upon when you can find a case or two.
You want me to explain why dealing with a DMV employee might be unpleasant?
Could using a bank statement as proof of identity be unusual?
Actually I live in Florida and the DMV employees I’ve dealt with were perfectly pleasant, even thou the requirements to get a driver license renewed in Florida are much worse than Wisconsin. I had to show up with my birth certificate and social security card and it turns out that they didn’t accept Visa, only Mastercard.
Getting registered to vote is much easier in Florida. You can do it online. I don’t why anybody would go to the DMV to register.
Off the top of my head, I’d guess that it would be somewhat difficult to register on line, if you’re too poor to own a computer.
:rolleyes: This should be far too obvious to need stating (again), but get-out-the-vote and voter suppression are not equally legitimate political tactics.
It’s not my idea - its upthread someplace.
You don’t live any place with a high population of illegals, do you?
At my expense?
I’m not here to defend or challenge it, I merely put it out there in contrast to the OP.
I am not equating this to “get out the vote”, I am equating it to the OP’s idea that the things listed in there are done by Republicans simply to have more folks vote their way.
No, they are things done by Republicans simply to have fewer folks vote the other way. That makes all the difference.