Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Æthelthryth the Texan

A non-political question on voter fraud

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Yes, that's exactly the problem. The only way to really make this work is to have a national database that would link a specific type of identifier (number, photo, fingerprint) to a person's ballot, and no one is going to go for that. Even just requiring that voters provide their SS# when they vote would discourage a huge number of people from voting, because they wouldn't trust the government not to tie their voting information to all their other info in some big database. 

That's the beauty of paper ballots: they are truly anonymous; there is no database tying your votes to your address/income/insurance/whatever in a way that can be mined for potentially nefarious purposes; and there is a paper trail if there is any suspicion of fraud or vote tampering.

Maybe the bolded is where I'm struggling. I already have to hand in my voter's registration card AND My ID, which is either my DL or my Concealed Carry license- both which are definitely tied to my name and all of my business because they required a crap ton of paperwork and fingerprints to get. Then once I provide that and it's examined, I sign an iPad signature line, they print me off a piece of paper with a code on it, I go to the station and then that code is what I must then enter into the electronic voting machine before I can vote. 

I'm not sure if I'm paranoid, or if I'm resigned. Either way I assume everyone and their dog now has access to if I voted and how I voted thanks to all of the above. I can prove they know if I voted, because I get things in the mail reminding me of when I did and that I need to thanks to multiple, extremely annoying "Get Out and Vote" "non-profits" who apparently think I'm too stupid to figure it out for myself. It's no stretch for me to think "they" also have ample access to how I voted. 

The fact that I can google myself and find out where I live, have ever lived,  all of my email addresses, my cell phone number, old work numbers, every house I've ever owned and what vehicle my dh drives......I guess I am so far beyond thinking there is anything such as privacy in this world, I struggle to sympathize with the hold outs on that. I guess paper ballots are the only answer to that front, but we haven't had paper ballots in....geez. I don't think I've done a paper ballot since college! I assumed those went the way of the dodo after 2000 along with hanging chads. I truly had no idea they were still being used until this election through reading these threads. It's honestly weird to me that there is so much variation in this country. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

So, I really think the issue of voter suppression is impossible to get around as well.

Voting is one of the most fundamental, maybe the most fundamental political right in any sort of liberal democracy.  In a perfect world, a homeless crazy person who has just come off of a ten year bender living in a box should be able to go into the polling station and vote for the candidate of his choice.  Without a card, a birth certificate, or anything else, so long as he is a citizen.

Now, realistically, maybe that can't quite be done.  But every step away from that ideal really really needs to be justified by reasons of significant weight.  Because when you tell that guy, sorry, you can't vote, he has become politically disenfranchised.

 I think that maybe a big part of this issue is that because of political figures and others claiming voter fraud, for years, it has given people an unrealistic sense of how common and real a problem voter fraud is.  It could become more common of course, but unless it does, it is difficult to justify a more centralised system.  

As far as the system itself, it probably could be more secure, though even good systems are vulnerable if someone really wants to screw it up.

But if he had a National ID assigned at birth, it wouldn't matter if he was homeless or not, would it? At least as far as being able to vote- then the question is only unto the system which was my original question. 

Side question- does Canada have the same issues we struggle with here, or is it more consistent across provinces? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Corraleno said:

How could that work, other than requiring that some form of unfalsifiable identification be attached to the ballot itself? And what could that be? Fingerprints are the only thing I can think of that could not be falsified or used twice, and I don't think anyone really wants the government to have a data base of the fingerprints of every adult American citizen. Even if you were willing to settle for something like scanning a driver's license, that image would need to be uploaded to a national database that cross-checks against all other voters in every state — and that still wouldn't stop someone from voting twice by using two different forms of ID. And what about the millions of mail-in ballots? Are people supposed to include a copy of their DL with their ballot, totally giving up their right to privacy? 

All of the potential "solutions" to a nearly-nonexistent problem would be extremely expensive, difficult to implement, would most likely disenfranchise even more voters, and still wouldn't stop the tiny, inconsequential number of people who try to vote twice.

Sorry Corraleno, I'm not picking on you. I was going back through posts trying to understand some points and I came back to this-- the bolded of your quote. 

This already exists. Unless you are off the grid. They take your prints when you are born on your birthday certificate- sure that's state and not federal, but we as individual don't really have any control over that....... And at least in my state, you have to register finger prints to receive a drivers license or State ID. If you want a Global Entry pass for flying- give up the prints. It's a requirement.If you want a background check to work just about anywhere- finger prints. Some banks require fingerprints for certain accounts or to sign for a mortgage. Concealed handgun license= fingerprints. Work with children at most churches or schools= fingerprints. And it goes on and on and on. 

I think once you get past the age of 18, unless you make a concerted effort,  it's almost impossible to go about without having fingerprints on file. And since a huge proportion of those checks run through the FBI- that's Federal. They have them. I guess I just fail to see why it can't be the case since it already IS there in their hands. I think people can deny it all they want, but I just can't see the vast majority of American adults- whether by birth or by adopted citizenship not having given up fingerprints at some point and they're already on file. Is it the formality of admitting as much that freaks people out? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

Maybe the bolded is where I'm struggling. I already have to hand in my voter's registration card AND My ID, which is either my DL or my Concealed Carry license- both which are definitely tied to my name and all of my business because they required a crap ton of paperwork and fingerprints to get. Then once I provide that and it's examined, I sign an iPad signature line, they print me off a piece of paper with a code on it, I go to the station and then that code is what I must then enter into the electronic voting machine before I can vote. 

In my state, people are automatically registered to vote when they get a driver's license, unless they choose to opt out. People can also register online or in person. About a month before each election, I get a paper ballot in the mail, which comes with both a "privacy sleeve" and a preaddressed return envelope that includes my name, address, and a line for my signature. I fill out the ballot, put it in the privacy sleeve (which means that the person who checks the signature and opens the outside envelope does not see how I voted), put that in the return envelope, and then either stick on a stamp and mail it or drop it at any of several local drop box locations (like the public library) any time up to and including 5 PM on Election Day.

Super simple! Automatic registration, complete anonymity, no lines, no need to take time off work, and a paper trail if there is any evidence of fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

Not to stray off, but the fact that SS is linked to everything and then credit scores on top of it, which then determine insurance rates, or if you can be hired/or kept on for certain jobs which require a credit check, etc. etc. it's clear they have so much power.

There are a lot of american citizens who don't track their credit score or use credit at all, or haven any insurance, etc. And those things are not constitutional rights, so not the same category as voting. 

21 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

 I guess paper ballots are the only answer to that front, but we haven't had paper ballots in....geez. I don't think I've done a paper ballot since college! I assumed those went the way of the dodo after 2000 along with hanging chads. I truly had no idea they were still being used until this election through reading these threads. It's honestly weird to me that there is so much variation in this country. 

My DH works in cybersecurity, and my father worked for the company that makes a lot of the voting machines. Knowing what I know from them, what boggles my mind is that any state is using those computerized machiens. They are totally hackable, and easy to tamper with. (easy being a relative term). Totally insecure. 

18 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

But if he had a National ID assigned at birth, it wouldn't matter if he was homeless or not, would it?

But would he have to manage to hold on to that ID while living on the streets, not have it stolen or lost, etc? If he did lose it or have it stolen, how would he prove who he was to replace it?

3 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

Sorry Corraleno, I'm not picking on you. I was going back through posts trying to understand some points and I came back to this-- the bolded of your quote. 

This already exists. Unless you are off the grid. They take your prints when you are born on your birthday certificate- sure that's state and not federal, but we as individual don't really have any control over that....... And at least in my state, you have to register finger prints to receive a drivers license or State ID. If you want a Global Entry pass for flying- give up the prints. It's a requirement.If you want a background check to work just about anywhere- finger prints. Some banks require fingerprints for certain accounts or to sign for a mortgage. Concealed handgun license= fingerprints. Work with children at most churches or schools= fingerprints. And it goes on and on and on. 

I think once you get past the age of 18, unless you make a concerted effort,  it's almost impossible to go about without having fingerprints on file. And since a huge proportion of those checks run through the FBI- that's Federal. They have them. I guess I just fail to see why it can't be the case since it already IS there in their hands. I think people can deny it all they want, but I just can't see the vast majority of American adults- whether by birth or by adopted citizenship not having given up fingerprints at some point and they're already on file. Is it the formality of admitting as much that freaks people out? 

Um, no not everywhere they don't. Footprint, yes but not fingerprint. And I didn't do a fingerprint to get my driver's license either. But again a Driver's license, flying on a plane, etc etc are not rights of every citizen, so not comparable. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I would be OK with a federal registry (as texasmom says, SSN effectively get us 80% of the way there already in terms of federal oversight; and Facebook and Twitter and Google and our installed auto GPS system go immeasurably further in terms of completely unaccountable and invisible private sector datamining) and commensurate national ID card.  (I realize I'm not with the American majority here, though.)

I am NOT OK, though, with having my vote trackable to me.   As a general matter (and again I realize I'm not with the American majority here), I don't believe we have a "right" -- legal, de facto or ethical -- to anonymity; and in fact I believe the (apparent, faux) anonymity of web-based communication has real attendant dangers.  However one of the places where I DO believe it's critical to maintain anonymity is voting.  It's one of the reasons I so value paper ballots, which are quite easy to make anonymous.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

Maybe the bolded is where I'm struggling. I already have to hand in my voter's registration card AND My ID, which is either my DL or my Concealed Carry license- both which are definitely tied to my name and all of my business because they required a crap ton of paperwork and fingerprints to get. Then once I provide that and it's examined, I sign an iPad signature line, they print me off a piece of paper with a code on it, I go to the station and then that code is what I must then enter into the electronic voting machine before I can vote. 

