Voters Like Early Voting and Voter ID, No Matter What Politicians Say
Majorities of Americans want casting a ballot to be easy and secure.

With another close presidential election looming, among the hotly contested issues, logically enough, is how elections are administered. Who gets to vote and how they cast their ballots can have a big impact on a race decided by a whisker. That's led Democrats to oppose voter identification requirements and Republicans to condemn (though they've had second thoughts) early and mail-in voting. But voters themselves have a bone to pick with both parties, since they favor both ID and early voting.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Party Officials With Strong Election Policy Opinions
Last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed a law forbidding localities to require voters to present identification before casting ballots. "The legislation…is a direct response to a controversial ballot measure approved this year by voters in Huntington Beach requiring people to show photo identification at the polls," noted Politico's Tyler Katzenberger.
Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic contender for the country's highest elected office, objected in 2021 that it could be "almost impossible" for some people, "especially people who live in rural communities," to provide identification documents in order to vote.
Republicans also have concerns about the way Americans vote, but they worry about early and mail-in ballots. At a May rally in New Jersey, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump told the audience that "mail-in voting is largely corrupt." At an April rally in Wisconsin, Trump insisted that voting should be limited to election day only. And just last week he mocked Michigan's early voting procedures, saying "you have the rest of your life to vote anytime you want."
In 2021, The Washington Post's Amy Gardner, Kate Rabinowitz, and Harry Stevens found that Republican lawmakers in 43 states had made efforts to "limit mail, early in-person and Election Day voting." Earlier this month, CNN's Casey Gannon and Paula Reid reported that "in battleground states…Republicans are suing to challenge everything from whether mail-in ballot envelopes are properly sealed to whether they are postmarked correctly."
Voters Want Easy, Secure Voting
Officials in the two parties have strong opinions about how elections should be run. But those opinions don't jibe with those of most Americans.
"76% of U.S. adults favor the concept of early voting," according to a Gallup poll published last week. "Two other election law policies are supported by even more Americans – requiring photo identification to vote (84%) and providing proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time (83%)."
Democrats and Republicans differ in the strength of their support for these ideas. But what's remarkable is that majorities of the partisans of both parties and of independent voters favor early voting (95 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of independents, and 57 percent of Republicans), requiring photo ID at voting places (67 percent of Democrats, 84 percent of independents, and 98 percent of Republicans), and requiring proof of citizenship of those registering to vote (66 percent of Democrats, 84 percent of independents, and 96 percent of Republicans).
The poll didn't specifically ask about mail-in voting, but a separate survey earlier this month found that 27 percent of Democrats, 22 percent of independents, and 13 percent of Republicans planned to vote "by mailing or dropping off an absentee ballot." Forty-six percent of Democrats, 43 percent of independents, and 31 percent of Republicans planned to vote early by any means.
In February, Pew Research also found majority support for photo ID requirements, early voting, and allowing anybody to vote by mail. Ninety-five percent of Republicans favored photo ID, with the agreement of 69 percent of Democrats. In that survey, though, while 64 percent of GOP voters favored early voting (88 percent of Democrats), only 28 percent supported mail-in ballots (84 percent of Democrats). That suggests Republican positions are shifting somewhat, if not completely, on the idea of casting ballots in ways that don't require going to voting places on election day.
(Most) Republicans Shift Their Position and Voters Turn Out
To their credit, Republican officials seem to be getting the message. Whether they realize that they're at odds with their own supporters, or it's finally dawned on them that votes in your corner count no matter when they arrive, they've shifted gears on getting voters to cast ballots any way they can. But they have an internal challenge to their attempt to get out the early vote.
"Republicans are pouring tens of millions of dollars into getting GOP voters to cast ballots before Election Day," Politico's Lisa Kashinsky wrote three weeks ago. "They're frustrated because Donald Trump keeps getting in the way."
Trump has slightly softened his earlier absolute stance against early voting. He even said at one point that he would cast his own ballot before election day, then reversed himself. Signs at his rallies urge supporters to cast their votes early—but he still ridicules the practice.
The shift—muddled though it may be—seems to have worked. Record numbers of Republicans have joined Democrats, independents, and third-party voters in voting early.
"Republicans make up 35% of the early vote in the 27 states [for which data is available], up from 29% at the same point in 2020," CNN's Matt Holt, Ethan Cohen and Molly English noted this week. "Democrats, who made up 45% of the early vote at this point in 2020, account for 39% of preelection ballots cast now."
As indicated by California's law banning localities from requiring voter ID, Democrats have not made a similar shift to catch up with the preferences of their own base. Party officials remain overwhelmingly committed to allowing voting without identification requirements, no matter what voters prefer.
Of course, none of the above addresses the merits of the photo ID requirements, early voting, mail-in ballots, or any other election-related procedures. There's still plenty of room to debate whether any of these are good ideas, bad ideas, or matters of personal preference.
But the American people, by and large, want voting to be easy and to involve measures that they believe ensure some degree of honesty. To the extent that party bosses and elected officials differ with the public on how elections should be run, they're picking fights with their own voters.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's not the 1960s anymore. Far from it. Everyone has ID now. The only reason to ban requiring ID is to cheat.
