Block the vote

[hrothgar]

That one probably depends on the reason(s) for their ineligibility.

I wonder in how many cases the reason is "they are poor", or at least something that stems from that.

I'd guess not very often. I've never heard anyone espouse the idea that poor people should be ineligible to vote. I can't think of a good reason anyone would go along with it.

 

In contrast, I have heard the proposal set forth from at least one major university that illegal immigrants should be permitted to vote. I can think of a few reasons to oppose that one.

 

I recommend that you take a look at the history of the poll tax...

You might find this illuminating

 

You also might want to consider the very existence of the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution. Hard to imagine why this was necessary if no one ever tried to disenfranchise people based on income.

 

As for the proposal from "at least one major university"...

 

I'd be very curious to know whether this is an example where the University itself recommended this as public policy or - alternatively - this is an article published by a couple professors, some random statement by the student senate, what have you.

 

Regardless, this posting is yet another ridiculous attempt to create a false equivalence between systemic policy abuse and some random thing that someone on the left may have said.

 

This got really old a few months back

[Finch]

That one probably depends on the reason(s) for their ineligibility.

I wonder in how many cases the reason is "they are poor", or at least something that stems from that.

if people can't afford to vote, that's their problem.

I don't know enough about the US system to comment, but here in the UK, some of the reasons that the very poor have a tendency to become disenfranchised is

 

- the electoral register is based on your home address. That gives homeless people a bit of a problem.

- seasonal workers, construction workers and similar, who move around a lot looking for work, are often not at their home address when the register is complies, or the polling cards are delivered

- not being able to read and speak decent English

 

(there are official ways to avoid this problem, but they require a bit of effort to sort out - if you are apathetic to start with, or struggling to manage on a low income, voting is unlikely to be your top priority)

 

It's quite fun reading this thread. We've had our own scandals, but people trying to rig the vote here tend to use a different approach (one favourite has been to pressurise people into giving proxy votes, or applying for a postal vote and then "helping" them fill the form in). Getting people removed from the register (roll) is not such a common occupation.

[PassedOut]

One reason people suspect that republicans use challenges to suppress legitimate voting is the lack of evidence of illegal voting by anyone fraudulently registered: GOP offers scant proof of voter fraud

 

For weeks, Republican leaders have warned that widely reported problems with fake voter registrations could result in a flood of phony votes in pivotal states.

 

But Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee, said in an interview that he could not name a single instance in which this had occurred.

Thinking over my own experience as an election official in Michigan, the biggest hole I see is the possiblity that someone legitimately registered in one precinct could move and legitimately register in another while the first registration remains on the books. If dishonest, the voter could conceivably vote in both locations.

 

Because of the very low number of fraudulent votes that could be cast this way, it would be an extremely rare election that could be changed that way. And once the statewide database of registered voters is complete and accurate, of course, that possibility too will disappear.

 

Canvasing door-to-door for Obama this year using the state's database sequenced by address, I did find quite a few locations with several voters registered at the same address. Sometimes people had died and still remained on the rolls. But usually one or two voters had moved away some time ago, and the other names were voters who had then moved in.

 

The upshot is that the database really does need to be purged of no-longer-valid registrations. However, the purge must be done reasonably - not kicking off voters because of minor variations between corresponding database fields.

 

And it has to be done in such a way that voters have the opportunity to learn about and call attention to errors in the purging process. I can think of some ways this could be done, and I'm sure others can think of even more ways.

 

In my opinion, the courts have been correct to stop the wholesale purging of registrations just before the election. By all accounts, any fraud prevented by those purges would be miniscule at best. On the other hand, the suppression of valid votes would be considerable. And those officials attempting the purges knew that.

 

Let me say, though, that I have never personally witnessed a case where either a republican or a democrat has tried to suppress a valid vote. On the contrary, all of the election officials I've worked with - even those I disagree with on almost every political issue - have busted their butts to make sure that every valid vote is properly counted.

[Lobowolf]

One reason people suspect that republicans use challenges to suppress legitimate voting is the lack of evidence of illegal voting by anyone fraudulently registered: GOP offers scant proof of voter fraud

 

For weeks, Republican leaders have warned that widely reported problems with fake voter registrations could result in a flood of phony votes in pivotal states.

 

But Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee, said in an interview that he could not name a single instance in which this had occurred.

Thinking over my own experience as an election official in Michigan, the biggest hole I see is the possiblity that someone legitimately registered in one precinct could move and legitimately register in another while the first registration remains on the books. If dishonest, the voter could conceivably vote in both locations.

 

Because of the very low number of fraudulent votes that could be cast this way, it would be an extremely rare election that could be changed that way. And once the statewide database of registered voters is complete and accurate, of course, that possibility too will disappear.

 

Canvasing door-to-door for Obama this year using the state's database sequenced by address, I did find quite a few locations with several voters registered at the same address. Sometimes people had died and still remained on the rolls. But usually one or two voters had moved away some time ago, and the other names were voters who had then moved in.

 

The upshot is that the database really does need to be purged of no-longer-valid registrations. However, the purge must be done reasonably - not kicking off voters because of minor variations between corresponding database fields.

 

And it has to be done in such a way that voters have the opportunity to learn about and call attention to errors in the purging process. I can think of some ways this could be done, and I'm sure others can think of even more ways.

 

In my opinion, the courts have been correct to stop the wholesale purging of registrations just before the election. By all accounts, any fraud prevented by those purges would be miniscule at best. On the other hand, the suppression of valid votes would be considerable. And those officials attempting the purges knew that.

 

Let me say, though, that I have never personally witnessed a case where either a republican or a democrat has tried to suppress a valid vote. On the contrary, all of the election officials I've worked with - even those I disagree with on almost every political issue - have busted their butts to make sure that every valid vote is properly counted.

It sounds much tougher to vote fraudulently in Michigan than in California, from the experiences you've posted. In a congressional race in California not too long ago, hundreds of fraudulent votes were found to have been cast and counted, by a bi-partisan committee investigating a close result with allegations of fraud (Sanchez-Dornan); however, the number of fraudulent votes cast were not enough to have changed the outcome.

 

I don't have an opinion about the best way to eliminate voter fraud; it does seem to me, though, that it's not unreasonable to be concerned, particularly in light of registration fraud, that fraudulent votes will be cast.

 

I would think it fairly clear to reasonably intelligent people of integrity that all votes of eligible voters should be counted, and no votes of ineligible voters should be counted. Most people are concerned with either one or the other, though, depending on the desired outcome. Or, as the song goes..."Mostly say hooray for our side..."