Voter Registration!?!?

Canada times 51.  basically each state makes its own rules.  And that is subject to a lot of politics (as we see with the ACORN ruckus).  So in some places, you have basically the same setup as Canada.  And you probably dont hear about them up there - after all, how many stories are you hearing?  5? 6?

But in some, in order to increase voting, they are trying to DRAG people into the process (they being the state initially).  So they try to make it easier to register.  In one case (Ohio), they allow you to register and vote on the same day - basically no questions asked.  In another case (florida), they have a lot of Winter residents (it does get cold up around you, n'est pas?), and they vote absentee in their "home" state, and then vote again in florida.

The fraud comes in by trying to make it so easy to register - that any one can multiple times.  And especially in Chicago, they do. (Or at least the dead do).

People often forget (and some would like to eliminate the fact) that this is The United STATES of America.  And in that, while the states do have a lot less autonomy than they did 200 years ago, they still enjoy a greater degree than most other countries "amalgamations".

Think of it this way.  If the UK Commonwealth had a binding legislature that all the members had to vote on, what would the process be like?  Probably very similar to the USA since the commonwealth is made up of many very autonomous members.  That do not all think alike, or vote alike. 

Dont think that many of us do not see the problems.  But dont think they are going to be fixed any time soon.  That is part of the "benefits" of living in the USA.

Besides, do you really want us to deprive the world of so much entertainment? After all, what other country's elections get covered to the degree ours do?  People dont tune into a boring show.

Its amazing how a country like this can so vehemently advocate to others the importance of fair elections and then turn around and both parties, or to be fair,maybe in some cases just individual zealots from such parties engage in just the opposite. My local township had dropped me from the roles a few months back because of a new law, however I was not a new registrant(which is what the law refers to) and have been giving them the same types of ID required annually when I pay my taxes. What is funny is that I have talked to friends about the issue and it seems that it is only the Independents like myself and some that are Democrats who got bumped. This crap is happening in small town America even which frankly is rather disgusting. I am probably safe in assuming that some Dems tried the same kind of trickery in places where they have a majority of their zealots registered.

The ACORN situation I find funny also. I don't know all the facts so I'll assume that it is individuals who were responsible for the dirty deed. If that is the case shame on ACORN for using the same transactional-based pay package that Wall St. uses because we know paying people based on transactions will often breed fraud.

Did we add a new state or are you counting D.C. in there as well?

~Zoo

The solution to all this is federal voter ID laws.  But unfortunately, democrats have blocked most attempts at this....wonder why?

You mean a system such as Artysim talked about? Elections Canada?

Who wouldn't be for that? Sounds like a great idea. Much easier to identify who should and who shouldn't vote, easier to spot fraud, appropriate at-site checks for those late in registering.

I would think those concerned about voter fraud would be for it as well as those who believe the Government should be in control of a great many things (Replublicans and Democrats).

Artysim, there seems to be a big problem with people showing ID when they go to vote. Seems it'ss to difficult. You get a paper card here (in Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania anyway, I can't speak for the other states), it has the place where you are to vote on it. Now some groups oppose the person having showing some form of identification along with the voter card (that doesn't prove who you are, just that you have a card). Their argument is that it makes it hard for the old and poor people to obtain ID. Now most people have a drivers license and a state ID is even easier to get (other forms of ID may be available too). Funny these people don't have a problem with ID when they get state/federal benifits. The problem that comes up is if you can get a stack of voter cards and ID isn't required, what is to say you can get someone that voted at another location to vote again at a different voting location as long as that is the district were the card is from? Doesn't the voter share a little responsibility if they wish to vote (obtain an ID)? It's not too much to ask. But their are people fighting it, that would be the democrats.

Same day registration/voting is not very practical IMO either. It may work well in Canada because everyone is in the computer system (for health care and such). Here, it can take awhile to determine if someone is eligible to vote or not, for example non-citizens and felons cannot vote. My wife is a resident alien, but unless she shows her green card, nobody would know. She has a drivers license, social security card, etc. Pre-registration allows time for a background check, for felonies and at least to make sure the person lives in that voting district. Many would feel their privacy was violated if you added this information to ID such as a drivers license so it's not there  Do you know what party supports same day registration and voting?

For the largest political party in the US, and the one that's supposedly for the "little guy" why is there a need to resort to this type of thing?

To the voter - you have some responsibility in all this too. Register early, don't wait until last minute. If you missed your states deadline then now is a good time to register for the 2012 election. If your sincere about voting. ensure you have a ID, it's too easy too get, unless your trying to defraud the state. If you know or think you'll be away get an absentee ballot. I don't feel sorry for people that can't do the minimum required, you don't deserve to vote. I'm embassed too that we asked for clean elections abroad and can't do it right here.

Both parties are trying not only to steer it towards their benefit but also leaving loopholes in it that can be manipulated for their own benefit.

DC since they do vote for President.

Humm, wonder which why they'll vote????

