Live data from Hacker News

US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

durbin.senate.gov

241–250 of 311 posts

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

#241

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…

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…

> 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.

If it's not a big deal, then why does the right actively try to make getting valid photo ID more difficult? Things like closing all the DMV branches in poorer areas, or allowing them to be open just a few hours every couple weeks, etc.

The right makes this a big issue, not the left. If the right didn't try so hard to suppress people's ability to get ID, then I'd be tempted to think requiring ID for voting wasn't a bad idea.

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

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It can both be true that it seems pretty reasonable that people put in some effort to acquire an ID to vote, and that if you require said effort, fewer people will vote and the ones who don't will disproportionately support one party or political ideology over another, meaning voter ID laws in fact favor one of our two viable parties over the other. If it also turns out there's little proof of an extant problem voter…

If we don't have comprehensive audits, how do we know it is not a problem? Eg. How do you know your server is secure if you don't have an IDS? You can say it isn't a problem, but even the supreme court has acknowledged the longstanding and still relevant issue of voter fraud, which is why voter ID is still legal.

I can't remember the source but one study said there are about 3 million extra people registered in the US (people who are eligible - people actually registered). They may not be acting fraudulently, say if they moved from one state to another, or a different precinct in the state. The 2000 election was decided by 500 votes. Another study that I can't remember estimate that the same people without ID are, in general, the same people who are not registered to vote.

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

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget there are also tens of millions of felons who are not eligible to vote as well.

Which is a whole different problem altogether. I honestly have never understood what the purpose of even letting people out of prison was. Really, think about it. Here you are, you've been 'punished' for a time the state has deemed appropriate. Now you're out. Very little support. No real integration plans, at least not formal ones. No oversight to see whether or not you fall into patterns of behavior from before. Un…

[deleted]

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

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely curious. How did you handle identifying yourself to the police? Also, was this when you could still get a greyhound bus ticket without photo ID? Where you ever asked for ID when cashing or writing a check? It seems like ID is required for EVERYTHING these days, so I'm interested in some of these points.

> How did you handle identifying yourself to the police? I never had the opportunity to find out > Also, was this when you could still get a greyhound bus ticket without photo ID? No clue > Where you ever asked for ID when cashing or writing a check? I don't really remember, didn't have much opportunity to cash checks anyway

I guess you couldn't buy tobacco or alcohol either?

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

#245
post #228
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get really frustrated when people only mention Fox News and not CNN/MSNBC in the same sentence. There are people on Fox who are good, I.E. Chris Wallace. I mean he's my only example, but Jon Stewart did a skit with him and the quote that got me was, "how many times have you seen your show on my show?" It was a nod to the fact that Chris Wallace does actual news not opinion pieces. I'd actually say he's better and l…

> But if you disagree I'd really like to know why. I'll take a stab at it. I agree with you that Fox actually does have some decent news output at various points in the day (dearly departed Shep...), but I simply don't think that CNN has any equivalent to the Fox opinion programming. MSNBC comes closer but it still doesn't have hosts spouting outright disinformation on a regular basis.

Who do you like on CNN? Any specific shows you like over there? I named Don Lemon, but I also really dislike a lot of what Anderson Cooper talks about. Shep was awful. What alternate news sources do you like to go to for unbiased news?

What forms of disinformation have you found? And I'd like to classify disinformation as a situation you feel they are being purposeful about misinformation. I believe we're both going from the same definition but it's always good to be clear upfront.

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

#246
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution leaves a lot of details about voting to the states. This would probably require an amendment. A power grab like that from the federal government would probably be turned down by even blue states, especially considering the current president.

It doesn’t need to be a power-grab (“We’re taking over the election to make sure it’s done right”). In all likelihood it would be some sort of funding incentive (“If you resolve to do vote-by-mail, we’ll give you the money to hire people and buy equipment to do it, and even throw in some money for infrastructure as a cherry on top”).

I agree that this would be a safer, softer approach, but at the end of the day, fostering dependence is itself just another form of a power-grab.

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

#247
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get really frustrated when people only mention Fox News and not CNN/MSNBC in the same sentence. There are people on Fox who are good, I.E. Chris Wallace. I mean he's my only example, but Jon Stewart did a skit with him and the quote that got me was, "how many times have you seen your show on my show?" It was a nod to the fact that Chris Wallace does actual news not opinion pieces. I'd actually say he's better and l…

This is prime r/enlightenedcentrism material.

What's your point? I see you've posted this to anyone commenting on CNN/MSNBC.

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

#248
post #144
post #19

Off topic since this is about senators, but to nip a possible related thread in the bud, an important reason why remote voting for citizens is a bad idea is that it can enable massive scale vote manipulation through schemes to buy or otherwise influence votes. In the privacy of one's home, outside a controlled voting booth, the problem is exacerbated, counterintuitively. A voter at home or in another uncontrolled set…

Cite the data, cite the source of this outrageous assertion.

The secret ballot has been a prominent element of democracy since it was invented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot

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

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that they are fraudulent, but that people are voting as someone who may have the same name as them. The 6k article was probably a decade ago. This is a 2k article more recently. Maybe that's progess? https://www.phillyvoice.com/6abc-reports-it-found-dead-peopl...

That article doesn't appear to support 2k fraudulent votes, and may not even support a much smaller number. I gather a news organization put together a story claiming 2k maybe-fraudulent votes, then were asked to provide some examples for the election commission to look into, selected 20, those 20 were investigated, and zero were found to be related to election fraud.

Like my comment said, it's not that they are fraudulent. The voting system is inaccurate (leaving dead people on the roll and letting others vote as them accidently). We should modernization the voting system to reduce these inaccuracies. Photo ID is a cheaper bandaid.

Here is a non-comprehensive list that show a number of the know offenses. Keep in mind that most places don't do much monitoring for voter fraud (why else would they have thousands of dead people still listed).

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

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

#250

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…

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…

Believe it or not, there are people who don't drive, take long-distance buses, or buy guns, and therefore don't have valid photo ID.

> Most states will issue an ID card good for 4-7 years for a very minimal cost

It's not just the cost of the license. There's also the opportunity cost of going to the DMV and potentially spending all day in line, which can mean missed work and lost wages, or childcare costs. And if you don't already have a driver's license and don't live someplace with good public transit, how are you going to get to the DMV in the first place?

> trickery of the individuals involved should not be used as a defense against the underlying concept.

Why not? If the intent is voter suppression rather than rooting out fraud (which hasn't been found to be widespread), then the crafting of the legislation would reflect that intent. A good voter ID bill would also mandate that the IDs are free and easy to obtain.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/12/16767426/...

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/15/21222084/kentucky-voter-id-cor...

Post reply on HN