Should 537 votes in Florida decide a presidential election, when one candidate is beating the other by over more than half a million votes nationwide? Today’s Boston Globe says “no” to more Floridas, and “yes” to the National Popular Vote bill.
Should a person who can provide identification and proof of residence be allowed to register to vote on Election Day? “Yes,” says an article I co-authored in Friday’s Patriot Ledger.
MassVOTE believes it has never been a better time to strengthen our democracy. If passed, Election Day Registration can be implemented for November. The National Popular Vote, if passed by enough states, could go into effect for 2012. Once it happens, Massachusetts will no longer be a spectator in presidential elections, and we can guarantee there will be no more Florida debacles in the future.
The Globe highlights the two states with the highest turnout in the country in 2004: Minnesota and Wisconsin. Coming in third was Maine. What do these states have in common? All three are swing states, and all three have had Election Day Registration in place for over 3 decades.
What say you? Should the legislature move these bills? What bills are on your short list for the rest of the session?
needs to be done to enhance it. Same day registration will increase voter fraud and limit our ability to vet people properly. Not a good idea.
<
p>On a separate issue, the National Popular Vote if an even worse idea and THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!!!
The problem with a word like “increase” is that it implies growth over a previous mark. Thus, “increase voter fraud” presumes that such exists today.
<
p>Problem is, it doesn’t. There is not one documented case of voter fraud in recent American elections. Excepting, of course, the Republican definition of “voter fraud”, which is “voting by non-whites”.
I don’t have time to research reported cases of voter fraud so I won’t challenge your remark. But if what you say is true, the you know the saying, “If ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Apparently, the system that is in place is doing a wonderful job of keeping voter fraud out. Thank you for pointing that out and for the implication that the system works so good. I agree that we keep it just the way it is.
<
p>As for you racial remark, as a Republican I take offense from it. Even conservative Republicans like myself fully embrace the idea of every LEGAL American citizen voting. I wish more people exercised their rights and voted instead of sitting on their fat lazy asses and not voting, only to complain later about the quality of our politicians. Those same fat lazy asses can get off them and go register to vote as well. “I can’t afford a computer and go to the web site to download the Voter Registration form…” or “Oh, but I can’t make it to the Town Hall because of work…” FINE, call them on the phone and they will mail you a registration form. The bar to register to so UNGODLY LOW, any complaint by any citizen with an IQ over 10 should be written down on paper and shoved where the sun doesn’t shine. And complaints by the people with IQs under 10 should be handled by the local DNC office.
<
p>The current system of voter registration works well at reducing voter fraud, but in MA it’s less than great about allowing people to register, and in some states, it’s even less great than that. There’s absolutely no reason to think we can’t make voter registration easier and more uniformly accessible across age, housing status, or literacy without compromising voter fraud protection.
<
p>
<
p>No you don’t, and very few conservative Republicans do. How about convicted felons who served their time, served their parole, and are now free men? How about convicted felons who served their time in the pen, but are now on parole? How about convicted felons in prison currently? Down the line, nearly all Republicans are against all three of those classes having the right to vote.
My wife is a Election Clerk for the town here in MA. She told me anyone can register up until a few days before the election. Is so simple even a democrat could do it. I guess I would ask that you be specific to explain to me why in MA it is less than great. No rhetoric, give us facts. In general, systems need some rules. Drivers licenses are given after you pass the tests. You have to renew them every 5 years or so. You have to register your car when you buy it, renewe the registration, get it inspected… The list goes on for EVERYTHING in life. Now if you think making someone fill out a form to vote is too much work, how the hell are they going to cope with all the other things in life that require them to get off their FAT ASSES????? They tried making loans easier for people and now look at the freakin mess!!!!!
<
p>Yes, I do agree with the citizens of MA (With sooooo many Democrats) in denying the right to vote (as well as many other rights like freedom…) to convicted felons (you know, murderers, rapists, pedophiles and other wonderful model citizens). And I also agree that people on parole have redeemed the right to walk amongst us and once they show they can stop the robbing, stabbing and whatever other heinous criminal activities they previously enjoyed doing, they can earn their right to vote back.
