votes in general
Just when I was celebrating no major new voting irregularities, this comes up.
I wonder what would happen if Bush's lead in Ohio turns out to be from a series of computer glitches? Oy Vey!
Secondly, how does a precinct say Bush got 4258 votes when only 638 people TOTAL voted in that district? How does that not raise a flag to the election officials running the show?
Why can't we just put a thumb print and magnetic tape on every driver's license/state id card. Then have each voter come in, we scan the magnetic tape on their ID into a national database in Washington that tracks them. Then they get a ballot that they thumbprint. The thumbprints have to match up for the ballot to be submitted to the election official. Everyone can vote and there is a nice paper trail.
A tally of ballots would be kept both locally and at the national DB. Most fraud/errors would be caught when each precinct reported.
I am also out on denying people the right to vote because they are felons. From a practicality standpoint, the policy is simply far too ripe for abuse. From a moral standpoint, we allow felons a chance to defend themselves in court, it seems voting is in that same vein of rights which should not be denied.
It may be an unpopular stance, but I question whether we should be denying incarcerated citizens the right to vote for the same reasons. I don't think it is a practice that would stand up to a supreme court challenge. (I personally think that every American should have a right to vote on all policies in America that affect them. Certainly elected officials have a big effect on policies towards incarcerated citizens, but I am touching another subject---the role of prisons---a future topic for some other day.)
If felons could vote, it would eliminate the loophole that disenfranchised thousands of African Americans in Florida in 2000. Far better to allow people --- who maybe don't deserve it --- the right to a single vote each, than to deny people who do their right to vote.
These changes would do a lot to eliminate "provisional ballots". I am opposed to the issueing of provisional ballots. While from a practicallity standpoint I can understand wanting to assign voters to a specific precinct, I do not think they should be denied or given a provisional if they don't vote in that precinct. Everyone should have a right to vote without their vote getting unfairly ignored.
What exactly are "provisional ballots"? Here are excepts from two articles and the links to the articles that talk about provisional ballots. An important thing to understand is that in many cases these votes are not counted, further bringing the idea of a fair and accurate election into question.
"Local election officials will verify whether the special ballots, designed for those whose eligibility is questioned at the polls, were cast by properly registered voters in the precinct where they live.
Required in all states for the first time this year, provisional ballots are used when voters believe they are properly registered but their names do not appear on voter rolls at polling places.
The ballots were the focus of an intense legal battle even before Election Day, as Democrats unsuccessfully sought rulings that would have allowed the ballots to be counted if they were cast in the proper county but wrong precinct.
Some states, including Ohio, allow 10 days or more for verification of provisional ballots."
"Almost half the states allowed provisional voting for the first time in this election following the passage of the Help America Vote Act. The federal law requires that voters whose names don't show up on voter-registration lists on Election Day be given a backup ballot, which will be counted if the local canvassing board determines that the voter's omission from the rolls was an error.
Under HAVA, all provisional ballots must be examined. But local voting jurisdictions have wide discretion in deciding which ones will be counted. One precinct may reject 20 percent of its provisional ballots while another may reject twice as many.
And different states have instituted different policies relating to where those provisional ballots may be cast. A string of court decisions in recent weeks upheld the right of individual states, including Ohio and Florida, to reject provisional ballots cast outside the voters' home precincts."
I wonder what would happen if Bush's lead in Ohio turns out to be from a series of computer glitches? Oy Vey!
Secondly, how does a precinct say Bush got 4258 votes when only 638 people TOTAL voted in that district? How does that not raise a flag to the election officials running the show?
Why can't we just put a thumb print and magnetic tape on every driver's license/state id card. Then have each voter come in, we scan the magnetic tape on their ID into a national database in Washington that tracks them. Then they get a ballot that they thumbprint. The thumbprints have to match up for the ballot to be submitted to the election official. Everyone can vote and there is a nice paper trail.
A tally of ballots would be kept both locally and at the national DB. Most fraud/errors would be caught when each precinct reported.
I am also out on denying people the right to vote because they are felons. From a practicality standpoint, the policy is simply far too ripe for abuse. From a moral standpoint, we allow felons a chance to defend themselves in court, it seems voting is in that same vein of rights which should not be denied.
It may be an unpopular stance, but I question whether we should be denying incarcerated citizens the right to vote for the same reasons. I don't think it is a practice that would stand up to a supreme court challenge. (I personally think that every American should have a right to vote on all policies in America that affect them. Certainly elected officials have a big effect on policies towards incarcerated citizens, but I am touching another subject---the role of prisons---a future topic for some other day.)
If felons could vote, it would eliminate the loophole that disenfranchised thousands of African Americans in Florida in 2000. Far better to allow people --- who maybe don't deserve it --- the right to a single vote each, than to deny people who do their right to vote.
These changes would do a lot to eliminate "provisional ballots". I am opposed to the issueing of provisional ballots. While from a practicallity standpoint I can understand wanting to assign voters to a specific precinct, I do not think they should be denied or given a provisional if they don't vote in that precinct. Everyone should have a right to vote without their vote getting unfairly ignored.
What exactly are "provisional ballots"? Here are excepts from two articles and the links to the articles that talk about provisional ballots. An important thing to understand is that in many cases these votes are not counted, further bringing the idea of a fair and accurate election into question.
"Local election officials will verify whether the special ballots, designed for those whose eligibility is questioned at the polls, were cast by properly registered voters in the precinct where they live.
Required in all states for the first time this year, provisional ballots are used when voters believe they are properly registered but their names do not appear on voter rolls at polling places.
The ballots were the focus of an intense legal battle even before Election Day, as Democrats unsuccessfully sought rulings that would have allowed the ballots to be counted if they were cast in the proper county but wrong precinct.
Some states, including Ohio, allow 10 days or more for verification of provisional ballots."
"Almost half the states allowed provisional voting for the first time in this election following the passage of the Help America Vote Act. The federal law requires that voters whose names don't show up on voter-registration lists on Election Day be given a backup ballot, which will be counted if the local canvassing board determines that the voter's omission from the rolls was an error.
Under HAVA, all provisional ballots must be examined. But local voting jurisdictions have wide discretion in deciding which ones will be counted. One precinct may reject 20 percent of its provisional ballots while another may reject twice as many.
And different states have instituted different policies relating to where those provisional ballots may be cast. A string of court decisions in recent weeks upheld the right of individual states, including Ohio and Florida, to reject provisional ballots cast outside the voters' home precincts."
posted by The Tobidian at 5:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home