Getting Driving permits for my kids was a total PITA. You have to collect a lot of documents from 15 years ago. If you don't have them, you have to spend a fair bit of time and money to getting certified copies.
There's also the challenge that poor people move around a lot. So their DL will frequently have the wrong address.
All this adds up to a functional poll tax.
It would be better if we could verify birth certificates online. There's no reason the DMV needs a certified, embossed copy of my birth certificate from 1973. Update addresses online for free (costs me $30 IIRC).
Poll workers already scan my DL to record it when I vote. There's no reason it couldn't validate current eligibility to vote EVEN IF THE DL IS EXPIRED.
My red state jurisdiction allows you to vote with an expired drivers license if it didn't expire before the last election.
re: "adds up to a functional poll tax"
That is the argument against voter ID. The problem is that there is no evidence that it's true. As evidence, look at the many, many things that people, including the very poor, routinely need identification for - identification that they evidently have little difficulty getting. Consider also the many government services and subsidies available in states that require them to assist those who need help getting the required IDs. I have trouble calling anything a "tax" when it's functionally paid for by the government.
By the way, getting driving permits for my kids was pretty simple. If your local jurisdiction makes that unreasonably hard, maybe that's the problem you should fix.
I'm not buying it. If you haven't kept your child's birth certificate, your a lousy parent. Didn't blame society or the government for your abject failures.
I'm not buying it. If you haven't kept your child's birth certificate, you're a lousy parent. Didn't blame society or the government for your abject failures.
But all the minorities can't get IDs /sarc
I saw a Youtube video where black men were going off on people thinking they were too dumb to get ID.
Agreed you need ID for everything these days
Saying blacks are too dumb to get ID’s may not be peak racist, but it’s pretty bad. No shock that all democrats are pretty racist. They are the part of the Klan, Jim Crow and segregation.
Absolutely. Those poor dumb negroes just can't find the DMV without the help of the rich white masters of the DNC. Blatantly racist.
It’s not the 1960s anymore. Far from it. Everyone has ID now. The only reason to ban requiring ID is to cheat.
Simply having an ID doesn't mean you meet the requirements to vote. Are you also proposing requiring ID to indicate whether you are a citizen of the US qualified to vote?
Having an ID is not and never has been all you need to vote. You still have to register. Registration is where you prove your eligibility to vote. All Voter ID is intended to do (or can do) is confirm that the person showing up at the poll is the same person who registered.
So the concern is that people are voting who are not registered when they vote from home? Or is the concern that perhaps elderly people are having their family vote for them? Honestly interested in how requiring people to show up in person to vote will reduce fraud. Seems to me more people will just say 'fuck it' and not vote. Maybe that's the goal?
I'm OK with removing the ID requirement to vote, but only if we ban drivers licenses and background checks for gun purchases.
Seems fair
Some congressman should put up a bill that stipulates just that!
It would be the ultimate troll of the MSM and its 'News' cycle
Voters also want generous benefits and low taxes; make of that as you will.
Of course, none of the above addresses the merits of the photo ID requirements
Challenge.
Anyone here who does not support Voter ID, raise your hand. And then explain why.
I swear on my honor that I will hear any objections fairly and impartially, and give a considerate response to anyone who takes up the challenge.
"Republicans are pouring tens of millions of dollars into getting GOP voters to cast ballots before Election Day,"
Oh well that's easy. They believe they got snookered in 2020. They want as many confirmed votes on record and on display - especially if they're showing mass leads - before some 11th hour claim that "hey we just found a bunch of uncounted ballots that are conveniently all Democrat!"
Now, I'm not going to weigh in one way or another on whether that's a legitimate belief - but I can sure appreciate why they might think it. Coupled with the fact that we have the means to tell who has and hasn't early voted among registered voters (have you been getting the text messages?) they're laying groundwork for challenging the dubious notion that just enough Democrat voters - maybe more than are registered - came out at the very last minute to tip the scale.
Arizona, for example, was highly dubious. Let's not pretend otherwise. Kari Lake, in her impatient and short-sighted lust for immediate power (rather than sacrificing it in the name of fighting for the people and their election integrity), screwed up the argument for it - but, ngl, at the end of the day, I suspect she was ultimately correct. There were almost certainly shenanigans there.
Republicans are now hip to those games, and adjusting their position accordingly.
My objection to requiring ID is philosophical: Having a universal franchise requires a belief that each person is capable and willing to responsibly and thoughtfully exercise that franchise; that same belief in personal integrity requires acceptance of a person’s claim that their name is John Doe living on Main Street and is voting in no other place for this election. If a person can not be relied upon to truthfully provide that information, then I do not see how he can be expected to make a legitimate choice between candidates or referenda. A person either has integrity or he doesn't.
That voting should be a single day: We have minimal civic interaction remaining in this country; single day voting would be at least one thing that we all do together. (And practically, if that means making it a Federal holiday, I’m fine with that.)
And yes, I'm a what Ayn Rand would call a romantic, I can see a perfect world that we could get to if we wanted.
Realistically, fine, the horse is out of the barn, vote whenever the heck you want, but bring an ID so we know you're only voting once.
You lost me at "single day."
People have work and family responsibilities that can't always accommodate your single day.