<
p>Do Democrats understand “cause and effects” regarding any aspect of life. Prostitots in Gloucester. Prisoners.
Even if for some reason the town in which your wife is a clerk accepts registration forms up until a few days before the election, that is certainly not the law in Massachusetts. The law is you must be registered 20 days before the election.
<
p>Driver’s licenses is a terrible analogy. If you show up to get a driver’s license and you forgot the proper identification or they experienced some clerical error, you can just show up the next day or get the problem resolved within a short time frame. The point is, if you’re eligible, you eventually will get your license.
<
p>In contrast, if you can’t vote on election day because of a clerical error, because you were inappropriately purged from the voting rolls, or because you were the victim of a scam or mismanaged registration drive, then you have zero recourse. If you don’t vote on or before election day, you will never again be able to cast a vote in that election. It’s not at all like a driver’s license where you can simply reapply.
I generally favor same-day registration, but aren’t your second and third paragraphs an argument against it? If there is a concern about not being able to register on the first try then you would need a pre-election buffer precisely so those issues can be resolved without disenfranchising you come election day.
The case for disenfranchisement laws, is that if you are not willing to follow the law, then you shouldn’t be able to claim a right to make the law for everyone else.
<
p>The Republican case for, or against, (because the Republican candidate for Governor in Florida in ’06 for for repealing the Florida disenfranchisement law) is that it’s the State’s call, and not the Federal Government.
BTW, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, and New Mexico. Connecticut each have made felon voting more lenient through a mish-mash of laws signed by Democrats and Republicans alike.
<
p>I’ve found a ’02 Harris poll in which 80% said felons should have their right restored. Since we aren’t a Nation of 80% democrats and 20% republicans, that pretty much shows the ignorance of your generalization.
<
p>Voters don’t [generally] make laws: they elect people, some of whom make laws.
<
p>The case against disenfranchisement laws is that even if you are not willing to follow the law, you are a US citizen and as such deserve the right to participate in our democracy if you so choose.
<
p>
<
p>As for states’ laws w.r.t. voting felons, the 12 most lenient states are:
LIST A
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Maine ()
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Utah
Vermont ()
<
p>In these states, only inmates currently behind bars can’t vote, with the exception of VT and ME, where inmates can vote too.
<
p>Now, lets look at the states with the most restrictive laws:
LIST D
Alabama
Arizona
Delaware
Iowa
Kentucky
Mississippi
Nevada
Tennessee
Virginia
Wyoming
<
p>In these states, if you’ve ever been convicted of a felony, you can never vote again, although many of those states do have a number of footnotes which loosen that restriction. Additionally, inmates, parolees, and probationers are barred from voting.
<
p>
<
p>So, which of those two lists is governed by and large by Democrats? Which is governed by and large by Republicans? But what about the other states? Let’s have a look:
<
p>Inmates, parolees, and probationers barred:
LIST C
Alaska
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
<
p>Now, Inmate and parolees barred, but probationers allowed:
LIST B
California
Colorado
Connecticut
New York
South Dakota
<
p>Which of those two lists tends to be governed by Democrats more often?
<
p>
<
p>The GOP/Dem divide isn’t perfect, but it’s a really good indicator of just who can vote w.r.t. felons. You’re welcome to claim that either list C or list D is “more Democratic/less GOP” than list A or list B, but I’d be surprised if you do so — its an awfully tough sell.
<
p>All of this data comes from State Felon Disenfranchisement Laws; I don’t contend that it’s 100% accurate but I suspect it’s accurate enough to give the clear correlation between GOP-dominated state politics and felon disenfranchisement.
You ignore the clear polling data that shows 80% of all people favor leniency, in favor of an opague inference based on the ‘blue-ness’ or ‘red-ness’ of particular states and conclude that Republicans don’t favor leniency, because conveniently that opaque data supports the conclusion you’ve preconceived. Once again “correlation doesn’t equal causation”.
Republican legislators don’t favor leniency, in spite of the fact that their constituents do.
<
p>Do you have some other theory as to why this “coincidence” exists, or will you continue to trot out the correlation != causality mantra whenever the trends don’t favor your point of view? The correlation sure supports my [revised] hypothesis.
