Let's Make Voter Fraud Easier- Sen Corn

[Double A]

Provisional ballots are the closest thing we have to EDR in Oklahoma currently. I think this article proves my point quite well:

Most of state's provisional ballots in recent years not valid


By Associated Press
1/28/2008  9:13 AM
Last Modified: 1/28/2008  9:18 AM

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The overwhelming majority of provisional ballots cast in Oklahoma over the past six years were not valid.

Since 2002, these ballots have been given to voters whose eligibility could not immediately be verified. Election officials sort out eligibility questions before these ballots are counted. The process, intended to preserve voting rights, grew out of problems with the 2000 presidential election in Florida.

A provisional ballot could also be issued to a person who registered by mail, is voting for the first time in a federal election after registration and doesn't have identification as is required in such cases.

An analysis by The Oklahoman shows only 13.9 percent of provisional ballots cast in statewide elections were deemed valid.

The election board is responsible for verifying provisional ballots at their expense. It is my understanding that under EDR candidates have to contest EDR registrations at their own expense if they believe those registrations to be invalid.

[rwarn17588]

Voter fraud is extremely rare, and most such claims are either exaggerated or outright false.

http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/Publications/Politics_of_Voter_Fraud_Final.pdf

[RecycleMichael]

Again doublea...you can't answer the question.

Your example is finding fraud when voters are registered by mail.

You can't show any increase of fraud when voters can register and vote the same day.

But you start a thread with fear anyway...

[Wrinkle]

Maybe the question should be, what's wrong with not allowing registration on voting days?

Even 24-hrs might be enough time to background check, classify and issue a registration card. But, real-time processing of an entire population database is asking a bit too much, especially of a State agency.

However, a true state-of-art facial recognition system might work. Instead of you identifying yourself, it identifies you.

Submit.

The entire original bill is window dressing anyway. It wouldn't even take effect until after the Presidential elections in November, instead, it's slated for January 1, 2009.

The ammendment is designed to kill it.

Perhaps we can hope some authentic people's representative will offer up a real bill.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Heck, then, why bother to register at all? Just let anyone who shows up vote, at however many places they show up.

Or, save everyone the time and hassel and just premark all the ballots.

Same day registration promotes unregulated elections, if that's the objective.

Do you think we should even mess with that age limitation at all?

Maybe we could just set it up on an 800 number to dial in to vote (I was going to say 900 number, but, golly, that's a $0.95 charge or such, and then there's all those folks who don't have access to a phone, don't know how to dial or can't see the numbers).

And, remember, your dog wants a voice.

Slippery slope, thy name is Wrinkle.  

That's a stunning argument, but entirely devoid of logic. If they show up to vote, prove to be legally able and are packing the necessary docs to back it up, can you come up with a compelling reason why they shouldn't be able to register right then and there?  Perhaps we can even deploy modern technological advancements to aid in that pursuit, such as the fax machine, or perhaps a hand cranked cell phone, or my newfangled coal-fired laptop.  There are methods out there that, with a minimum of oversight might result in a positive rather than a negative outcome.    

It's also worth saying that my dog, who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and who carries some admittedly unconventional -- but certainly not out of the mainstream! -- views of privacy and property rights, is an underserved constituency. If he shows up with a CDL license and his tax returns from 2003, will you let him pull the lever?

They've yet to prove they can keep all the voting machines properly running for one entire day.

IAC, that's the purpose of Provisional Ballots.
But, they should remain the exception and not the rule.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Again doublea...you can't answer the question.

Your example is finding fraud when voters are registered by mail.

You can't show any increase of fraud when voters can register and vote the same day.

But you start a thread with fear anyway...

Keep spinning. Provisional ballots are cast at the polling place. Absentee ballots are cast by mail.

[cannon_fodder]

If we don't rig elections the terrorists have won.

[RecycleMichael]

Yes doublea...I know what provisional ballots are. Read your own words about provisional ballots and the part about "doesn't have the proper identification".

Same day registration and voting would require proper identification.

This might mean less fraud. Empty lots could no longer vote and people who live out of the district could no longer vote.

Read this website and try to think like a democrat...

http://www.demos.org/page52.cfm
 
A Simple Way to Spread Democracy

Election Day Registration (EDR), sometimes called "same day registration," allows eligible voters to register and cast a ballot on Election Day. Seven states currently have EDR. Maine, Minnesota and Wisconsin adopted EDR in the 1970s. Idaho, New Hampshire and Wyoming enacted Election Day Registration two decades later. Montana implemented EDR in 2006.

EDR significantly increases the opportunity for all citizens to cast a vote and participate in American democracy: in the 2004 presidential election, EDR states boasted an average turnout 12% higher than that of non-EDR states.

EDR states consistently boast higher turnout than non-EDR states. EDR states have consistently boasted higher voter turnout than non-EDR states for over 25 years.
In the 2004 presidential race, EDR states had an average turnout 12% higher than that of non-EDR states. Voter registration deadlines close before the media and the public fully focus on elections.

"The final weeks before an election - when the pressure is high, the campaign is in full swing, and the newspaper endorsements are flowing - often motivate new or undecided voters to cast their ballot if they have the opportunity to register at the polls."

- Gwendolyn Moore, fmr. State Senator, (now-U.S. Congresswoman, (D-WI))

In 2000, the percentage of people giving "quite a lot" of thought to the election rose dramatically from 59% in September to 75% in the first week of November, according to an election poll in that year. Over 40% of election news stories were aired in the final week of the 2006 campaign. An unregistered voter moved to action during this final week would have been ineligible to cast a countable ballot in 42 states. EDR allows eligible voters who may have been mistakenly purged from the voting rolls to cast a meaningful ballot.

By the 2002 Help America Vote Act, states must provide any voter whose name does not appear on the voter rolls with provisional ballots, which will only count if election officials establish an individual's voting eligibility. Yet more than one in three of the almost 2 million provisional ballots cast in 2004 were ultimately discounted. Consequently, much like patients sent home with a placebo, many provisional voters mistakenly believe that they were given a genuine opportunity to vote.
EDR assists young voters. Young Americans move frequently - for school or for jobs, for example - which makes it harder for them to register to vote. EDR could counter the reduced registration rates that their mobility causes by allowing them to register at the last moment and vote. In fact, EDR could increase youth turnout in presidential elections by as much as 14%. EDR enfranchises geographically mobile and lower-income citizens.

Over one of the 40 million Americans who moved between 2004 and 2005 had incomes of less than $25,000. Many of these individuals miss the registration deadline in their new election districts, and thus cannot vote. EDR would allow these people to re-register on Election Day and cast a ballot. EDR counteracts arbitrary voter registration deadlines.

27 states cut off voter registration 25 or more days before the election. The experience of EDR states shows that these deadlines have little effect on a state's ability to run smooth elections. "The fact that in Nevada people must register to vote at least 30 days before an election serves as a stumbling block for increasing participation."
- U.S. Rep. and former Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller (R-NV), supporting state EDR bill

EDR is cost-effective and easier for elections officials to administer than provisional ballots. An authoritative study indicates that elections are no more expensive to administer in EDR states than elsewhere. Non-EDR states must cope with the large number of provisional ballots they distribute - combing voter registration records to check if a provisional voter had actually registered, then determining whether the voter's ballot should count, then making sure the ballot is counted. According to Wisconsin's elections director, his state's ability to avoid the extra time and effort that provisional balloting demands "alone makes EDR worthwhile." EDR does not result in individual voter fraud.

Election officials in EDR states are as vigilant as election officials elsewhere about safeguarding against fraud. In fact, a bipartisan team of consultants to the Election Assistance Commission reported widespread agreement that very little evidence existed of voter impersonation at the polls.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Again doublea...you can't answer the question.

Your example is finding fraud when voters are registered by mail.

You can't show any increase of fraud when voters can register and vote the same day.

But you start a thread with fear anyway...

The idea would be to reduce fraud, not increase it. We have vacant lots voting locally, think what other means those subverting elections use. It's easier than catching a bus.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Again doublea...you can't answer the question.

Your example is finding fraud when voters are registered by mail.

You can't show any increase of fraud when voters can register and vote the same day.

But you start a thread with fear anyway...

The idea would be to reduce fraud, not increase it. We have vacant lots voting locally, think what other means those subverting elections use. It's easier than catching a bus.

What you meant to say is, "...imagine what other means those subverting elections use."  Because both you and 2A have asked us to rely on our imaginations.  Well, I imagine same-day registration would be just fine.  I imagine it'd be very convenient, considering how often we Americans move from place to place.  I imagine that more people would choose to vote precisely because it is so convenient.  And I also imagine that it'd be pretty easy to do some records-matching down at headquarters in order to keep fraud to a minimum.

Then again, maybe you guys are right...I can also imagine trained helper monkeys stealing election boxes; weird old men in clown suits printing up fake voter IDs in smoke-filled basements; and Dick Cheney counting votes with an abacus.  My imagination is pretty good, but that's not the same as knowing same-day registration is a problem.  And it's certainly not evidence. I'm persuadable, but unconvinced.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
weird old men in clown suits printing up fake voter IDs in smoke-filled basements

You've seen them too?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Again doublea...you can't answer the question.

Your example is finding fraud when voters are registered by mail.

You can't show any increase of fraud when voters can register and vote the same day.

But you start a thread with fear anyway...

The idea would be to reduce fraud, not increase it. We have vacant lots voting locally, think what other means those subverting elections use. It's easier than catching a bus.

What you meant to say is, "...imagine what other means those subverting elections use."  Because both you and 2A have asked us to rely on our imaginations.  Well, I imagine same-day registration would be just fine.  I imagine it'd be very convenient, considering how often we Americans move from place to place.  I imagine that more people would choose to vote precisely because it is so convenient.  And I also imagine that it'd be pretty easy to do some records-matching down at headquarters in order to keep fraud to a minimum.

Then again, maybe you guys are right...I can also imagine trained helper monkeys stealing election boxes; weird old men in clown suits printing up fake voter IDs in smoke-filled basements; and Dick Cheney counting votes with an abacus.  My imagination is pretty good, but that's not the same as knowing same-day registration is a problem.  And it's certainly not evidence. I'm persuadable, but unconvinced.

There are lots of people in this area who would turn queer for a day to get OU football tickets. The win-at-any-cost mentality of more than a few intense party favors tend to think of it as bumping the pinball machine.

Then, there's the Taylor Method.

I personally could legally register and vote in two precincts myself (if one ignores only the one-man/one-vote principal) under current regulations.

All it takes is a will. And, it's pretty safe to suggest there are some fairly enthusiastic political supporters around.

General rule is if there's a way, someone will do it. And, currently there are many ways.

The ONLY answer is to do it right, with proper ID and a current database.

I've also recently become of the opinion that the registration process and the election day voting process need to be separated. That is, not the same agency.

[Wrinkle]

Another thought is that, in the course of administering judgement in felony court convictions, the Judge should also directly address the removal of the convicted persons' voting rights, vocally and publicly. Then, issue a certificate stating so to the Election Board so they may be removed from the rolls easily and without the research, cost and manpower required to do it otherwise.

Trouble is, any statewide database is really only of limited use when all states don't do the same and share.

If a Kansas felon moves into Oklahoma 30 days prior to an election, they could currently register and vote. That's pretty easy to do, in border towns especially.

For that matter, anyone moving from Kansas to Oklahoma (or vice-versa) could very likely vote in both states without any trouble. Ask Kathy.

[Wrinkle]

Seems Election Boards should go to at least as much trouble as DMV goes through. When one gets a new driver's license in Oklahoma, they ask for your prior driver's license, especially if it from another state.

It's not extrodinary to assume all people are registered somewhere after age 18, and require a referral of prior/last place of registration. Thus the former may be cancelled by the Board of the new jurisdiction, or at least notify the prior board of the change.

It's pure accounting, only instead of money, it's people. It not unreasonable to expect a good, clean system at least as secure as ATM machines.

[Teatownclown]

Remember to vote. The locals here don't appear to be hackers.....yet.

But someday, our voting system will be ransacked.

It is a big deal.... we've gone 4 years since this thread and the problem with counts and with disenfranchising continues....

another OWS/%99 give a damn issue....