A voter could drop dead of a heart attack as they were leaving the polling place, and their vote would still count. They were a validly registered voter, living at their registered address, at the time they cast their vote. Dying after voting does not invalidate their vote.
Here in Minnesota, if requested, we will send a pair of election judges to a hospital or nursing home to allow sick people to cast their votes. It’s quite likely that somew of those critically-ill patients may have died later that same day. There vote still counts, as it should!
Feel free to point this out to the Republican who tried to argue that early voting raised the specter (heh) of counting the votes of people who are now dead. Under existing early-voting rules, they also cast valid votes.
Exactly. Even if someone tried this it wouldn’t work, at least in Suffolk County, NY. I was registered to vote in both New York and Maryland the year my family moved moved. But I was bouncing between houses and ended up voting in NY because our house hadn’t been rented out yet and I was there on Election Day. Fast forward to the next year. Now I’m in MD, vote there, but am still registered in NY. If someone showed up in NY to vote in my name they would have had to have been able to duplicate my signature. Good luck with that.
The Trump-turds are targeting swing states like PA, VA, WI.
I’m interested in hearing from SDMB’s pro-suppression spokesman. Is this another example of democracy at its finest? Will it improve our confidence in the election outcome?
If Trump does anything, he will be ham fisted about it, subtle ain’t his strong suit. In the cold light of realpolitik, I would bet the backlash response from voters would overwhelm any advantage he might get out of it.
I don’t understand this. It will happen on Election Day itself, with polling in the Democratic precincts of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and GOP-controlled states like Ohio and Wisconsin brought to a standstill. Polls will close with dissatisfied Democrats turned away. Do you expect a lawsuit to reverse the results if Trump wins one of those states?
Maybe 80-year old Justice Kennedy, appointed by the liberal Reagan, will make a 5-3 Scotus vote for integrity but I wouldn’t count on it.
I just hope grassroots Democrats are prepared for this, and prepared to operate counter-measures, perhaps even going eye-for-an-eye and attacking Trumpturdy precincts the same way.
Sounds like a national voter ID system would have actually done more to prevent that type of voter fraud than the types of voter ID laws that have been implemented and spoken of in this thread.
If the other side was sincere, we could make a deal in five minutes flat.
Sure, we’ll go for voter id, in the name of voter confidence. Its bullshit, but harmless enough IF! IF! There is a concerted and proactive effort to ensure easy, free and convenient access. More early voting opportunities, Sunday voting. A serious effort to change polling opportunity, so that citizens of densely populated areas don’t end up waiting four hours to vote. Not much to ask for relieving their shivering terror of voter fraud!
Persons of good will could hammer out the details of that compromise in an afternoon!
If they were sincere. Right now, what they are offering is they will do what they want and they will let us shut up about it. They aren’t sincere, so all we owe them is a whoopin’.
I do not believe that anyone in this thread is against the principle of Voter Id law, just the how it has been implemented in rather cynical and undemocratic ways.
Voter ID laws could be passed that not only have no negative effect on the electorate, but could also do some social good.
These are not the laws that have been passed.
There are many ways to implement them that would not cause these problems or complaints. If you want an example, just look at pretty much any other country. Pick one that you think works well. Or come up with your own, as long as it is designed from the beginning to be inclusive rather than exclusive, it would not get a complaint.
Sounds good. But, of course, the devil is in the details. It reminds me of the argument about securing the border. “Sure, we’ll do it, but as a part of a comprehensive plan…yada yada, yada”. It’s bullshit. They just make enough demands to make sure that the border won’t be secured. If everyone agrees that it would be a good thing to secure the border, or secure that the vote is not abused by requiring a voter ID, just do it!
The truth is that people are happy to do some of the things you’d want to make it easier to vote, but probably not ALL of them. And if you demand enough of them you’re just assuring that voter ID will not happen.
Voter ID aside, there is a philosophical debate about just how easy it should be to vote. Some, like I, think that it needn’t, and shouldn’t be, TOO simple. It’s a right that people around the world risk their lives for. I certainly don’t think that the system we have now is overly restrictive. People stand on lines for 4 days for the latest iPhone, spending a few minutes in line to vote just isn’t that big a deal. I’ve done it. Once I think it was an hour. But that was an outlier.
The bottom line is that the reasons you state in favor of instituting a Voter ID law are merits in and of themselves. If we had the exact system now and just added that one thing, the system would improve.