Mississippi, general Republican governance with broad disenfranchisment laws. Therefore, Republican favor disenfranchisment.
<
p>New Jersey, general democrat governance with broad disenfanchisement laws. Therefore, Democrats favor disenfranchisement.
<
p>I guess both parties favor limiting a felons right to vote. UNLESS, there’s some characteristics, particular to the State with no regard to party affiliation where the citizenry, whether Democrat or Republican favor said laws.
<
p>And I’ll continue to trot out the correlation doesn’t equal causation until you get it.
If you refuse to see the trend between GOP leadership in the state and their level of felon disenfranchisement, then there’s nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.
<
p>Are you arguing the trend isn’t there? Note I said trend. Correlation doesn’t imply a correlation of 1 or -1. The correlation is significant.
<
p>Furthermore, you completely ignored the revised claim:
Republican legislators don’t favor leniency, in spite of the fact that their constituents do.
<
p>You suggest there’s some characteristic particular to the state with no regard to party affiliation that correlates felon disenfranchisement laws. Got any suggestions to what they might be? I challenge you to come up with a correlation stronger than the political party of the state’s leadership [gov, state lege]. Whaddya got?
<
p>In closing, I’ll trot out the observation that you (i) refuse to acknowledge my points, (ii) refuse to respond to my questions, and (iii) continue to trot out your correlation != causality statement while demonstrating that you clearly don’t understand it’s limitations because you refuse to acknowledge that I’m not claiming causality in the first place.
Please clariy. As I read your argument, you’re saying that states with principally Republican governance more often than not have disenfranchisement laws.
<
p>And your half stated presumption is that the Republicans caused it, or caused it not to be changed. So which is it, are you claiming the Republicans caused it, or are you claiming there appears to be a correlation in Party Governance and you don’t know what causes the correlation.
(try this)
<
p>
<
p>Nowhere did I claim causality, merely preference.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>So, I do observe that states with principally Republican governance have more aggressive felony disenfranchisement laws than states with principally Democratic governance.
<
p>I never claimed that Republicans politicians caused it, merely that they prefer it. The correlation between state governments led by Republican politicians and felony disenfranchisement is strong enough to infer that Republican politicians are, by not changing it, causing it to not be changed.
Note too that there’s an obvious correlation between climate and felony disefranchisement.
<
p>Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, Arizona, etc…are more strict than the northern states, strong enough to infer that global warming, if it continues will disenfranchise more and more voters as the decades pass.
<
p>We must stop global warming. Think of the felons!
<
p>Because some form of felon disenfranchisement dating back centuries, is the rule rather than the exception — 49 states/districts with felon disenfranchisement — a discernable correlation is a symptom of your bias.
<
p>And the presumption that Republican politicians are causing it not to be changed is absurd, unless you can also claim that the Democratic politicians are also causing it not to be changed. It is afterall the two parties that are in charge, and they together are responsible for 49 states who have such laws.
… implying that he is still citing causation despite his protestations to the contrary. If he is, you should explain that rather than engage in condescension yourself. If not, your correlation / causation sarcasm is misapplied.
You’d have read this:
<
p>
<
p>Pretty clear evidence he’s citing causation. The word “causing” is a dead giveaway.
<
p>
…
<
p>It just looked really weird with his post directly denying implying causation and your post sarcastically pointing out how correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation without any explanation as to what merited the sarcasm. It sort of begged the question in my mind “Isn’t there a step missing here?”.
Convicted felons in MA vote. Whether or not they should be allowed to vote is a states rights issue. Some states like FL are of the opinion that felons forfeit that right. That’s their privilege.
<
p>No documented cases of voter fraud? How about dead people voting. Seems that quite a few people have issues with the deceased voting, especially Illinois. Of course being a bastion of the democratic party, Ilinois is infamous for voter “irregularities.” Lyndon Baines Johnson was voted into congress via ballot box “stuffing.” William Delahunt
stole an election to congress from Phil Johnston via bizarre circumstance.
<
p>Correct me if I am inaccurate but I recall deceadants recently voting in NY and MA. There appears to be a rash of the dead voting of late. That’s not election fraud?