Most corporations who own our politicians don't want people to make informed decisions, in fact the want americans to focus on things like britney spears. Most corporations don't want people to vote. America should have a system where every one is automatically registered at the age of eighteen like in other countries. Also, as Thomas Jefferson wanted there should be compulsory voting. Right now America has about 54% of the population voting, while places like Australia(95%), Malta(94%), and so the list goes with these countries rating higher than the US(countries ranked below are Switzerland and Poland); Austria, Belgium, Italy, Luxumberg, Iceland, New Zealand, Denmark, Germany, Sweeden, Greece, Venezuela, Czech Republic, Brazil, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Norway, Romania, Bulgaria, Isreal, Portugal, Finland, Canada, France, United Kingdom, South Korea, Ireland, Spain, Japan, Estonia, Hungary, Russia,  and India( my listing is in decending order, so Austria has 92% turn out, while Russia has 61% turn out). Not to mention all the voting fraud on both sides suppodely ACORN, Diebold, various laws. (In America, the chance a black person's vote won't be counted is 900% higher than white persons, Hispanic is 500% higher than a white voter, 2000% higher if your Native American. For example George Bush defeated Kerry by 5,900 votes in New Mexico not counting over 30,000 votes. 88% of those votes not counted were cast in minority precints. Minority's and Women making up the base of the democrat base. It gets disheartening for voters.)

Isn't that 57... or 58?

how do you get that figure? puerto rico, guam, what other territories?

For awhile there, I thought you were actually paying some attention to this election campaign, Jack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Oh man I completely forgot about. Thanks for the video, gave me a nice laugh. but wouldn't be 60? He said he visted 57 with one left to go and he wasn't allowed to vist Alaska and Hawaii!

Wait, you are counting different legislations? Or different population?

Because, if it's population, it's more like Canada times 10. If it's different legislation, it's Canada times 5.

And if you are counting the different territories, it's even less..

What is the problem with having a nation-wide standardization of voting process? I mean, different procedure for different state seems unfair to me.

61 actually since he was not counting DC in his statement, but they do vote for president.

Legislations.

Giving up power - no one does so willingly, so the states are not going to give it up - and the constitution says it is theirs and THEY have to vote to change it.

It's not "giving up power", it's "standardization". Everybody agree on the same process, some shared database, etc... In order to facilitate voter registrations, when somebody moves from one state to another, etc...

With such a mobile workforce, I think it should be quite important...

Arrg!  And there's the rub.  Everyone agrees on their own method, so to get to where you are proposing, they would have to agree on someone else's.  And as they say "everyone thinks their way is the best way".

Actually it is worse than the 51 mentioned as 5 of the states are commonwealths.  SO in those 5 states, the localities can tell the state to take a hike (the only influence the state has over the localities in non-criminal matters is with money).

We don't elect our President in a direct nation-wide popular vote.  Our Constitution is a little picky about that.

Here's a whacky idea:

Create a standardized national organization for elections. This way, instead of 60 bureaucracies each with different ballots, some with voting machines, some with punch cards, you have 1 organization with access to all the pertinent information- all the DMV's, vital statistics, IRS, blah blah blah.

Having one single group with access to all the data would make it:

1) Much cheaper. Instead of dozens of redundant, differing individual bureaucracies you now have one that's consolidated.

2) Much more accurate. Hanky panky like registering dead people would be caught early on and those behind it subject to prosecution, since this organization would have access to all the info (including birth and death certs) could say "hey, you just tried to register 10 thousand dead guys, i'm calling the police!"

3) Much more fair. Hanky panky like having thousands of names knocked off rolls for dubious or obscure reasons would be minimized, as there would now be more oversight and someone would have to have a damn good reason, explainable and defendable to higher authority, as to why a member of a community who's lived at a fixed address for the last 20 years with no criminal record suddenly has their name disapear from the rolls!

4) Standardization of voting practices. Having soft-touch Diebold voting machines may be the way to go, but  the notion that these machines use "proprietary" software that the government isn't allowed to see is complete and utter BS. I'm a complete moron, by my own admission, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out what a complete farce, and potential disaster is in the making when voting machines are created that have no oversight of the software and have been proven to be able to be hacked and have the votes changed electronically, with no permanent way of tracking the votes via hard copy.

See my previous responses.  It wont happen unless the states agree to it.  And they will not because that is ceding power to the feds again.

Try demanding that all the UK Commonwealth cede power over all elections to GB.  Then you can understand a little about what you are saying.

It is a good argument Dr. Guy, and I credit you with the novel approach!

However, comparing the British Commonwealth to the Union is a tad too far of a stretch I'm afraid.

For example, the commonwealth has no control over individual armed forces, yet your president has the ability to call up individual state's national guards and send them overseas, in addition to the regular forces (army, marines and air force) spread across the Union. Throw in taxes, which are collected also on a federal level across the nation for which there is no equivalent in the commonwealth.

Basically, the commonwealth is more like a very loose club of countries with mutual interests and past associations- not in any way shape or form a government resembling the U.S setup... if, for example, the commonwealth decides to pass a resolution, in no way is it binding on the individual members, unless they choose to adopt it. And, a member can leave at any time and the others can't do a darn thing about it.....

What, praytel would happen if one day out of the blue california decided they wanted to seceede from the union and become a part of Mexico?

Got that right.  We're too close to 1984 as it is.

Far stretched - yes.  But closer to reality than Canada is to the US.  You got the gist.  Conforming 50+ "governments" to a single standard where no one has the authority to do so - is like herding cats.  The US is tighter than the commonwealth (which after all is more like the EU than the US), but far looser than other countries and their "states".

I think that was answered 147 years ago.

Don't take me wrong, but your country seems to have been built on self-mistrust and paranoia. If you cannot agree to things for the greater good of the nation, where does that leave you, small citizen?