Contrawhat?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I suppose the 5 minute trek to my town hall is different than a 40 minute trek into the nearest township. The township could, of course, have a day where the clerk goes to those rural areas to register those who need it, too - there's nothing stopping the clerks from being creative in the times of exception.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

The township could of course allow people to handle these things online, same as they do their corporate citizens. Why should we make it easy to pay taxes and parking fines, but difficult to have a say in voting?

I'm not saying fraud won't happen. My mom and I have the same name, and there have been instances where I find out she signed in as me, so I sign in as her. So I get that the mechanism is there. (The difference in the Social Security Number is neglible and easy to confuse. We joke that one of us could vote twice, but we know the other would rat us out.) But honestly, such small risks of fraud only matters if it intrinsically favors one party and the results are particularly close.

And if the results are particularly close, it's statistically a draw anyway. Democrats stay home if it's raining. Those completely on the fence tend to go for the one with more name recognizition. In a scenario where fraud could make a difference, it was chance that put the winner into office, not votes.

So sure. Fraud could happen. And it should totally be against the law. But what evidence do we have that it's hurting our democracy? Shouldn't that be the first policy point before we choose more regulation?

You're trying to make it about fraud, but many of your solutions have nothing to do with fraud. It has to do with raising the bar to want to vote. While I can understand that we want to make sure only people who "really care to understand the issues" vote, these hurdles don't really guarantee that. No hurdle between the voting booth and me will require me to put more thought into my vote. There's no direct correlation between my vote and good government. I vote because I want to appear smart, and I want a right to complain, and perhaps I'm lucky enough I work close to my voting poll, so it's pretty damn convenient.

So adding a cost to voting only rewards people who have strong emotional ties to voting, not necessarily people who have thought about the issues. There's no guaranteed benefit. And by lowering the pool of voters, you increase the chance that the result doesnt reflect the will of all the people. So why do it?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The township could of course allow people to handle these things online, same as they do their corporate citizens. Why should we make it easy to pay taxes and parking fines, but difficult to have a say in voting?

Voting is a little more important. You can't really verify identity very well over the internet.

But what evidence do we have that it's hurting our democracy? Shouldn't that be the first policy point before we choose more regulation?

I find the question itself to be bizarre - that fraudulent voting only questionably hurts our democracy. If someone wins by 1 vote, but would have won by 51 if it weren't for 50 fraudulent votes by the loser, it's not any less harmful than if there were 52 fraudulent votes overall - it's still a failure of our voting system.

This isn't "more regulation," really. At the end of the day, all the infrastructure is there - when the little old lady checks your name off at the voter roll, she just needs to make sure your ID matches. That's it.

So adding a cost to voting only rewards people who have strong emotional ties to voting, not necessarily people who have thought about the issues. There's no guaranteed benefit. And by lowering the pool of voters, you increase the chance that the result doesnt reflect the will of all the people. So why do it?

The only "cost" we're speaking of here is the time investment for a small pool of voters who a) want to vote but b) do not have identification. Given how difficult it is to even exist in society without identification, this doesn't seem like much of a roadblock to me, especially given the benefits on a whole.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

Um, you didn't just advocate for identification. I think people should register at their town hall, they should have to register a set time before the elections (no same day registration), absentee ballots should be handed out sparingly and with cause, and voting should happen on one day, not with "early voting" or other nonsense

And yes, the amount of fraud does matter. As someone who understands markets, that should be plainly obvious. Murder is bad. It should be illegal. (Luckily, it is) But we still tolerate a certain murder rate because we consider the available policy alternatives to be too invasive. And those are actual lives, not votes.

The existence of voter fraud is not evidence our democracy is harmed. It's evidence of bad actors in our system. But so long as the end result is that the candidate the people want elected gets elected, democracy worked.

Democracy works exactly for the same reasons the market works. While there might be shitty people out there who will disenfranchise you or con you out of your life savings, those actions are diluted by the vast numbers of other actors. Fraud would be easily detected if polls said that one candidate was sure to win, but another won the election. And everyone has an equal incentive to either commit fraud or not commit fraud, so there's no systemic tilt.

And just so you know, I've managed to fly without photo id. Since moving to San Francisco I've let my drivers license expire, and keep my passport on hand. But if I didn't want to buy liquor on a regular basis, I wouldn't need it. When I need to verify my identity, it's by relying on information from my credit report. Nobody knows what politikitty looks like, and any given drivers license picture isn't really going to be a serious deterrent. You're over-estimating the value of ID and underestimating the cost of keeping that on you.

Voting is an expensive act when we consider the slim chances our vote will actually make a difference. It's amusing to see your libertarian viewpoints completely fail to weigh the costs and benefits on this issue though. I mean, I totally get that starry eyed view of the sacredness of voting, and the sheer indignity that people might sully it with signing in as someone else and voting twice. But I'd figure you'd see that's all sentimentality and try to look beyond it and check your assumptions.

I mean, you do a great job of that when quelling the human urge to hate on highly paid C.E.O's.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Um, you didn't just advocate for identification.

Yes, but the point of the multi-step, restrictive process is mostly due to identification concerns.

The existence of voter fraud is not evidence our democracy is harmed. It's evidence of bad actors in our system. But so long as the end result is that the candidate the people want elected gets elected, democracy worked.

Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree - especially since we really have no objective record as to how bad the fraud is - but I can respect that POV.

