Because he’s black?
Because they believe that maintaining voter databases is wrong.
Don’t just wait to see what happens; check to see!
https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/
They should also tell you if you voted, that way you can check for dead relatives and if they voted while dead, report it.
Similar stories were run prior to 2008 and 2012. I have difficulty remembering the accomplishments of the McCain and Romney Administrations.
Obviously Crosscheck is stupid, a huge expenditure of money to solve a nonexistent problem. It won’t win Trump the election.
Earlier in the month, I asked the reverse of this question. Voter id rules suffer string of court losses, will that affect the election? It didn’t get much action but LHoD did contribute an interesting 538 article discussing the effect of restrictive voting laws.
Incorrect.
I’m not necessarily a Democrat, but I’m certainly a liberal, with credentials going all the way back to my hippie protest days in the 60’s. Those of us who care about the integrity of the electoral process have no objection to purging voter rolls of inaccurate (dead, moved, etc.) data. But because we do care about that integrity thing, and because we know that the disenfranchisement of truly qualified voters is at least as much of an impediment to fair elections as the voting of unqualified persons would be, we object to badly designed and badly timed purges.
As several database experts have stated here, creating a reasonably accurate matchup program may be difficult, but it isn’t impossible. And anyone who cares about fairness would see that the time to run a check would be after an election. That way voters purged in error have time to correct their status, and not be barred from participating because of lack of time. Only partisans who hope to suppress certain voting populations schedule these purges immediately in advance of an election.
All that is true. Provisional ballots also reduce the impact of purges, or just the normal mistakes that bureaucracies make by failing to register you when you registered. But this is actually a problem with real consequences:
Ludicrously minor consequences though. Over 4.1 million people voted in New York, so 2600 dead people voting represents .06% of the total. And since you offer no proof that dead people lean towards one party or the other, isn’t it safe to assume they split the same way as living people?
I’m willing to listen to any proposals which aren’t worse than the problems they’re supposed to be addressing. Look at the two examples given in this thread. New York has 19,795,791 people and a search found 2600 fraudulent votes (one error for every 7614 people). North Carolina has 10,042,802 people and a program to stop fraudulent voters wrongfully tried to ban 589,393 people (one error for every 17 people). The solution is causing 450 times more errors than the problem.
Voter suppression is a ludicrously minor problem as well. hacking is a totally nonexistent problem. Elections have been voided for fraud. No election has yet been decided by a hacker.
I think where we’re going wrong is in thinking we need major changes in the first place. Once this became a partisan issue all of a sudden everyone wants things to change so they can gain an advantage. the laws that have been on the books for decades are sufficient in all but the most corrupt areas(Miami, Chicago, some small southern towns). There was nothing inherently wrong with our election process in the 1980s or 1990s or 2000s. THen all of a sudden Democrats start having issues and both parties see a chance to game the system. Early voting! Mail in voting! Automatic registration! No ID! Require ID! Purge the rolls! Don’t purge the rolls! Felons can’t vote! Felons can vote! Proof of citizenship! No proof of citizenship!
Hacker? Wtf?
I guess you might have missed it but a few posts up I linked to a 538 article that said:
So you may think that’s ludicrously small but a hell of a lot more than .06%. Of course elections should be voided for fraud. That doesn’t mean vote rigging encoded in law is super cool with me. Guess you see it different.
Is that less participation because of actual lack of identification, or because the tiniest inconveniences are enough to keep people from voting? I bet if you eliminated registration requirements entirely you’d get even more voter participation, and then you could point to states that require registration as suppressing minority voters.
When I said voter suppression was a miniscule problem, I meant actual voter suppression, as in “They want me to have ID but I can’t get ID”. The number of people affected by that are extremely small, so small that in Indiana activists failed to challenge the ID law because they couldn’t find someone without ID who couldn’t easily acquire ID. So really, when Democrats say “voter suppression”, what they mean is, “our unmotivated voters will stay away from the polls for the smallest inconveniences.” and that this is now a moral and civil rights issue. No it’s not. It’s a political problem and you have to convince voters that voting needs to be made easier. This is a democracy, last I checked.
If we consider voter suppression to be any minor inconvenience, then voter suppression is rampant in routine voting methods. I can see why Democrats would have an interest in making even things like having to register and actually go to a polling place as suppression. They seem to be heading in that direction. In theory, automatic registration should be a wonderful thing, because it would be based on databases and so non-citizens and felons would automatically not be registered. But why do I get the feeling that Democrats who want automatic registration are going to disable any controls that weed out ineligible voters?
That’s a nice pile of blah blah blah speculation but I provided a cite that talked about how strict voting laws affect minorities and voters from one side of the political spectrum disproportionately. You’ve decided that your side just has more grit or that blacks/latinos are lazier. That’s your perogative. Can’t say it’s a very respectable position to take though.
The fact that our voters are more motivated is pretty well established. Old people have trouble with ID too, but old people turn out no matter what. They’ll stand on a walker for hours to vote. YOunger people won’t vote if they have an appointment at Starbucks with a latte they don’t want to miss. African-Americans turn out big for Presidential elections. Not so much otherwise. It’s not because it’s harder to vote in primaries and midterms. It’s a lack of interest.
Outside of insisting that it is true, how do you plan to prove that? You offer as evidence a series of bald statement supported by other bald statements. Worse, you offer that to refute and rebut actual citation.
Why is youth and minority turnout negatively affected by the simple act of not including the Presidential candidates at the top of the ballot? African-American turnout falls a lot more just from not having a vote for President than voter ID. Should we abolish midterms, as they suppress voters? One nutcase(Chris Matthews) has actually suggested abolishing midterms and I"m sure it will find its way onto Vox as soon as Democrats realize they’ll have a turnout problem no matter what they do.
It’s not an established fact, it’s a well established narrative.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
Blacks are pretty close to white turnout. Old people turn out more but the 45-60 isn’t that far behind.
Eta: and you’ll note that in all those graphs, the mid term election dropoffs aren’t that different between demographics.
In general elections, yes.
Oh, and NY Times writers apparently have also called for abolishing midterms: