5 ms·

Genuine question: with online voter registration, where is the check for voter eligibility? Actually, when is this supposed to happen in any voter registration?

• Gibbon1 8y ago
  > where is the check for voter eligibility? Two things. In California they either mail you a ballot to your address. Or you have to present as a warm body at your polling place. Beyond that California's politicians unlike Republican controlled states have no interest in preventing people from voting. For instance San Francisco recently began registering non-citizens to vote for the city's school board.
  • tomjen3 8y ago
    Of course. Texas wants to prevent poor and marginally attached people from voting because they tend to vote democratic, whereas California wants them to vote, because they tend to vote democratic. You generally don't get to become a politician and have principles.
    • Gibbon1 8y ago
      > You generally don't get to become a politician and have principles. This is really only true in states run by Republicans because conservatives have low expectations. And don't enforce them. That gives sociopathic politicians a large advantage.
  • liftbigweights 8y ago
    > Beyond that California's politicians unlike Republican controlled states have no interest in preventing people from voting. It's not like democrats are not above voter suppression. Did we forget what happened to sanders voters in brooklyn not too long ago? > For instance San Francisco recently began registering non-citizens to vote for the city's school board. I wouldn't hold SF as an example of good in anything - the wealth disparity, poor housing, it's dirty, corrupt, etc. And giving non-citizens voting rights is absurd. No sane entity would do such a thing. But SF is "special".
    • Gibbon1 8y ago
      > It's not like democrats are not above voter suppression. You're attempting to deflect the debate here. So let me redirect it back. California handled redistricting via the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which is set up to create competitive districts. And further California's jungle primary also works against politicians having safe seat. California also makes it trivially easy to register to vote and has things like the motor voter program. And California also allows mail in ballots and provides generally adequate polling polices. So I think here your argument that Democrats are as corrupt and amoral as Republicans fails by example. > wealth disparity Most wealthy cities deal with poor people by driving them out via policing, taxes and zoning enforcement. How is that better than San Francisco's attempts to tolerate it? > And giving non-citizens voting rights is absurd You haven't made an argument here.
      • liftbigweights 8y ago
        >You're attempting to deflect the debate here. So let me redirect it back. Providing a direct example debunking your claim isn't deflecting. You claimed republicans suppressed votes. I showed you that democrats do that same. Not to mention colluding with media but that's another story. > Most wealthy cities deal with poor people by driving them out via policing, taxes and zoning enforcement. How is that better than San Francisco's attempts to tolerate it? Poor people have been displaced already. Not just the poor, the middle class too. > You haven't made an argument here. Sure I did. It's an argument of definition. No sane entity allows non-citizens to vote. It defeats the purpose of voting. It defeats the purpose of citizenship. But you are free to believe whatever you want.
        • Gibbon1 8y ago
          > No sane entity allows non-citizens to vote. You have provided no argument why letting resident aliens to vote on matters that effect them is bad. You just said it's bad. Saying something is bad without being able to say why is the mark of someone just parroting propaganda.
  • masonic 8y ago
    How does mailing a ballot to an address "validate" that the person voting that ballot is a citizen?
    • UncleMeat 8y ago
      That gets checked when you register.
• SwellJoe 8y ago
  In Texas, ID is required at the polling place at time of voting. This is regarded by some as unconstitutional (akin to a poll tax, because maintaining ID costs money), but the current government has upheld it as legal, after some back and forth in lower courts. You can verify your own registration status in Texas (e.g., if you registered online and want to see if it's valid for the upcoming election) here: https://teamrv-mvp.sos.texas.gov/MVP/mvp.do https://teamrv-mvp.sos.texas.gov/MVP/mvp.do I think if I'd registered that way, even in a county like Travis, I'd go ahead and register again the hard way. The Beto/Cruz race is going to be close enough to make every vote count, I think (in a state where Democrats never win state-wide races), and so it's gonna get ugly if the Cruz camp can claim "illegal" voters (they're going to claim illegal voters, regardless, because it's part of the Republican playbook now, but if they have some they can throw out, even better).
• dmckeon 8y ago
  In California, the person registering is the check, since they are completing the form under penalty of perjury. See Section 2111 here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC&division=2.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&art http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh... In the days before high mobility in the US, there tended to be an assumption that the clerk or registrar accepting the completed registration forms would be likely to know the registrant personally, so the laws tended to not expect any form of documentation beyond a completed form and a signature. source: former registrar of voters With the recent ginned-up moral panic over supposed voting fraud, calls for various forms of documentation now abound. My opinion is that any states that wish to require voters to have ID at the polls should be willing to provide such ID to the voters for free. To require the voter to spend money to be able to vote is effectively a poll tax, which were prohibited by the 24th amendment.