Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

durbin.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 311 posts

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#131

Post by ceejayoz »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #99
ceejayoz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of precedent for that sort of thing, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law > States had to agree to the limit if they desired to receive federal funding for highway repair.

Yeah, there's precedent. There's precedent for everything that's ever happened already. That doesn't mean we should be doing those things Tons of people on both sides of the isle agree that implementing things like the national speed limit and drinking age of 21 by withholding federal funding from the states that don't goose step in line is a backhanded way of enacting legislation and/or an end run around the constit…

It's a response to "The federal government does not have the jurisdiction", not "is this a good idea?"

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#132

Post by Animats »

jschwartzi wrote: post #21
smt88 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can debate remotely, too.

Yes. People overlook this as well, that Roberts Rules of Order are primarily a tool for arbitrating discussion in huge groups of people. Technological solutions for managing these discussions exist or can be created now. So it's possible to have a virtual senate floor where the traditional rules of order are followed, people are allowed to speak, testify, etc. without being physically present in the same room. As lon…

The U.S. Senate uses Jefferson's Manual, not Roberts Rules of Order, but they're similar.

Too few people today have ever been in a meeting conducted under Roberts Rules of Order. So few organizations today are run by their members. Roberts Rules of Order are for a meeting which has the power to decide something - it's for when the result is a vote and a decision to act.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#133

Post by alistairSH »

Grakel wrote: post #106
tcoff91 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left doesn't support that because it disproportionately disenfranchises minority voters. Which is the same reason why the right DOES support it.

It's pretty racist to say some groups can't figure out how to get a driver's license.

Nobody made that claim.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#134

Post by kyleblarson »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #92
alasdair_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Everything on the news looks ironic I was born and grew up in Scotland. I remember the first time I watched Fox News after moving to the states - for almost fifteen minutes I genuinely thought I was watching some (honestly pretty funny) satire.

You were. Satire marketed as news.

As if CNN, MSNBC are any different.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#135

Post by koheripbal »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #41
karatestomp wrote: post #3

Oh, I thought the headline meant remote voting for, you know, voters, not Senators, and was very surprised to see an R next to one of the sponsor's names. The bill's just to let the Senate vote remotely. I'd imagine most of the interesting nuance is about "presence" and quorum-making. This is not about expanding remote/by-mail voting in elections, which Republicans have generally been strongly against, including and…

I used to be wowed by this kind of hypocrisy, but lately I've concluded that these things are happening so frequently because the voters have proved to them sufficiently that they will take no heed provided it "hurts the other team." Everything on the news looks ironic now because the political class has realized there's almost no limit to what they can get away with.

Remote voting for senators and remote voting for the presidential election are very very different animals.

Remote voting for senators is an easy fix, probably (hopefully) temporary with a very low risk of foreign interference.

Remote voting for the general public is fraught with complexity due to voting being the jurisdiction of the states, as well as rife with opportunity for foreign governments to mess with the results.

I mean, we literally saw hacking attempts from the intelligence services of Russia on election reporting servers in 2016. Enabling remote voting for the general public needs EXTREME vetting before going live.

Not doable for 2020.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#136

Post by stevenwliao »

munk-a wrote: post #80
stevenwliao wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a DDoS attempting to prevent quorum or affect vote outcomes! Lots of edge cases to iron out.

I don't think this is really a legitimate issue that needs to be enshrined in law - there are 100 senators so as long as there is a continuation of understanding around physical barriers to present yourself to a vote within the electronic realm it should work itself out. How different would a DDoS be from, for instance, one party hiring a mob of protestors to violently prevent law makers from submitting their votes i…

Mobs are highly visible. A senator's flaky Internet is less so.

I agree that new Senate conventions could cover these cases.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#137

Post by munk-a »

burtonator wrote: post #112
karatestomp wrote: post #3

Oh, I thought the headline meant remote voting for, you know, voters, not Senators, and was very surprised to see an R next to one of the sponsor's names. The bill's just to let the Senate vote remotely. I'd imagine most of the interesting nuance is about "presence" and quorum-making. This is not about expanding remote/by-mail voting in elections, which Republicans have generally been strongly against, including and…

We need a new law - call it the Unequal Protection act. Senators/Representatives can't have benefits that exceed that of the general population for certain categories like voting rights, healthcare, etc. Can't even have private healthcare. Must use the same systems that the general population has access to.

While I think the thought is nice this would just lead to those with excessive financial independence being the only ones able to take the hit of being a law maker. Someone like AOC would never be able to afford to maintain a residence in D.C. while folks like Pelosi and Feinstein would be able to trivially afford it.

The same issue arises whenever folks get antsy about Senatorial pay rates - sure paying them little feels nice but, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in developing nations, lower direct payment leads to more indirect payment through corruption.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#138

Post by 12xo »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #108
rootusrootus wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The left doesn't support that, why? Because it's a transparent attempt to reduce the ability of some groups of people to vote. The right pushes for voter ID while simultaneously doing everything possible to reduce the availability of ID. Put the Federal Election Commission in charge of voter ID, make the cards free and make it the mission of the FEC to track down and ensure every qualified citizen has one. Then I s…

Do you think with 10+ million undocumented immigrants - a not insignificant portion of the population, but not citizenry - that people should not be concerned about ensuring only valid citizens can vote?

Please cite any study that validates this ridiculous claim.

Have you ever voted? Are you even registered to vote? Reading this makes me think you have not and have never... Registration requires verification, address, name, etc. You dont just show up and cast your vote.

The problem is in many rural and poor communities. Many people do not have a birth certificate, many do not have a DL and believe it or not, it costs money and requires significant travel for many people to get these things.

You must live in or near a large city, be from a wealthy family and have never been outside of your geo-bubble. Most of this country is rural. Some people have to travel 100's of miles to the nearest government agency. But you knew that, right?

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#139

Post by kfrzcode »

winter_blue wrote: post #84
eanzenberg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how you equate 100 known peoples' votes to potentially 330m peoples' votes.

He was being farcical to make a point.

The problem with sarcasm on the internet is that it's nigh impossible to pickup on.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#140

Post by idontwantit »

eanzenberg wrote: post #70
blululu wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, a significant majority of Republican Voters (~65%) actually do support mail in ballots. The opposition largely stems from the RNC and senior party leadership. In any case I am glad that the US senate is taking public health seriously, and I hope that they will take similar precautions in protecting their constituents by passing the Klobuchar-Wyden bill to allow mail in voting: https://www.wyden.…

The right supports mail-in ballots with voter-id, and voter-id in general. The left doesn't support that, why?

Voter ID laws are often used to disenfranchise poorer voters by creating bureaucracy mazes or DMV-like conditions to stop voters from acquiring the necessary credentials.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/chal...

Anecdotally, as someone who was living in poverty before I got into this line of work, I did not have a state-issued ID and did not have time to waste or even the inclination to get one (my state does not have voter id laws).

Sure many will go out of their way in order to acquire credentials, but much like email scams, the value of voter suppression is in the marginal success.

Lastly, the amount of real voter fraud (well below 10% last I checked) seems minimal vs the amount of people who don't have credentials (about 10% according to the above).

I will leave you with this quote:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Isn't that the meaning of "justice"?

Post reply on HN