<
p>Voter registration? You gotta be kidding. An idiot can register to vote. And judging by the election results over the last thirty years—a lot of idiots vote. As a matter of fact it appears most voters in Massachusetts are idiots, so having an IQ less than 60 is obviously not an impediment for casting a ballot. Now you register with renewing your drivers license. Any citizen of the USA has from the time they were 21 or 18 YOA has had the opportunity to register to vote. If an election comes up and folks haven’t registered, too bad. I could care less. A society only functions if it is well regulated. Voting reuirements are a regulation. Proper ID and proof of citizenship should be requirements at the BALLOT BOX!
<
p> BTW–you want voter fraud? Here’s voter fraud!
<
p>http://gatewaypundit.blogspot….
<
p>
That wasn’t a racial slur…I did not speak ill of any race. At worst, it was a political slur…one that just happens to be true. Look up the name “Monica Goodling” or “Kenneth Blackwell” to see how much minority vote suppression is part of the Repubublican plan to win elections.
person is not a racial remark? If that is the standard this blog page goes by, then so be it. I will make sure my comment, when appropriate, follow this line of logic.
<
p>There is not one documented case of voter fraud in recent American elections. Excepting, of course, the Republican definition of “voter fraud”, which is “voting by non-whites”.
<
p>When you get a minute, could you please tell me why rules which have been followed for so many years, suddenly are unworthy of the “people:? And I mean rules which were followed by rich and poor, black and white, Republican and Democrat electing many many Democrats to office for decades. What group of people are you trying to hookup for the Democratic party?
Geez, JohnD, you’d think that any report of anything that uses a racial identification is ipso facto racist.
<
p>As I said on another thread, liberals will think differently. In some cases, that’s because we know things you do not. Please be curious not outraged!!!! that we could say such things!!!!
<
p>The allocation of voting machines in the Ohio 2004 elections was clearly and plainly meant to have a racial effect.
I am super sensitive that any white person saying anything about another race (ex. Black) will get attacked by the left. So my assumption of the reverse is the cause of this. As I look at it more I can understand it is more of a slam on Repubs concerning race in general vs. a racial remark. You got me!
We saw in Florida in 2000 how eligible voters were purged from the voter rolls. Scam and mishandled registration drives fail to register people every year. Election Day Registration solves these problems. It will make registering and voting easier for anyone, especially in a state like Massachusetts with a large transient student population.
<
p>There is zero evidence to back up JohnD’s assertion that EDR will increase fraud. None of the states that enacted EDR saw an increase in voter fraud. In-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent to begin with. That was a baseless assertion.
<
p>National Popular Vote is a great idea and is supported by 70% of the US population. The idea that the person with the fewest votes nationwide can win the presidency is absurd. At most 1/3 of the states are swing states — the rest receive no formal campaign activity by the major candidates or attention to their issues. This constitutes an effective disenfranchisement of a super majority of the country.
<
p>When the Electoral College was first put in place, the population difference between states was 11 to 1 — now it’s 70 to 1. A vote for president in Wyoming is worth 4 times a vote in California. That kind of disenfranchisement simply can’t be justified.
<
p>NPV will happen — one state at a time. Four states are on board already. The idea enjoys a 73% approval rating in Massachusetts and it has the legislative votes needed to pass. We just need the State House leadership to bring it up for a vote!
Let’s see: we’ve gone through a primary election cycle so far that saw MI/FL thrown out because they wanted to jump to the head of the line. Of course, given how all of this played out, they would have had far more influence this year if they had stayed towards the back of the primary schedule.
<
p>Let’s replay 2000 again, but Bush wins the popular vote (and carries FL by a far more significant margin w/o the networks calling the state for Gore before the frickin’ Panhandle closed the polls) but loses the electoral vote. Anyone around here pushing for this National Popular Vote stuff?
<
p>That famous old bromide in the 60s of the Generals fighting the last war could certainly apply to these efforts.
The way parties run their primaries and the whole MI/FL controversy is the business of the parties and irrelevant to the way we should go about electing the president in the general election. So I’m not clear on why you brought that up.
<
p>The NPV is a non-partisan initiative with both Democratic and Republican backers. If we replay 2004 again, but this time Kerry gets 60,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won the Electoral College but lost the National Popular Vote. It cuts both ways.
<
p>Why thinker? Because at least 2/3 of the country receives no attention by the major presidential candidates. And because we run the risk of electing a president who is opposed by the majority of the country. The Electoral College also helps disenfranchise minority populations because a higher percentage of them live in non-swing states. Perhaps most importantly, we should “tinker” because 70% of the US population wants the president to be chosen by the National Popular Vote.
We shouldn’t constructively abolish the Electoral College via the National Popular Vote movement. The EC quarantines fraud and ensures a role for states’ concerns during primaries and elections.
<
p>But, that’s not to say that having the winner of the popular national vote lose to the winner of the Electoral College is a good thing.
<
p>There’s something else we can do: add a slate of electoral-votes-at-large, which will be allocated to the winner of the popular vote.
<
p>The way it would work is as follows: the popular vote winner (say, Gore) would get X number of additional electoral votes to reflect his win of the popular vote. It might be pegged to a certain ratio: each 1% above 50% of the popular vote equals 1 electoral-vote-at-large. Or something similar. This way we retain the EC (if you believe, like me, that that’s a good thing – see here for more info as to why) while preventing a 2000-style (or an 1876-style) election.
<
p>Disclaimer: I didn’t come up with the electoral-vote-at-large idea. I read it a while ago somewhere, I just wish I remembered where.
The Electoral College is what makes fraud feasible and localized problems into national concerns:
<
p>On the fraud part … currently, fraudsters only have to flip an individual state to turn an entire presidential election. If we instead used the NPV, flipping a presidential election would take an infeasible, nationally coordinated effort.
<
p>On the localized problems … For example, the whole butterfly ballot fiasco in Florida wouldn’t have been such a huge deal in 2000 had NPV in place. With NPV the local effects of voting and ballot problems would be diluted by the popular vote across the nation.
<
p>I’m not sure what you mean when you say the EC “ensures a role for states’ concerns”. The EC makes the 2/3 of states that are not swing irrelevant to the major party presidential campaigns. With NPV, voters in every state would matter.
As to fraud: imagine two scenarios.
<
p>Scenario A: the current system is in place and unchanged
<
p>Fraud occurs in one or two states. Keen poll watchers alert the media, affected political parties, etc. Enough of a ruckus happens such that, when it comes time to certify the electoral votes from those suspect states, Congress refuses to do so, citing electoral fraud. This is the way the system currently works (and has been in place since 1876, and should have worked in 2000). With the electoral votes of those suspect, either they do not affect the electoral vote count or Congress decides the election, as designed under the Constitution.
<
p>Scenario B: we constructively abolish the Electoral College and use the NPV system instead
<
p>A shrewd and clever national political party decides to “flip” several hundred thousand votes throughout the country by targeting major cities. This is a targeted but dispersed electoral fraud system that cannot be quarantined.
<
p>As to the role of the EC, I draw your attention to this post, dated February 15, 2008. With NPV, only major markets matter, not every state. Let’s not kid ourselves.
The main differences I see is that Scenario B would be virtually impossible to carry out, let alone be successful, given that its impact would be diluted by the national popular vote. In terms of the “ruckus” that would be happen, a fraud effort targeting major cities nationwide would certainly cause a greater ruckus than something confined to a few states.
<
p>In NPV, every voter in every state does matter. You would see Massachusetts citizens getting Massachusetts voters out to vote. You would see Montanans getting Montanans out to vote. Why would that happen? … precisely because every state would now matter. Right now those states are foregone conclusions.
<
p>As far as only “major market” buys, that’s what goes on now. 12 of the 13 least-populous states haven’t been competitive since 1988. With NPV, you would see a lot more national buys that hit the whole country.
Since we’re merely speculating at this point.
the statement
would be believable. However, with electronic voting, a manipulation of the machine itself, occurring in the days before election day, could result in a massive swing in votes and go undetected.
<
p>That applies both to the EC system and the NPV system.
To be involved in the National Popular Vote bill effort . . .