Even if it's a Federal holiday.
On the flip side, we've had people who have cast an early vote and then died before election day. Hell, we've had *candidates* who were on the ballot and died before election day. Seems less than ideal.
People somehow managed to do it when more people lived on farms and cars didn't exist.
But I'm not totally opposed to early voting. A week of voting seems reasonable.
Then they can send for an application for an absentee ballot or cast an absentee ballot in the registrar's office. That was the way it used to work.
Thx, you beat me to it.
I get it. I was that view too. In perfect world, no one cheats. Everyone has respect for how others voted. Nowadays where one side thinks that cheating/lying is acceptable if it gets the result they want - I'm all for ID now. It's not that hard to show or have. You need it everywhere.
I can agree with the single day voting but again you have states that drag their feet counting for days. Also, as the pop grows you need more voting places which seems to be missed by the government.
Last I check republicans weren't telling people to go home in early voting like in Bucks County. Or repubs didn't find boxes and boxes of ballets at 3 am. Or you know repubs kicking out democrat poll watchers.
Maybe in the past it was reserved and the GOP was the violator. I don't see it now. I see normal people on the right, and a lot of unhinged on the left. If Trump wins, there will be lots of therapy next year.
There is a reason why one party is the stupid party (GOP tries to play by laws and rules) and the evil party (Dems do whatever they can to win or get their result).
This isn't all dems by the way. Same I'm sure there are GOP that try to cheat.
My objection to requiring ID is philosophical: Having a universal franchise requires a belief that each person is capable and willing to responsibly and thoughtfully exercise that franchise; that same belief in personal integrity requires acceptance of a person’s claim that their name is John Doe living on Main Street and is voting in no other place for this election.
That's fair. And I agree with you even, on a philosophical level.
The problem is, as I'm sure you're aware, that a great many Americans (including/especially those already in power) have illustrated that we cannot believe that about them. They've illustrated a lack of integrity and a lack of honesty.
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." as the saying goes. Or, "Trust once lost, could not be easily found."
I have a good friend, a priest, who I once heard talking about marriage. Obviously the Church has its crystal clear position on the subject, but what he was zeroing in on was the importance and ability for spouses to rely on each other's vows. Richer and poorer, sickness and health, good times and bad, and so forth. He talked about how people don't seem take those seriously anymore - which has facilitated a (broken) culture of divorce and/or relationships of convenience - and how easy it is to be tempted to split when one party breaks their vows. His (more or less) words, "A broken relationship is like a shattered vase. Even if you DO manage to put every piece back together perfectly, you'll still see the cracks and know it was once broken."
Now, in context of our discussion, it seems as if most folks stop right there. Terminal distrust that never heals. My friend then followed into his sermon proper about repentance and forgiveness - and maybe that's the way we have to approach things to get to that philosophical level.
Or, then again, maybe Evil will always prey on the virtue of the Good. In which case some civil safeguards make sense.
Thanks for your thoughts, GT.
Yup, in the real world that we actually live, you're right. That is, I guess, part of my quick followup to my own initial comment. We have entered a period where IDs are probably a necessary evil.
"Civil safeguards", a good wording.
Thx for your invitation to civil discourse and a chance to thoughtfully develop thoughts and arguments. We really could use more of that in these comments.
Because I needed to get a drivers license to drive but then I needed it to just sit on a plane. Because a few years ago, a new policy was floating around to deny Americans their 2nd A rights if they were on the No Fly List.
Not really against a Voter ID law per se but if you or anyone else want my support for it, I want something first in return. Say the repeal of the Bank Secrecy Act or the Dept of Ed or you make an offer. Before I give the bureaucrats more power, I want some returned first.
Not really against a Voter ID law per se but if you or anyone else want my support for it, I want something first in return. Say the repeal of the Bank Secrecy Act or the Dept of Ed or you make an offer. Before I give the bureaucrats more power, I want some returned first.
Interesting notion, but isn't it somewhat of a hostage-taking mentality? "Until I get what I want and you repeal the Bank Secrecy Act, I'll never let you feel confident about your elections." Or maybe it's more protectionist racket - "Nice election you've got there, be a shame if something happened to it."
It's like you're trying to leverage something you should arguably agree with (election integrity) in hopes of getting something else and unrelated that you want.
Nobody particularly likes having to be carded wherever they go - and indeed it's even become a little absurd in some cases. But can assuring that those WITH the civil right to vote are the only ones DOING the voting be considered that absurd?
Thanks for your thoughts SAGN.
Why do you think that a voter ID law gives bureaucrats more power? I've heard plausible arguments against voter ID laws before but that's never been one of them. What's your chain of logic here?
I think that SAGN's comment was that allowing government to control who you are (in the form of government issued ID's) is opening the door to a cycle of government overreach and abuse. Essentially, we are getting close to the point that someone can be turned into an un-person (a person who has lost all of his rights) by allowing no-fly, no-buy, etc. lists.
This is another result of loss of a presumption of integrity that I refer to above.
Once an official Voter ID is implemented I see the parties taking turns passing laws to expand the list of people they can take it away from (and give it to). They already do this by making unserious crimes without victims into felonies. But I can see them really going to town once they have total control over who can and cannot vote.
