« Ruminations - 31may12 | Main | The Great Divide – the debate continues »

01 June 2012


Brad Croul

This does sound strange, but from my own experience at the voting booth I can say that I don't think a person can just walk in and vote without any verification made before, or after, voting. That is what recounts are for. How does one prove I.D when voting by mail?

You have to make up your mind if you want big money, federal government programs, like a national I.D. department, or would rather that states figure out who is eligible to vote.

George Rebane

BradC 812am - I think the closest hewing to the Constitution would restrict voters to be US citizens whose other qualifications (e.g. no felony convictions) and methods of vetting ID (e.g. requiring picture ID, fingerprints, issuing agency,...) are left up to the several states.

Michael Anderson

The current California system of early registration, and then signature verification, works very well. No need to re-invent the wheel. I think a lot of the other states, especially in the south, have it wrong - photo IDs can also be faked. But they suffer from hundreds of years of racism, so their solutions will be different, and perhaps "best." How Texas and Florida do elections has nothing to do with how California and Arizona do elections.

George Rebane

From statewide poll watcher reports it turns out that signature verification in most California jurisdictions is done at the rate of four simultaneous signatures per second, with one point of concurrence required per signature, and the signature auto-confirmation machine set to its lowest sensitivity. But I am a strong proponent of states setting their own procedures for voting and vote counting.

Todd Juvinall

That South. Asking for a ID is so terrible. California had Watts and Rodney King, along with with Oakland and others, rioting and burning. Yeah, the South is racist. California, the land of non racists. Sheesh!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad