Oregon does the automatic registration, and no such question appears (or didn’t the last time I signed up for an Oregon Driver’s License), although the person applying can choose to opt out without giving a reason (and in any case Oregon is a Sanctuary State, so the problem wouldn’t arise, regardless.) As with all states, checks against eligibility are done elsewhere in the process.
Mine has been in a multi-purpose room at a Catholic grade school for the past decade or so. Before that, it was, in fact, in the garage in someone’s home. Yay, Cook County! 
Here in Washington state, all voting is by mail - they don’t even have polling places open.
Ha-ha! I used to vote house garage in Will Co. (Joliet).
Horrible idea. Frankly, artificially increased voter participation is not a good thing. People that don’t care enough to vote of their own volition are likely low information voters that will vote for whoever is favored by their church/social group/people that drive them to the polls.
Do you mean automatically registering people to vote? How do they check if you are a citizen and therefore eligible to vote?
Regards,
Shodan
I assume the same way every other state does. I’ve registered to vote in states with and without automatic registration, and I’ve never been asked to present a birth certificate or other proof of my citizenship.
There are serious objections to voting by mail. In some countries, absentee voting is permitted only under certain circumstances, and then, for some countries, must be done at a polling station rather than by mail. @ European Dopers — Can an EU citizen request a mail-in ballot without showing good cause?
The reason why voting by mail is undemocratic is that it potentially violates the secrecy of the ballot. Voters may now sell their votes, since they have a way to prove how they voted. An abused wife can now be obligated to vote as instructed by her bullying husband. (Even gentle pressure might affect a vote.) Where I live, mail-in ballots would immediately turn elections into complete mockeries.
I’ve mentioned this before at SDMB, but Zero Dopers see a problem with mail-in ballots (“they’re so convenient”). Perhaps the Land of Liberty needn’t worry about vote buying or abusive spouses. … Or perhaps U.S.A. democracy is now so hopelessly flawed that these added worries are just a drop in the bucket.
Rather than punishment, how about a reward? If someone registers and then votes, they get set deduction on their income tax like, say, a thousand dollar deduction. That’s a big incentive.
It wouldn’t stop me, either. But a) I’m in a position to determine for myself how I lay out my day and, to some extent, my week; and I have a car b) it’s just about equally as convenient (or inconvenient) for me to get to any of the churches in the nearby village as it is for me to get to the village hall, where I actually do vote c) I don’t have any religious or philosophical objections to going into a church building d) I’ve had occasion to do so for other reasons often enough in my life that I’m reasonably comfortable in churches e) my experience with the local churches is that I can go into them for a secular purpose and expect to not be harassed by proselytizers. One or more of those things are problems for other people.
It would be pretty annoying to me to have the voting be on a Sunday, because it would mean that I couldn’t combine voting with some of the other errands I usually do on the same town trip. It saves me gas, wear and tear on the car, and significant time to combine errands. But if I have to go into town an extra day, again, I’m in a position in which I can do that. Not everybody is.
And, certainly, setting up the voting booths right smack next to the church services on the day when the church is having services is going to make it massively easier for the churchgoers to vote: because they’re going to be there anyway, while other people have no reason to be in that location and may have any of multiple reasons not to.
(New York State, by the way, allows absentee ballots only for limited reasons. This year will be the first one that early voting is possible; but there’ll only be one location in the county open for this – that has to do, not with deliberate voter suppression, but with costs; no funding is provided for the cost of keeping voting stations open, the localities have to come up with it, and this is a poor area. We do, at least, have reasonably long hours for the polls to be open, so anyone who works near their polling place is likely to be able to vote before or after work even if their job has unusual hours, and even people who work an hour’s drive away have some chance to get there.)
– Declaring Election Day a holiday is from some angles tempting. But bear in mind that in the USA such a declaration would only be binding on government employers; and it’s become extremely common for private businesses to take federal and/or state holidays as an opportunity to hold sales, with the result that not only don’t they close, but they may require employees to work extra hours.
Those are good points. How one votes should be as secret and free from coercion as possible.
Concerning paying people to vote? That’s a no from me. If people aren’t serious enough about self government to get needed documents and take a bit of time to vote I don’t need to hear their voice. That said, I wouldn’t be opposed to making voting easier and more accessible. But I do expect some effort from the electorate.
Really? How about
[ul][li] The 74 year-old woman in Pennsylvania who has been voting for decades, but is no longer able to vote. Her birth certificate contains a misspelling so she can’t get photo ID. After she and her grandson spend two days and two tanks of gasoline trying to fix this, she’s told to try again next week.[/li][li] John J. Brown, a resident of South Carolina who is turned away on Election Day, because he might be the John J. Brown registered in Kansas, and be trying to vote twice. “Should’a checked your mail, boy.”[/li][li] A student in Texas who is turned away because her government-university issued student ID isn’t valid for voting, though gun permits are valid for voting.[/li][li] Voters at an urban precinct in Ohio who have to wait in queue for hours to use a voting machine, while suburban voters have no wait.[/li][li] Et cetera.[/li][/ul]
In previous threads you have sided with the Republican Party, IIRC. Are you now renouncing that allegiance? Suppressing the votes mentioned above is the absolutely central theme of their party platform.
For what it’s worth, the church where I vote is completely empty (hell, it’s Tuesday) except for the voting. I would like to think that there is some regulation regarding church/state separation that further demands such a lack of religious activity. I don’t know, but I would like to think so.
Which of those situations would be fixed by handing a thousand dollars to everyone that shows up to vote? You cut off that part of octopus’ quote.
Do the people who queued up for hours in Ohio seem like they need a cash incentive to vote?
And since when, in responding to a post that makes two unrelated points, A and B, need I quote and respond to A when it is only B that I found of interest?
I utterly disagree. It isn’t "artificial’ to make voting a whole lot more convenient. The only advantage in making voting difficult (like it is now) is so the most privileged are the most likely to vote, having the time, the vehicle, the ID, and all the other hoops you must jump through. This is why the right wing always likes making voting more difficult, to ensure that poor people won’t be able to vote.
If you think high-information voters don’t vote for whomever their peer group votes for, you’re … misinformed.
That’s not what happened.
In your post, you quoted octopus saying “… That said, I wouldn’t be opposed to making voting easier and more accessible. But I do expect some effort from the electorate.”
But, with what said? If you keep ‘that said’, in context, the ‘that’ is "Concerning paying people to vote? That’s a no from me. "
Those weren’t two individual points, it was one big point that you stripped a single soundbyte type chunk of to use on it’s own and made it a lot easier to knock down.
This is America. You have an absolute right to disagree.
I am a firm believer in mandatory voting if the option, “I do not choose to vote for anyone,” is included. I have no problem with people not wishing to vote; what I have a problem with is not knowing the difference between those not voting because they don’t care and those not voting because, for one reason or another, they are unable.
Fine. I hereby ask the Mods to restore the portion of Octopus’ post I snipped. That will only strengthen my point.
John J. Brown, a resident of South Carolina who is turned away on Election Day, because he might be the John J. Brown registered in Kansas, and be trying to vote twice. “Should’a checked your mail, boy.”
Pretending that John J. Brown is a duplicate name is the exact opposite of making it easy to vote. Did Mr. Brown make inadequate effort to vote? Should he have applied for a legal name change to Algonkwin Z. Aberzygyzzy, hoping that wouldn’t be duplicated?