I don't see why voter ID would change that behaviour. What is preventing that from happening now that wouldn't prevent them with the implementation of voter ID?
Just saying it would be easier.
And here's another thing to think about. They'll be putting that info into databases. What happens to info in databases? It get leaked.
If your name is attached to your vote, it might be going into a database. Presenting ID not required to end up in a database.
I'm not seeing either of those. Deciding who does and does not get the franchise is a legislative action. Yes, it's sometimes arbitrary and capricious but voter ID doesn't make that even a smidgen easier (or harder). And requiring you to show your ID at the polls does not connect your ID to your vote. All it shows is that you showed up to vote - something that's already in the database when the poll worker checked your name and handed you the ballot.
Just to toss out a wildass idea;
How about coupling it with a new amendment: every citizen, without any exceptions, has a vote. That includes felons on death row and 3 day old infants. Parents and legal guardians can act on behalf of kids and Alzheimer's patients. I figure the death row vote doesn't systematically favor either party, and kids have legitimate interests that their parents represent.
The vote is invariably in-person and with ID; however, that does not necessarily mean at a polling place. For people unable to leave home (even if that home is a cell), victims of superglue accidents, etc, we have an election clerk and witness make a house call. It's not that unreasonable, doctors, priests, milkmen used to do it all the time.
I guess butplug is still the dumbest commenter here, but keep trying, you may be within reach.
That’s incredibly stupid.
From an incredibly stupid pile of TDS-addled shit.
I see the parties taking turns passing laws to expand the list of people they can take it away from (and give it to). ""
ID not required for that. Ask a felon. Many states have voter ID laws and what you're saying isn't happening any more or less than states without voter ID.
Once an official Voter ID is implemented I see the parties taking turns passing laws to expand the list of people they can take it away from (and give it to).
On what basis? And don't you think the Supreme Court would immediately put the kibosh on such efforts? They'd be patently unconstitutional.
They already do this by making unserious crimes without victims into felonies.
So, there's a value judgment there, right? "Unserious crimes without victims." You think those shouldn't be felonies, but maybe the State has a compelling interest in making them such.
For example, at this point I think most blue states should make shoplifting a felony. And maybe even vagrancy, when it's coupled with drug use. Relatively unserious crime and the victimization is arguably minimal - but the problem is SO bad and SO out of control, and its derivative effects are so damaging that if we don't start treating it as seriously as a felony offense, we're never going to make headway on solving the problem.
Obviously those felons would then lose their right to vote - at least until sentence completion and/or restoration. Maybe that's a little coercive ("shape up or lose your right to participate in your democracy") - but we don't really have a problem with it for other convicted criminals. And if it has a disproportional effect on one demographic or another, I'd posit that has more to do with their criminal propensity than it does an effort to disenfranchise them.
Either way, all due respect, it seems like a pretty singular and minimal basis on which to hang ones hat. Leaving electoral integrity open for rife abuse, because the parties might do something that would almost certainly be unconstitutional or deserved? It's just not a particularly convincing argument.
Thanks for your thoughts, sarc.
I don't think people oppose the concept of validating a voter's eligibility.
What they do is oppose the time and money barriers to voting that a DL represents for someone who doesn't already have/need one.
They’re not wrong about the hassle.
But it’s disappointing that many of the people who oppose voter ID want people to show ID for things much important to daily life than voting: getting a job, traveling from place to place, buying beer.
Exercising your 2A right.
If you have to provide ID to exercise a right, then voting is fair game.
Indeed
Yep.
But how many people without a DL don't have some form of ID? It's pretty hard to do much without one.
I do think there should be a way to vote if you do not have ID. But 99% of everyone does have ID, and I don't see a reason why ID shouldn't be required, but with some exceptions.
Money barriers - so this person doesn't drink? Drive? Fly?
Here in Texas, they take 7 forms of ID. Not just driver license. I also have a Voter ID card I can use that costed zero!
What they do is oppose the time and money barriers to voting that a DL represents for someone who doesn’t already have/need one.
This is a common objection and a valid concern. Or, at least, it might have been in 1976.
But it’s not 1976, it’s 2024 – and we live in the most decadent and convenient society that has ever existed in all of human history.
So, the video below is on the subject of “they have barriers” specifically as it’s applied to black people – but it’s just as sound for any other demographic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JGmKHrWKMQ
“They’re less likely to have IDs…”
“These type of people don’t live in areas with easy access…”
“You have to have access to the internet and pay a service provider fees…”
“They’re not aware, they’re not informed…”
And then he heads over to Harlem where all the black people are like, “Why would they think we don’t have ID?” “Why would they say that?” “That’s one of the things you need to walk around New York with.” “I’ve had access to the internet for years.”
There’s a certain hubris in it all, isn’t there. In the video, it’s very clearly a Racism of Lowered Expectations. And I have to wonder whether it’s an intentional disbelief on the subject of Voter ID in order to rationalize why it shouldn’t be required. Like, we have to knowingly and condescendingly pretend that there are “time and money barriers” – when there really aren’t – in order to take the position against it.
Thanks for your thoughts Mr. Jones.
Now, I’m not going to weigh in one way or another on whether that’s a legitimate belief – but I can sure appreciate why they might think it.
Here is the biggest reason why they would think it.
They have been told that the 2016 election was stolen by a few hundred thousand dollars’ worth of Facebook ads bought by the Russians®™ acting in concert and participation with Donald J. Trump.
The federal law enforcement and intelligence establishments gave the illusion of credibility to 2016 election trutherism.
Both the Clinton campaign and Kevin Clinesmith admitted to committing crimes to further 2016 election trutherism.
In 2018, two-thirds of Democratic voters felt that the Russians®™ actually changed the vote totals.
Think about it.
If this side was willing to violate campaign finance laws and laws against forgery on a delegitimization campaign against Trump, what wouldn’t they do to win the 2020 election?
An exchange I had with a friend...
"I don't know how you make a process that is completely 100% fool-proof and 100% secure, as much as we all want that.
We can't. But we should certainly *not* be advocating for things that are demonstrably weaker and less secure than the status quo, like mass-mail ballots with no signature checks. Things like day-of-election registration without marking such ballots as provisional until the registration can be verified. Things like saying voter ID requirements are racist, as if black people cannot manage to get an ID (and as if requiring ID to get a CCW permit is somehow not racist?). Every single thing (maybe hyperbole) someone proposes for making elections more secure is derided as racist and fought tooth and nail.
I want every single person who is eligible to vote be able to do so if they choose to do so. At the same time, I want to be able to verify that each ballot cast is cast by an eligible voter, who is voting their own ballot, in the district in which they legally reside as citizens, and that they are voting once and only once. I want the counting methods to be repeatable and auditable, to help ensure that only valid ballots cast by actual eligible voters are counted. I want the people doing the counting (or running the counting machines) to be impartial, or since there can be no such thing, at least have equal number of partisans working each step (sort of like solving the problem by "one of you gets to cut the cake, the other gets first pick", which tends to result in *precisely* even slices).
"The overly large majority of them are honest, which is really what you want instead of impartiality, and follow the law and procedures.
Agree, and a good distinction. I want them to be able to set aside their biases and operate as if they were impartial, so that procedures and laws are followed. More importantly, I want to be able to believe them when they say they can/have done exactly that. As a libertarian, I don't have any particular reason to like or trust Republicans more than Democrats.
What you want is reasonable enough.
But the reason it’s hard is summed up in that cake cutting thing. The first time I ever heard someone bring it up, my thought was “What kind of family do live in? Do you all suspect each other so much that you can’t cut a cake without security procedures? Is it really so bad if your brother got a bigger piece than you?” Most families I knew growing up had the opposite problem – no one willing to take the last piece, no you go first, etc.
This whole mess is a symptom of America moving from a high-trust society into a low-trust society. The long-term negative consequences of that are enormous. IMO it’s the fundamental reason failed third-world countries are failed third-world countries.
But sure, while we’re on that path, check the ID. The next stage after that will be paranoia that “they” are using fake ID, or a real ID obtained corruptly, or that the ID checkers can’t be trusted. If the assumption is that every single person is lying about every single thing, no possible system can work.
Let’s just go with the ID and take everything else as it comes.
While it may be part of some childhood memories, the issue is well-rooted in game-theory, right next to Prisoner's Dilemma.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cake-cutting-math-problem-fairness-envy
Cake-cutting contemplation is part of a sprawling mathematical subfield focused on the fair division of resources. It has spurred a raft of algorithms informing how to allocate food among hungry communities, how to split rent or chores among roommates, how to draw boundaries for fair voting districts and more. A mathematical problem at its heart, cake cutting connects rigorous reasoning to questions of human preferences and real-world issues, and so attracts not only mathematicians, but also computer scientists, economists, social scientists and legal experts. Questions of fairness (and unfairness) are decidedly universal. Of course, so is dessert. “It’s this very elegant model in which you can really distill what fairness is, and reason about it,” Procaccia says.
If so many people had not demonstrated that they are simply not trustworthy...
it’s the fundamental reason failed third-world countries are failed third-world countries.
Who gets rich in failed third-world countries? Government officials.
We're not moving toward one by accident.
Personally, I want every single person who is eligible to vote to be able to cast a safe and secure ballot. However, I want to be sure that the person voting is who they say they are, so that they cannot cast multiple ballots. I want to be sure that the person is voting in the correct district, where they legally reside. The person's eligibility should be verifiable, including citizenship when that is applicable (if some town in California really wants to let illegal aliens vote for Mayor, so be it, but they cannot legally vote for President, House Representatives, or Senators and must be prevented from doing so). Their votes must be cast by them and without coercion, so none of this "ballot harvesting" nonsense.
I don't care if someone voting is white, black, hispanic, or orange. Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Communist USA, all the same to me for voting rights. But you get to vote once and only once, and in the correct state and district, per your legal residency.
Show me a system better than in-person voting with ID requirements (allowing for early-in person voting satisfying these is fine by me) for meeting those objectives, then let's talk.
in-person voting with ID requirements (allowing for early in-person voting) and paper ballots; no machines
I don’t know of a better system.
But, despite having a voter ID law, we recently had two local elections overturned here (more specifically, the judge declared a different person the winner) because of illegal voting by US citizens with proper ID.
They’d lied and said they’d recently moved into the district in question. Dozens of them.
So what’s the next security procedure to fix that one? Requiring a utility bill only works for the person whose name is on the bill. Perhaps require people to register with the police when they move into town, which turn requires getting police release from their previous town? You see where this rabbit hole eventually leads.
Use to be in NYC that you had to be the book. Each book was a list of registered voters in the district and showed their signature from their registration. If you were not in the book, you couldn't vote. There was due process in that NYC had a lot of extra judges on duty and someone deny could plead their case to the judge and the judge could issue an order that would allow them go back and vote.
Some states use a provisional ballot for people who are not in the book. You can cast a vote that is not counted until you come back with acceptable proof that you were eligible.
You're already required to re-register to vote when you move, for this express reason. In many states, you're also already required by law to change your driver's license within 30 days of a move.
So if you moved last week and your ID still says you live somewhere you don't, you may need to cast a provisional ballot and be able to demonstrate your proper eligibility to vote in this district within the next few days.
Sorry for responding late, decided to actually work at work.
We have the same rule about re-registering (and updating the DL). But you just have to say it, you don't have to prove it. At least some of the people in the case I mentioned had filled out a false change of address. They were caught because the originally certified losing candidate pored obsessively over the records and found many people who claimed to live in a few apartments owned by the winner, others in obviously vacant houses, and a few who listed the county courthouse as their address.
PS: the person they were trying to elect did ultimately get his win invalidated and the office given to his opponent. But I haven't heard anything about the voters being prosecuted. I'm assuming they were given immunity because as part of the trial they testified who they voted for.
I'm actually keen on the finger dipped in ink trick some places use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_ink
Oh great, two new crime waves. October 2028, gangs of masked thugs assaulting people and dipping their fingers. Then after early voting starts, a wave of perjurers claiming that's what happened to them.
Actually not a bad idea.
I've said before that I don't *really* think Trump won, but I'm here to say now that that anyone saying there was ZERO fraud and ZERO hijinks by officials is simply stupid or a liar or both.
Many states had voting procedures changed by executive fiat--that's not how things get done in a legislative democracy, COVID notwithstanding. Many judges just let them do it, too, because COVID and FYTW. Many of those changes markedly weakened the security of the elections. "Human error" like tallying votes for the wrong candidate, finding ballots in drawers, trash bins, lock boxes under tables, finding memory cards never counted, running ballots through machines multiple times, finding only 0.3% errors in mail-in ballots when normal absentee ballots run about 3% error, stopping counting then restarting after observers got told to leave, covering up windows at counting places [the people who did that particular one were wearing IEBW union masks], forcing observers to stand 30 feet back despite a judges orders...the list goes on, these are juts the off-the-top-of-my-head ones. The point being that all of this taken together, for me at least personally, very much erodes the confidence in the system.
It's not hard to see why true-believers would not take much goading the buy into a conspiracy theory.
Quoting myself: "Not that I subscribe to any such theory, but...no, it wouldn't. It would take only a few thousand votes in a handful of battleground states, which could be limited to a small number of cities. And we already know that a number of cities have a long history of corruption and a long history of being run by Democrats. And for mail-in ballots, all you need to do is make the other guys ballot's disappear, no need to go to the trouble of create forged ballots that might be discovered. With mass-mail ballots (not absentee requests) anyone living at the address where the ballots arrived could fill them out and sign the name of the "voter" on the form. People in apartments reported received ballots for 4 or 5 previous tenants, so the potential to cast these ballots illegally was huge and we can be pretty certain that some people did exactly that. Absent a rigorous effort to validate each ballot against voter registration and audits to confirm proper association of ballot to real, live voters, we'll never know.
In a football game, if your team plays its best and you believe you got a fair shake all around and the other team was just better than you that day, you can shake hands and say "good game". But when it seems that the announcers are all pulling to the other team and it seems like the officials all have $10,000 riding on the other team, and the conference has just ruled 2 of your best players ineligible for something you know they didn't do (because it might be in the conference's best interest to have the other team win), it's very hard to stomach that seemingly inevitable loss.
"It’s not hard to see why true-believers would not take much goading the buy into a conspiracy theory."
I forget who said it, but it's very apt: "We're going to need some new conspiracy theories, all the old ones have come true."
P.S. Democrats are no stranger to wild claims when they lose, nor seeking extraordinary measures (see Pelosi's tweet, see Sen Boxer challenge electoral college on two different elections, see Bush/Gore, see Iowa rep candidate who wanted Nancy Pelosi to just appoint her to the House despite the certified election results...at least the Speaker had the good sense to drop that request.)
I'd like to know how requiring ID to vote and mail-in voting are compatible. Early voting is problematic for a variety of reasons, but mass mail-in voting is just lunacy; there's just no way to secure the chain of custody for these sorts of ballots. Just none.
The number of ways a motivated partisan could use mail-in balloting to influence an election outcome is almost endless. Furthermore when you do it at scale, it then becomes time prohibitive to actually examine all of those ballots of irregularities.
I think there are ways that secure voting by mail could be done. But simply expanding the existing absentee system is definitely not it.
Early voting is bullshit. It’s ’election day’. Not ‘election season’. With a carve out for legitimate absentee ballots. All this other crap is just a vehicle for the democrats to cheat their way to victory.
The Governor and Secretary of State of Pennsylvania ordered the destruction of the inner "privacy" envelopes of mail in ballots during the 2020 election. It went against Pennsylvania law which states that the ballot must be kept with the envelope. Their excuse was COVID. The State Supreme Court verified that it violated the law, but that they meant well and dropped it. The Attorney General refused to press the issue. Now look at it. The Attorney General is now the Governor and the Secretary of State was forced to resign. The SoS has the threat of being charged criminally over a different matter if she opens her mouth.
DO NOT VOTE BY MAIL IN VIRGINIA UNLESS YOU HAVE NO OTHER OPTION
Steps Needed to Vote On Election Day:
– Go to your neighborhood polling location on election day.
– Show your ID and check in to vote.
– Receive your ballot, and fill it in.
– Insert your ballot into the vote counting scanner.
Steps Needed to Vote In-Person Early:
– Go to your local registrar’s office during normal office hours (up to 45 days before election day in Virginia).
– Show your ID and check in to vote.
– Receive your absentee ballot, and fill it in.
– Insert your ballot into the vote counting scanner.
Steps Needed To Vote By Mail:
– Go online and order an absentee ballot by mail.
– Registrar’s office checks you in, and issues an absentee ballot for mailing.
– Ballot is collected by USPS
– Driven to a processing center
– Sorted
– Driven to the nearest post office to your address
– Unpackaged
– Sorted for delivery,
– Loaded onto a local carrier’s vehicle
– Delivered to your mail box where it remains unsecured until you pick it up.
– Receive your ballot, and fill it in.
– [If you are a first-time Federal Only voter,] make a copy of your ID.
– Seal your ballot in one envelope. Place it [and your ID] in the mailing envelope and seal and date.
– Place the mailing envelope in your mail box, where it remains unsecured until the post office picks it up; alternatively, go to your local Post Office and place it into a mail box.
– Ballot is collected by USPS
– Driven to a processing center
– Sorted
– Driven to the nearest post office to your registrar
– Unpackaged
– Sorted for delivery
– Loaded onto a local carrier’s vehicle
– Delivered to the registrar’s office.
– The registrar’s office opens the outside envelope to verify your ID and check in your vote.
– A different volunteer then opens your inner envelope and removes your ballot in a batch to prepare for scanning
- Your ballot is inserted into a vote counting scanner.
Voting by mail is a woefully insecure method of voting. It takes 5 times as many steps as voting in-person. It affords multiple opportunities for your ballot to go astray, including times when your ballot is left in the open, completely unsecured. It relies on third parties to authenticate your identity. It does not guarantee your privacy.
DO NOT VOTE BY MAIL IN VIRGINIA UNLESS YOU HAVE NO OTHER OPTION. You do not need to wait in line to vote in person. Just go vote during normal business hours as if you were going to your bank to make a deposit.
It also puts your ballot into the hands of USPS employees several times, who tend to be members of National Association of Letter Carriers (AFL-CIO affiliate), which endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris ahead of November’s election.
Democrats cannot be trusted.
I have no problem with presenting an ID at the polls but do object to the complexity of process. Selected IDs are accepted, there are rules for when an expired ID can be accepted and when it cannot. It is important to remember that the purpose of the ID is to check that the face and name on the ID match the name in the poll book. Now there are a lot of IDs that can meet this requirement, and I think they should be allowed. Many employers use photo IDs and many of them are much more careful in screening their employees. It also might interest the reader to know that the ID does not have to have your picture. People can get IDs with no picture and that these IDs must be accepted if the person's religion does not allow images to be made of the person. I would invent anyone who objects to endless regulation to sit down for a second with the voting rules. All polling places I have worked have a direct line to the clerk office and city attorneys for clarifications and I have never worked an election where at least one call was made.
In Virginia, we do not include the photo in the registration record, we only include information about residence, demographics, and a partial SSN. When we check someone in to vote, we are only matching them against their registration. For this reason, I do not think that photos are of any real use as an authentication method.
What would be much better are valid IDs from trusted, independent authorities that contain the same data as in our registration forms. When we match that information against our information, we have a genuinely trustworthy confirmation of identity.
I agree that our current rules for IDs are inconsistent and I'm not surprised they confuse people. This is an area that could use some significant improvement, but the Democratic Party in Virginia is opposed to strengthening our election laws. That is not a partisan statement.
All political parties have too much interest in election rules that they feel advantage their party. I would like to see rules reviewed and revised in a nonpartisan manner. The state legislation should be the final deciding body, but they should not write the rules only voting to approve or to not approve a nonpartisan package.
I always like to use my carry permit for this, it is a valid ID for voting purposes in my state.
An employee ID or student ID is readily faked. I could print one right now.
Many states do, in fact, require a photo ID (mostly "red" states). Some states allow non-photo ID. A number of (fully blue) states require no ID at all. A number expect ID to be presented, but allow provisional votes if ID is lacking (e.g., Alabama: "Can cast either a provisional or regular ballot if two election officials confirm the voter is eligible according to poll list. If voting a provisional ballot, show accepted form of ID by 5 p.m. on the Friday after the election.") AS far as I know, all states with strong photo-ID requirements provide free ID for people without driver's license, etc.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/voter-identification-states-law-map-rcna137555
It's easier to provide ID for voting than it is to get on a plane.
In my county early voting is easier than voting on election day.
On election day you go to YOUR precinct and get your ballot printed after presenting your ID.
You fill out your ballot and take it to the machine that counts it and put it in yourself.
If you vote early you do the same thing but you can go to ANY precinct in the county.
In both cases after you are handed the ballot no one else touches it unless there is a recount
You make a good point that I hope people understand and remember. On election day you can only vote in your assigned precinct, which generally is near your residence. But you may leave for work early or return later in the day. One of the nice things about early voting is that you can go to any location. So, during the day you can go to a library or city office close to your work and vote. Early voting in Madison is all done with Express Vote systems that have all the different ballots used in the city. The voter just enters the ward number, and their ballot appears on the screen and there voted printed on a ballot slip, sealed for reading on election day. It is a good system, the voter does need to check their ballot, for errors but they should always do that.
“”One of the nice things about early voting is that you can go to any location. “”
Having to vote in your district is because people who represent that district is on the ballot. How do you get the right ballot with your representative? Just curious.
In my state, when you check into the (county-wide) early-voting place, the poll worker checks your ID, they type your voter id# into the computer and then takes an empty ballot sheet and inserts it into a printer, which places a thing like a QR code on it that seems to indicate individual district info. We take the sheet to a voting machine and insert our ballot into it, after a few seconds we get the voting menus on screen (I've never gotten a "not my district" result). After selecting, all our votes are printed on the ballot sheet, in clear, human-readable form, which I can verify as I walk to the tabulator machine, into which I insert the ballot sheet one more time. All printed ballots are retained for hand recounts, etc.
When I vote in person on election day, the first printing step is skipped...ballots already have the district information printed on them. All the rest is the same.
.
"Majorities of Americans want casting a ballot to be easy and secure."
But if that happens, how will dead people, foreign nationals and the insane in the asylums be able to vote?
Easily......
To vote you should be required to drive at least 100 miles and then stand outside all day in a line in the snow without a coat. That should be the consistent requirement for everyone. You don't want to do that? Then your opinion isn't worth shit to me, your vote shouldn't count.
What do you have against people who live in Key West?
People who live in warmer climates? They shouldn't be allowed to vote. Too soft.
Maybe they can figure out how to have their cake and eat it too.
Easy =/= Secure.
Security takes an effort.
It’s not *early* voting that’s the problem, the problem is relying on the USPS, especially anywhere that huge volumes of ballots will move through an urban mail hub captured by the (Marxist) labor union.
In those mail hubs, shielded by layers of municipal, county and (usually) state levels of deep-blue one-party rule, there is no ballot control and no oversight whatsoever. Ballots from red precincts can be interdicted, and tens of thousands of team-blue ballots can be injected. Nobody needs to stuff a ballot box when a mailbag will do.
And that’s not all — Anywhere ballots are mailed to poorly maintained voter rolls, local postal carriers will recognize the names of the undeliverable, and all of those ballots can be harvested on behalf of the pro-union party.
To the extent that democrats refuse to enforce signature rules etc, they manufacture fake fraudulent votes. They’ve been doing it for so long (over 24 years in Oregon and Washington) that they’ve warped the adjustment factors applied by pollsters when they translate raw polling data (including exit polls) into predicted results.
Those two states are actually razor-edge balanced between Team-D and Team-R, but all of the polling and voting has been skewed by fraud so far for so long that almost nobody even notices. The frog is boiling in its pot.
Another case of a commenter who has little or no idea of how ballots are handled. His bogey man is labor unions while the left's counterpart is the Trump appointed Postmaster General, Louis DeJoy. Ballots are tracked from the time they are mailed to the voter until their return to the clerk's office. If you mailed a ballot go on-line and just check that it was received. Simple as that.
Voters don't like early voting as such; they like not having to drag their fat asses to a polling place and stand in line for 15 minutes. The "early" part comes from the transit time of the mail-in ballots. I guarantee that right now, there's somebody out there grumbling about having had to mail in their ballot by October 31st or whatever. Just like everything else, voters want something that makes voting Somebody Else's Problem (SEP). Voters would probably be perfectly happy to have some government agency cast their votes for them based on what it says on their voter registration form -- "Hey, I registered, why should I have to, you know, get out and vote?"
I waited 80 minutes in line to vote early but did it on my schedule and at a location closer to me than my polling place. In the future, AI could vote for you based on its analysis of your data. Data would include where you live, your profession, your shopping habits, what you read, etc.
I've been voting since 1980 in SoCal and can honestly say I've never waited in a line to vote for more than 2-3 minutes. It's hard to imagine the denizens in LA have it all figured out and everyone else is so screwed up.
There's always the trade off between make it easy to vote and making is secure, plus giving the government more information and trusting them not to (1) abuse it and/or (2) fail to secure it from a breach.
That said, I believe every election has some degree of cheating, but is it enough to change the outcome? Doubtful.