Registration rules vary depending on the state. For example some states require you to be a resident for a certain number of years to vote in that state while others require a few weeks or months. Similarly others allow you to register on election day.
Usually there’s a deadline but with rare exceptions, states don’t check the lists of registered voters with convicted felons because that would cause a huge snafu considering how many people have similar names.
Also, generally speaking registrations don’t expire unless you don’t vote in a certain number of elections or notify the board you’ve changed your address. That’s why there are a number of areas of the country, most notably college towns, where registered voters exceed the residents.
I myself am still registered to vote in two, possibly three different states and realistically there’s nothing in place to stop me from voting in Rhode Island, where I am now, and voting via absentee ballot elsewhere.
Like I said, our system operates on the honor system.
If you have had your wallet lost or stolen, you know what a pain in the ass it is to get all your proof renewed. One problem is a birth certificate. When I applied for a passport, I had to go through a lot of effort . It was expensive. In Michigan, we can get “enhanced licenses”, which get you over the border to Canada easier. But it took time, effort and money to get those things. I live in the city and have a car, so I could get it done. I imagine the frustration for a less mobile person. They have voted for 50 years and now suddenly their right to vote is taken away. Time and money. For some it is a big deal. For all it costs money.
The programs themselves cost millions of dollars. All to prevent a practically non existent crime. It is a waste and is stupid all by itself. But when you toss in that its effects are deliberately targeting select groups of citizens, it has no defense. It is wrong.
I don’t know what you’re talking about but I obviously struck a nerve.
Sorry about that.
Anyway I’m done with this silly fight over something that doesn’t prevent anyone from voting while most people either ignore or barely mention the disenfranchisement of felons which suppresses millions of votes.
I thought about starting a new thread for this, but I think it fits in with the whole “GOP voting reform” meme.
Top Republicans pushing plan to change the way Pa. elects a president
I can see where one could argue for this way of doing things if all 50 state do it at the same time, but this strikes me as doing it selectively only where it will benefit Republicans.
Then may we assume you are also done with the silly fight over what the hell we need the voter ID laws for in the first place, since there is virtually no voter fraud issues for them to correct?
I did not mention the felons because a lot of people like the idea that they can not vote, When I was doing voter registration ,I was surprised to find that felons thought they were not allowed to vote . In Michigan, if you served your time and your probation is done, you can vote. There are states that do not allow felons. I guess their felons are worse than ours and deserve lifetime punishment.
I’ll address this one since it’s perfectly reasonable.
I don’t think voter ID laws are something we need and think we’d be fine without them.
I’ve also repeatedly pointed out that they don’t stop actual fraud because when it’s done it’s usually via absentee ballots so I’m bit confused by your question.
It’s phrased in a way that implies that I think voter identification fraud is a problem and we need voter ID laws to stop it.
The closest I ever came to that was mentioning that America has a long history of that sort of voter fraud, as anyone familiar with Jim Curley can attest.
And just to offer clarity, once again, for the stubbornly dim. Not about “preventing” anyone from voting. About making it more difficult for a relatively small number of voters, to hamper, to discourage. As a matter of principle, this unacceptable, it is not kosher for the legislature to craft laws to partisan advantage. If principle is important, this ought to be enough.
And if we’re opening up the thread to discuss changes in procedure that benefit only one party, how about the Massachusetts appoint-a-senator dance?
Once upon a time, Massachusetts had the same rule many states do: if one of its US Senate seats becomes vacant, then the governor may appoint a replacement, who serves until the next senate election.
Then tragedy struck. Massachusetts, though heavily Democratic in its state legislature, went and elected a Republican governor.
And further tragedy: a Massachusetts senator was running for President! If he won, his senate seat would be vacant and the Republican governor would appoint a replacement. So the democratic-controlled state legislature rushed through a change: from now on, the governor does NOT have the power to appoint a replacement senator. Instead, if the senate seat becomes vacant, a special election will be held to fill it.
As it happens, of course, Kerry did not win, and the scenario did not come to pass. But some time later, with a Democratic governor once more safely at the helm, tragedy (real tragedy this time) struck: the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, died. Now the seat would be vacant until the special election, and with a close vote on the health care bill coming up, that would be a real . . .er . . . tragedy for Democrats.
So once again the Democratic state legislature acted, this time restoring the governor’s power to appoint a temporary US senator to serve until the special election.
Does anyone believe that each of those moves was not precisely calculated to give maximum advantage to the Democrats? Anyone?
Still, each move was perfectly legitimate. And as long as you can point to a legitimate result, your motive is irrelevant. Those moves were made with the idea of creating partisan advantage… but they were also legitimate changes. Each change lessened the time that a senate seatc would be vacated of an elected senator.
We are grateful, as always, for the Counselor’s vigilant attention to liberal hypocrisy. I hereby concede that these Massachussets incidents were unsavory, and not in the finest traditions of our nation.
Which means I’m up by two, Counselor. Neener-neener.
Yup, Bricker actually found an instance in which some liberals somewhere were acting less than ethically.
That means we close the SDMB, he wins, we all go home? Is that it? I forget. I mean, there must have been SOME reason for him to type up that lengthy and fact-filled post…
Depends on the champagne, doesn’t it? There’s some rather lovely value priced domestic these days. Hmm. I wonder if you’re not just asking a wine question here.
Oooh. This one’s a thunker. So you’re contention is that only the rich can afford to get an ID despite my link that states that a rather large majority have already done it? That’s what I’m getting at any rate because you left out a big piece of middle ground in your post.
I’m also curious as to this burden of “know-how” and how exactly people can’t afford it.
I’m connecting dots just fine. Thanks for your concern.
Bolding mine. They’ve already been denied the right to vote? Must’ve missed that. Everything I’ve seen has stated that a percentage of the population doesn’t have ID yet. I hadn’t realized that the burden of getting one was so severe that every last one of them has already given up. I mean they must have otherwise you’d be making a very large assumption that has certainly not been proven just for emotional effect.
Oh. I’d also hate to forget to salute you on your subtly stating that I think poor people are less of an american than I am and that they don’t count. Nicely done sir. I tip my top hat at you. I’m almost tempted to remove my monocle.
I’ll just look down that page and find the part talking about voter ID laws. Wait. It’s not there.:eek: Were you trying to imply a link between the two? Oh but you’re a sharp one.
I just wanted to make sure that when I question his posts about all the poor being denied their rights to vote (his words), you don’t think I’m being dim.
We’ve been over that before, you babbling Murdoch chimp. You have yet to explain how what they did was in any way distinguishable from what they would have done if their interest was in democracy itself. Nor has anyone else.
But, since you can conceive of no greater principle than partisan advantage, that’s inevitably the only way you can console yourself.
Because there are (or were at the time) posters here who insisted that the Massachusetts efforts were nothing but a shiny example of commitment to democracy and had nothing to do with gaining partisan advantage.
In fact, although my ignore settings prevent me from being completely certain, I would venture a comfortable guess that at least one poster still feels this way.