Voting is an expensive act when we consider the slim chances our vote will actually make a difference. It's amusing to see your libertarian viewpoints completely fail to weigh the costs and benefits on this issue though. I mean, I totally get that starry eyed view of the sacredness of voting, and the sheer indignity that people might sully it with signing in as someone else and voting twice. But I'd figure you'd see that's all sentimentality and try to look beyond it and check your assumptions.

Much like I'm very heavy-handed on the restrictions on the government to be able to squish speech, I feel the same about our voting. I'm very all-in when it comes to important rights and duties. Might be a flaw.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

especially since we really have no objective record as to how bad the fraud is

Actually we do. On top of internal audits the government does on an ongoing basis, we also have exit polls that call attention to any time the vote differs from the population.

So again, harm should be established before we restrict access to the ballot box. We know that just about all of these restrictions materially reduce voter turnout in a way that actually changes the vote results. So while it might be apolitical in theory, in practice we know that these laws make voting harder for people who rent, young people, people who commute, lower income people. These populations have a legitimate voice, and they trend towards liberal viewpoints.

So while I understand that voting is a very important thing that should be handled importantly, each new restriction we add to the ballot box decreases the actual democratic nature of an election.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Actually we do. On top of internal audits the government does on an ongoing basis, we also have exit polls that call attention to any time the vote differs from the population.

Exit polls are of those who voted. Tells us nothing about whether those who voted were honest about who they were to the people inside.

So while it might be apolitical in theory, in practice we know that these laws make voting harder for people who rent, young people, people who commute, lower income people. These populations have a legitimate voice, and they trend towards liberal viewpoints.

Maybe they do. Then the liberal interest groups who believe this can work harder at getting those populations to the places where IDs are generated, to register to vote at their town halls, and get them to the voting booth. Same as now, just different tactics.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

We have not only exit polls, but also polls of likely voters, registered voters and the entire population.

So there would be evidence of the democratic process being subverted.

It's pretty undemocratic that you think it's acceptable to rig the voting process in a way that actually shifts the ideological center of election results. How can a democracy unable to represent it's citizens be legitimate?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

We have not only exit polls, but also polls of likely voters, registered voters and the entire population.

So there would be evidence of the democratic process being subverted.

Except that, in a close election, one person winning 51/49 after polls showed him losing 51/49 is within the margin of error.

It's pretty undemocratic that you think it's acceptable to rig the voting process in a way that actually shifts the ideological center of election results. How can a democracy unable to represent it's citizens be legitimate?

Whoa whoa whoa. No one's trying to "rig the voting process."

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

And as I said, if the vote is within the statistical margin of error, the election result is a byproduct of chance. Hold the election five times in Florida in 2000, and you'd get five different results.

Every single regulation you've put forward decreases the legitimate vote share of demographics known to vote for liberal policies. Just like choosing the boundaries of any given district, these regulations are inherently political.

While Democrats could certainly spend money to alleviate the problem, they can never guarantee to spend more money than Republicans. Given we can't cap money spent in elections due to first amendment rights, Democrats will not be able to overcome that gap.

So while you might not see it as rigging an election, let's not lie about the end result.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So while you might not see it as rigging an election, let's not lie about the end result.

This does raise the question, then - what is it about liberal demographics that keep them from getting the proper identification?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

This thread has been just beautiful, politikitty!

You're quickly turning me into a groupie of yours with this thread.
Very nice 8-)

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Much like I'm very heavy-handed on the restrictions on the government to be able to squish speech, I feel the same about our voting.

You're heavy-handed on the restrictions government has to squish voting?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm heavy handed on the need to keep voting as secure as possible.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

'Given how difficult it is to even exist in society without identification'

it's not nearly as hard as you think it is.

i'm just wondering why exactly getting a driver's license from a state-regulated facility isn't enough id to vote in your eyes.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't know where I implied otherwise.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

you're saying people should ALSO have to register at a town hall.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Of course. You should have to register to vote.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

uhm, you register to vote at the dmv when you get your driver's license.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's no good. Much more prone to fraud - the voting records and voting registrations should remain in the same place.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

why? what's wrong with state-issued identification?

again, i'm just wondering why exactly getting a driver's license from a state-regulated facility isn't enough id to vote in your eyes.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

and if "fraudulent voting only questionably hurts our democracy" why does voting need to be harder?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

The township could, of course, have a day where the clerk goes to those rural areas to register those who need it, too - there's nothing stopping the clerks from being creative in the times of exception.

That would cost additional funds. Unless you expect those clerks to pay for it out of their own pocket, I would like to know how you would justify the cost of doing so to the Township Legislative Council (or what-have-you). Where would the money be re-allocated from? Or would you support a tax, which would need to be passed via referendum?

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Or we could let people volunteer their time to register people where it's convenient for registrees. These volunteers would have a set list of rules they must follow, which would include things like "you must submit EVERY registration received, no matter its validity" to cut down on fraud, but the registrars would be able to flag suspicious registrations for further review.

Yeah, that would be cool.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

I would recommend against volunteers because such individuals are usually partisan in nature and therefore will act in the best interests of their partisan politics, not for the public good. If volunteers are to be used, I would have to have full security vetting, with criminal/background/credit checks and and occasional tracking procedures to ensure they aren't altering voter registrations in such a way as benefits their pet interest.

Short: I don't trust volunteers. I trust people who do their job for the money.