<
p>Check the status of the bill in your state at http://www.NationalPopularVote…
<
p>Let your legislator(s) know what you think. If you need help to identify and/or contact your state representatives, senators, and/or governor about National Popular Vote, you can search by your zip code using online sites such as http://www.congress.org/congre… .
<
p>Sign up to get email updates – http://www.NationalPopularVote…
<
p>Help get the word out and show your support.
<
p>Tell a friend- http://www.NationalPopularVote…
<
p>Distribute literature at political, civic, or other meeting, convention, or conference.
Post on discussion groups.
Write letters to editors, OpEds, and/or blog.
<
p>Responses to many common misinformed critiques are at http://nationalpopularvote.com…
<
p>Up-to-date information and materials are at http://www.NationalPopularVote…
<
p>susan
Which way is a person more likely to register when they should not? With a mail in voter registration form where all they have to fake is the last 4 digits of a social security number? Or on Election Day, when they would have to swear in front of live human beings, including a policeman, that they are who they say they are. Plus the added risk of making a fake ID and fake proof of residence.
It seems to me fraud is less likely to happen in that scenario. Of course the whole discussion is a big “What if…?” There are not people who fake their voter registration currently, paranoia is the only basis for this argument, not facts.
Having a president elected by popular vote will eventually cut out a large geographical area of USA of having any impact or say inthe election of a president. The result will naturaly result in seccesionist sentiment—and why not. It’s happened before.
<
p>One person, one vote?
<
p>With NPV, the vote of someone in rural North Dakota carries the same weight as someone in the Bronx.
<
p>How is that a problem?
has nothing to do with being rural or urban, in a big state or a small state.
<
p>It has everything to do with the perceived probability the state can be flipped, and the actual margin of victory.
<
p>To take an extreme case, who had more power in the 2000 POTUS election?
<
p>A. Tim from Houston Texas
B. Claire from rural California
C. Doug from Wilmington Delaware
D. Wyatt from rural Wyoming
E. Fran from Miami Florida
F. Mike from rural New Mexico
G. Wilma from Wisconsin
<
p>The answer, of course, is that E, F, and G had far more power in the 2000 POTUS than A, B, C, or D. Why? They all lived in states where the margin of victory was 0.22% or less, in states where there were enough EVs to swing the election.
<
p>It doesn’t matter if you’re rural or urban. Power comes from the chance that your vote might change the result of the election, and currently some people are far more powerful than others. One man one vote rectifies that disparity.
<
p>
<
p>Furthermore, the claim that entire regions of the country will have a smaller impact on the country is true — but it’s not Big Sky country, Hawaii, or Alaska. They’d have a much bigger impact on the country. Let’s look at 2000 again.
<
p>New Mexico had 5/538th of the impact under EV. With popular vote, they’d have had 336/101,447,491.
<
p>Wyoming had 3/538th of the impact under EV. With popular vote, they’d have had 87,466/101,447,491. Instead of being the 50th most important state, they’d have climbed up to 32nd most important state, since the margin of victory there was 32nd in the country in popular vote.
<
p>Would candidates go to Wyoming under the new system? Nope, and they don’t go there now. But, both Republican and Democratic candidates would work to organize Wyoming, and the other 49 states as well. If all votes are worth the same, then it’s worth going after all votes, wherever they are — rural or urban, red state or blue, East Coast, West Coast, or anywhere in between. Small non-swing states would gain in power because their voters would be worth targeting for votes; right now only a foolish POTUS candidate would go after voters in WY or VT, NY or TX, in rural, suburban, or urban neighborhoods. That’d change under one man, one vote rules.
… anything to back that up with? Never heard any historian ever refer to the electoral college as an anti-rural disenfranchisement mechanism. More like anti-mob-rule mechanism.
That’s is complete historical revisionism. The founders didn’t think the Electoral College was some great plan. In fact, they they cobbled it together at the last moment by slightly tweaking a plan they had earlier rejected. They were running out of time and needed something in place. Read your history.
If you support the National Popular Vote bill, tell the MA Senate to pass it!
<
p>Please take a moment to email your State Senator in support of the National Popular Vote bill. Earlier this month, the House approved it by a vote of 119-37, and the Senate is scheduled to vote this Tuesday!
<
p>http://www.commoncause.org/sit…