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

171–180 of 311 posts

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

#171

Post by buckminster »

madhadron wrote: post #142
koheripbal wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

Washington and Oregon only have remote voting. It works extremely well, is less open to voter suppression and tampering, and lets you sit down and research what you're voting for in comfort. A ballot is mailed to you, you fill it out, seal it up, and mail it back or put it in one of the many ballot drop boxes. Electronic voting? Absolutely not. But it's hard to have cyberwarfare campaigns against paper trails.

Sure you don't have cyberwarfare, but you do have old-fashioned vote selling and coercion. Postal voting denies many women a free vote.

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

#172

Post by matthewbauer »

otachack wrote: post #56
slg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone point to any concrete results of debate on the Senate floor from anytime in the last 20 years or so? I am genuinely asking, because it seems to me that the value of debate on the floor is like you said only pretense at this point. Mandating that pretense and in turn making the Senate slower to react in an emergency seems like an actively harmful requirement.

Due to extreme partisan politics, I have to agree that there doesn't seem to have been any good debates on Senate floor. COVID19 has finally broken the dam of it but doesn't seem long lasting. For the most part the majority party seems to call the shots and are all aligned in effort, making any debates a waste of time. Until the partisan politics stop and we have parties reaching across the aisle again, that is.

I don't think partisan politics have anything to do with it - it's just always going to be much easier to decide things behind closed doors. The '94 Republican Revolution didn't really make these things more transparent - just more theatrical.

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

#173

Post by slg »

guerrilla wrote: post #123
slg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone point to any concrete results of debate on the Senate floor from anytime in the last 20 years or so? I am genuinely asking, because it seems to me that the value of debate on the floor is like you said only pretense at this point. Mandating that pretense and in turn making the Senate slower to react in an emergency seems like an actively harmful requirement.

"It doesn't work, make it worse" is what I hear here. These are the kind of arguments that move states further towards fascism.

That is a misinterpretation of my comment. To reframe it using your language "It doesn't work now and is actively hurting us during times of emergency, so does removing this requirement make it worse?" No one here has yet to put together a convincing argument on the real world ramifications of debate on the Senate floor. I am open to changing my position on this, but I need to hear a stronger argument than someone proving Godwin's law.

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

#174

Post by mcv »

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.

That would solve a lot of problems. Senators enjoy socialized health care while preaching its dangers to the electorate. They receive all sorts of benefits that they deny to the general public.

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

#175

Post by idontwantit »

9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #158
idontwantit wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The whole world besides Anglo countries is using photo ID to vote. The article basically says people don't have a way to get it in 10 mile radius which is ridiculous. You really think you get ID in Germany everywhere in 10 mile radius? No, you take a bus to nearest city that offers these services.

I think your objections are already addressed by the comment

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

#176

Post by matthewbauer »

eanzenberg wrote: post #65
beatgammit wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of states already do it. I think all we need to do is get the POTUS to publicly shame any remaining holdouts. It's not that expensive, so it wouldn't likely present a hardship for states to implement, so a little push in the right direction may be enough.

Mail-in ballots with voter-id is supported by the right. Any wonder why the left doesn't?

Definitely not universally supported:

> Now, mail ballots — they cheat. Okay? People cheat. Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country, because they’re cheaters. They go and collect them. They’re fraudulent in many cases.

- President Trump

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

#177

Post by Cerium »

9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #158
idontwantit wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The whole world besides Anglo countries is using photo ID to vote. The article basically says people don't have a way to get it in 10 mile radius which is ridiculous. You really think you get ID in Germany everywhere in 10 mile radius? No, you take a bus to nearest city that offers these services.

Whole world? Seems that there are plenty of locations that simply mark your thumb to vote, no ID needed. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_ink

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

#179

Post by giantg2 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #90
eanzenberg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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…

Voting services are the responsibility of the states. The Feds can require states to implement certain regulations, but it's up to the state to provide the enforcement.

You don't need a separate identification card. You can register to vote for free electronically or via mail, some state even allow in-person enrollment on the same day as the election.

In most states, the county maintains the voter registration. They should be removing people through a fair process as they become ineligible (die, move, felony, etc). They could track down most eligible people, but at what cost? As a citizen, it's not just your right to vote, but it is also your duty. The individual should apply, not be tracked down. This a how a democracy is supposed to work - citizens doing what's best for their country instead of waiting on the government, a government which is supposed to be a body of the people.

If you are concerned about the rights and freedoms of people without a photo ID being trampled, then you should be opposed to TSA since you need a photo ID to fly, or even ride a bus. You should be opposed to the ATF since you need a photo ID to buy a gun. You should be opposed to the DMV because you need a photo ID to drive. Even many states require the addition of photo ID when fishing to validate it against your fishing license. The fact is, you need a photo ID for literally anything you do. Your neighbor could even wrongly claim someone is breaking into your home and when the police show up, you have to prove you live there and are not a burglar. This lack of photo ID argue is soooooo old. Most states will issue an ID card good for 4-7 years for a very minimal cost, usually much less than even a driver's license.

Now, I'm not saying that political games aren't being played. Both sides play them on various issues, especially concerning timing, wrongfully expanding power, or botched implementation. But the trickery of the individuals involved should not be used as a defense against the underlying concept.

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

#180

Post by [deleted] »

runako wrote: post #66
malandrew wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not, but mainly due to scale. The number of people who vote remotely is so few that the amount of fraud you can get through without being detected makes it not worth the effort.

Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah conduct their elections entirely by mail. This covers perhaps 10+ million registered voters. At what level would you consider the scale sufficient for these effects to appear?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN