49 ms·

There were a couple times when I forgot to register after moving to different county, like in SF one time, and I was given a provisional ballot, no questions as

by proc0 2y ago

There were a couple times when I forgot to register after moving to different county, like in SF one time, and I was given a provisional ballot, no questions asked. I showed ID for them to check if I had registered, but I guess now that is not required, so literally anyone can walk in and vote with provisional ballots. I'm willing to bet that if this move did not favor Democrats, like for example if millions of Taiwanese people migrated to CA, and they happen to be more conservative leaning, that this kind of law would have never passed. Voting may be a right, but securing elections is arguably more important, because without secure elections your vote does not matter! CA is looking more and more like China, in that there is a one party rule, and you cannot speak against it.

rootusrootus 2y ago
> literally anyone can walk in and vote with provisional ballots You don't think the state can figure out if you exist? Just making up a name won't get your vote counted. And if you vote twice, that is also easily detected. Or if you vote in someone else's name. It's popular to claim how easy election fraud is, but the checks and balances aren't nearly that easy to overcome. Maybe what we need is better education about how the voting system actually functions.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Or if you vote in someone else's name To be fair, this isn’t difficult. Voter rolls are public. We usually think of likely voters, but it’s also possible to identify likely non-voters. But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - edanm 2y ago
    > But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID. Buying a fake ID is orders of magnitude more difficult than looking up a name and using it when voting, isn't it? And it's only a scant risk-reward balance if voting individually. If something organized and can send 10k-20k votes, that can tip plenty of elections IIRC.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Buying a fake ID is orders of magnitude more difficult than looking up a name and using it when voting, isn't it? I never bought a fake ID. But I knew people who did. It was an entirely on-the-phone transaction. Buying a fake ID in America is orders of magnitude easier than false voting. > If something organized and can send 10k-20k votes This is a legitimate concern. It is entirely unaddressed by voter ID requirements.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    > To be fair, this isn’t difficult. Voter rolls are public. We usually think of likely voters, but it’s also possible to identify likely non-voters. I agree, this is fairly easy to do. Signature checking will catch some of it, but the bar is a bit lower. The real problem making this work is detectability. Once someone legitimately tries to vote and gets told they already did, it's going to get noticed quickly. And as you say, the value at an individual vote level is close to zero, which makes the risk/reward ratio pretty terrible.
- proc0 2y ago
  It's not enough to claim votes are verified. The verification process has to be trustworthy and not some opaque process that needs a lot effort in order to challenge it if people think there was something wrong. Of course the people who feel represented by the current party in power are likely to trust how the state government handles this process, but I would argue that the process should be something that everyone, even those who don't trust the current party in power, can trust and feel like the process is transparent. Instead challenging the process has been frowned upon as somehow anti-democratic, when that's exactly how you get authoritarianism and corruption.
  - cherry_tree 2y ago
    What’s preventing 300 people from presenting the same ID? Why is presenting an ID somehow singularly responsible for the process not being opaque?
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    > The verification process has to be trustworthy and not some opaque process that needs a lot effort in order to challenge it if people think there was something wrong. Aside from someone who lost a major election making wild claims, what is not trustworthy? Every step of the election process has checks and requirements for strict observation (by opposing party representatives). The effort required to challenge should be proportional in significance to the interruption being requested. AFAIK that's basically how it is now. Want to challenge a vote? Easy. Want to challenge a lot of votes or put a hold on the results until you've had a chance to go digging? That needs to take enough effort that only those with more than a conspiracy theory will attempt it. > Of course the people who feel represented by the current party in power are likely to trust how the state government handles this process Eh, I think this is actually pretty peculiar to just one of the parties. I've never worried about the elections tally when our county clerk was Republican (which has been most of my life). Messing with the votes is a daunting task. Go look at the actual process in your locality, I bet it's the same. > challenging the process has been frowned upon as somehow anti-democratic Not true. Conspiracy theories, "I think it's fraudulent because my guy lost", these absolutely ARE anti-democratic. They are intended to tear down the system, not strengthen it. Come with evidence, then you can strengthen the process.
mgh2 2y ago
Source: Musk on Trump's rally... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4aFbyzrTdc&sttick=0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4aFbyzrTdc&sttick=0 Note: I know HN is not political, but this is crossing a line
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> securing elections is arguably more important Sure. Paper ballots and optical-scan tabulation. Voter ID laws are as secure as the $20 fake IDs sold on every college campus.
- proc0 2y ago
  Why bother with ID when registering to vote, then? Or should we ban voter ID for registration as well?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Why bother with ID when registering to vote, then? It’s voter Xanax. In New York, I had to show ID to register. In Wyoming, the clerk accepted just a bank statement for proof of address—I used my voter registration to get my driver’s license after moving. (They’re supposed to demand ID. But the entire process is done live.) In my experience, red states’ election officials are less funded and thus more lenient than blue states’. We didn’t have photo ID for most of our republic’s history.
seo-speedwagon 2y ago
What does your voting via provisional ballot have to do with anything? Here’s the rules for provisional voting. You’ll note that it has to do with whether or not you appear on the voting roll in the location you show up to. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/provisional-voting https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/provisiona... It’s “provisional” because it’s only counted once they verify you’re registered to vote and haven’t already voted. It’s already the case that you usually don’t need to show voter ID at the polls in CA. This law would prevent every dipshit city council from enacting their own rules, i.e. it keeps things sane. I thought guys like you preferred smaller government and fewer rules? No idea what you’re going on about with China
- proc0 2y ago
  The claim is that they check AFTER you casted your vote, whether or not you are registered, but that does not foster confidence in the results... unless we are to believe that all this verification is done extremely quickly and efficiently which is hard to believe. My question would be who exactly is verifying the process of verifying the votes after they are casted, and do people need to go through lengthy legal processes through courts in order to challenge it? If you want to have secure elections, allowing anyone to vote and checking afterward is at best ineffiicient and at worst allows for mistakes and potential fraud that then takes a lengthy legal process in order double check the results... and by that time it could be too late as it would be seen as anti-democratic to question the results. Basically this is all making it a lot harder to trust results in a timely fashion.
  - seo-speedwagon 2y ago
    Oh HELL yeah dude, now you’re talking my language. If we’re talking about how much faith we should have in our electoral process, “extremely skeptical at best” is a charitable position. But penny-ante voter fraud is a distraction; incidents are very low and it’s almost always some right wing nut casting a ballot as their dead mom or whatever. The real disenfranchisement happens before a vote is even cast. Parties gerrymandering their districts to hell and back, big purges of “inactive” voters from rolls, candidates colluding to box out opposition from outsiders, massive dark money PACs essentially bribing politicians in broad daylight or serving as effectively personal slush funds, the first-past-the-post system ensuring effective duopoly of political parties, the entire structure being profoundly anti-democratic (why is there an electoral college and not just popular vote? why should someone from Wyoming’s vote count for 10+x my vote thanks to how senators are apportioned? Etc). This shit is just red meat for both sides. BUT, that said, it is overall a good thing to not let local municipalities set up their own bullshit rules on top of all this.

by proc0 2y ago

rootusrootus 2y ago

> literally anyone can walk in and vote with provisional ballots You don't think the state can figure out if you exist? Just making up a name won't get your vote counted. And if you vote twice, that is also easily detected. Or if you vote in someone else's name. It's popular to claim how easy election fraud is, but the checks and balances aren't nearly that easy to overcome. Maybe what we need is better education about how the voting system actually functions.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Or if you vote in someone else's name To be fair, this isn’t difficult. Voter rolls are public. We usually think of likely voters, but it’s also possible to identify likely non-voters. But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- edanm 2y ago
  > But if someone is motivated enough by the scant risk-reward balance of fraudulently voting, they’re not going to be deterred by having to buy a fake ID. Buying a fake ID is orders of magnitude more difficult than looking up a name and using it when voting, isn't it? And it's only a scant risk-reward balance if voting individually. If something organized and can send 10k-20k votes, that can tip plenty of elections IIRC.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Buying a fake ID is orders of magnitude more difficult than looking up a name and using it when voting, isn't it? I never bought a fake ID. But I knew people who did. It was an entirely on-the-phone transaction. Buying a fake ID in America is orders of magnitude easier than false voting. > If something organized and can send 10k-20k votes This is a legitimate concern. It is entirely unaddressed by voter ID requirements.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > To be fair, this isn’t difficult. Voter rolls are public. We usually think of likely voters, but it’s also possible to identify likely non-voters. I agree, this is fairly easy to do. Signature checking will catch some of it, but the bar is a bit lower. The real problem making this work is detectability. Once someone legitimately tries to vote and gets told they already did, it's going to get noticed quickly. And as you say, the value at an individual vote level is close to zero, which makes the risk/reward ratio pretty terrible.
proc0 2y ago
It's not enough to claim votes are verified. The verification process has to be trustworthy and not some opaque process that needs a lot effort in order to challenge it if people think there was something wrong. Of course the people who feel represented by the current party in power are likely to trust how the state government handles this process, but I would argue that the process should be something that everyone, even those who don't trust the current party in power, can trust and feel like the process is transparent. Instead challenging the process has been frowned upon as somehow anti-democratic, when that's exactly how you get authoritarianism and corruption.
- cherry_tree 2y ago
  What’s preventing 300 people from presenting the same ID? Why is presenting an ID somehow singularly responsible for the process not being opaque?
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > The verification process has to be trustworthy and not some opaque process that needs a lot effort in order to challenge it if people think there was something wrong. Aside from someone who lost a major election making wild claims, what is not trustworthy? Every step of the election process has checks and requirements for strict observation (by opposing party representatives). The effort required to challenge should be proportional in significance to the interruption being requested. AFAIK that's basically how it is now. Want to challenge a vote? Easy. Want to challenge a lot of votes or put a hold on the results until you've had a chance to go digging? That needs to take enough effort that only those with more than a conspiracy theory will attempt it. > Of course the people who feel represented by the current party in power are likely to trust how the state government handles this process Eh, I think this is actually pretty peculiar to just one of the parties. I've never worried about the elections tally when our county clerk was Republican (which has been most of my life). Messing with the votes is a daunting task. Go look at the actual process in your locality, I bet it's the same. > challenging the process has been frowned upon as somehow anti-democratic Not true. Conspiracy theories, "I think it's fraudulent because my guy lost", these absolutely ARE anti-democratic. They are intended to tear down the system, not strengthen it. Come with evidence, then you can strengthen the process.

mgh2 2y ago

Source: Musk on Trump's rally... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4aFbyzrTdc&sttick=0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4aFbyzrTdc&sttick=0 Note: I know HN is not political, but this is crossing a line

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> securing elections is arguably more important Sure. Paper ballots and optical-scan tabulation. Voter ID laws are as secure as the $20 fake IDs sold on every college campus.

proc0 2y ago
Why bother with ID when registering to vote, then? Or should we ban voter ID for registration as well?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Why bother with ID when registering to vote, then? It’s voter Xanax. In New York, I had to show ID to register. In Wyoming, the clerk accepted just a bank statement for proof of address—I used my voter registration to get my driver’s license after moving. (They’re supposed to demand ID. But the entire process is done live.) In my experience, red states’ election officials are less funded and thus more lenient than blue states’. We didn’t have photo ID for most of our republic’s history.

seo-speedwagon 2y ago

What does your voting via provisional ballot have to do with anything? Here’s the rules for provisional voting. You’ll note that it has to do with whether or not you appear on the voting roll in the location you show up to. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/provisional-voting https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/provisiona... It’s “provisional” because it’s only counted once they verify you’re registered to vote and haven’t already voted. It’s already the case that you usually don’t need to show voter ID at the polls in CA. This law would prevent every dipshit city council from enacting their own rules, i.e. it keeps things sane. I thought guys like you preferred smaller government and fewer rules? No idea what you’re going on about with China

proc0 2y ago
The claim is that they check AFTER you casted your vote, whether or not you are registered, but that does not foster confidence in the results... unless we are to believe that all this verification is done extremely quickly and efficiently which is hard to believe. My question would be who exactly is verifying the process of verifying the votes after they are casted, and do people need to go through lengthy legal processes through courts in order to challenge it? If you want to have secure elections, allowing anyone to vote and checking afterward is at best ineffiicient and at worst allows for mistakes and potential fraud that then takes a lengthy legal process in order double check the results... and by that time it could be too late as it would be seen as anti-democratic to question the results. Basically this is all making it a lot harder to trust results in a timely fashion.
- seo-speedwagon 2y ago
  Oh HELL yeah dude, now you’re talking my language. If we’re talking about how much faith we should have in our electoral process, “extremely skeptical at best” is a charitable position. But penny-ante voter fraud is a distraction; incidents are very low and it’s almost always some right wing nut casting a ballot as their dead mom or whatever. The real disenfranchisement happens before a vote is even cast. Parties gerrymandering their districts to hell and back, big purges of “inactive” voters from rolls, candidates colluding to box out opposition from outsiders, massive dark money PACs essentially bribing politicians in broad daylight or serving as effectively personal slush funds, the first-past-the-post system ensuring effective duopoly of political parties, the entire structure being profoundly anti-democratic (why is there an electoral college and not just popular vote? why should someone from Wyoming’s vote count for 10+x my vote thanks to how senators are apportioned? Etc). This shit is just red meat for both sides. BUT, that said, it is overall a good thing to not let local municipalities set up their own bullshit rules on top of all this.