I'm not sure if I'm paranoid, or if I'm resigned. Either way I assume everyone and their dog now has access to if I voted and how I voted thanks to all of the above. I can prove they know if I voted, because I get things in the mail reminding me of when I did and that I need to thanks to multiple, extremely annoying "Get Out and Vote" "non-profits" who apparently think I'm too stupid to figure it out for myself. It's no stretch for me to think "they" also have ample access to how I voted. 

The fact that I can google myself and find out where I live, have ever lived,  all of my email addresses, my cell phone number, old work numbers, every house I've ever owned and what vehicle my dh drives......I guess I am so far beyond thinking there is anything such as privacy in this world, I struggle to sympathize with the hold outs on that. I guess paper ballots are the only answer to that front, but we haven't had paper ballots in....geez. I don't think I've done a paper ballot since college! I assumed those went the way of the dodo after 2000 along with hanging chads. I truly had no idea they were still being used until this election through reading these threads. It's honestly weird to me that there is so much variation in this country. 

We seem to be back to paper ballots here after over a decade in electronic ballot land.

I did mail in but went with Dh when he voted and was surprised to see no machines at the polling place. Paper ballot, ovals to fill in with a pen, then it goes to a scanning machine.

I'm glad we are back to auditable, recountable paper.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

Sorry Corraleno, I'm not picking on you. I was going back through posts trying to understand some points and I came back to this-- the bolded of your quote. 

This already exists. Unless you are off the grid. They take your prints when you are born on your birthday certificate- sure that's state and not federal, but we as individual don't really have any control over that....... And at least in my state, you have to register finger prints to receive a drivers license or State ID. If you want a Global Entry pass for flying- give up the prints. It's a requirement.If you want a background check to work just about anywhere- finger prints. Some banks require fingerprints for certain accounts or to sign for a mortgage. Concealed handgun license= fingerprints. Work with children at most churches or schools= fingerprints. And it goes on and on and on. 

I think once you get past the age of 18, unless you make a concerted effort,  it's almost impossible to go about without having fingerprints on file. And since a huge proportion of those checks run through the FBI- that's Federal. They have them. I guess I just fail to see why it can't be the case since it already IS there in their hands. I think people can deny it all they want, but I just can't see the vast majority of American adults- whether by birth or by adopted citizenship not having given up fingerprints at some point and they're already on file. Is it the formality of admitting as much that freaks people out? 

Do they really fingerprint all babies at birth now? The hospital where I was born in did footprints, but no fingerprints. Both of my kids were born outside the US, so no fingerprints at birth for them either. However, all three of us do have Global Entry, so our fingerprints are on record for that. But I see that as sort of like the passport issue — I can choose to give up my prints for the privilege of faster processing through US Immigration, but I don't think every American should be forced to enter their fingerprints in a government database in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

The FBI only started merging the civil and criminal fingerprint databases in 2015. Before that they didn't usually hang on to fingerprints collected as part of a background check (and they didn't have a way to access them even if they did keep them in a file drawer somewhere). Maybe this is where we're headed, with a government database of every citizen's fingerprints and face, but I do find that rather creepy and Big Brotherish, and I suspect that most Americans would.

I think that including a person's fingerprints in a database that could also include their voting record has enormous potential for abuse — should an employer who's running a background check on a potential employee be able to find out who the person voted for? Should police running a criminal check be able to use information about party affiliation or voting record when deciding whether to arrest someone, or what to charge them with, or what penalties to ask for? As polarized as this country is right now, that seems like a really dangerous road to go down.

 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

Do they really fingerprint all babies at birth now? The hospital where I was born in did footprints, but no fingerprints. Both of my kids were born outside the US, so no fingerprints at birth for them either. However, all three of us do have Global Entry, so our fingerprints are on record for that. But I see that as sort of like the passport issue — I can choose to give up my prints for the privilege of faster processing through US Immigration, but I don't think every American should be forced to enter their fingerprints in a government database in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

The FBI only started merging the civil and criminal fingerprint databases in 2015. Before that they didn't usually hang on to fingerprints collected as part of a background check (and they didn't have a way to access them even if they did keep them in a file drawer somewhere). Maybe this is where we're headed, with a government database of every citizen's fingerprints and face, but I do find that rather creepy and Big Brotherish, and I suspect that most American would.

I think that including a person's fingerprints in a database that could also include their voting record has enormous potential for abuse — should an employer who's running a background check on a potential employee be able to find out who the person voted for? Should police running a criminal check be able to use information about party affiliation or voting record when deciding whether to arrest someone, or what to charge them with, or what penalties to ask for? As polarized as this country is right now, that seems like a really dangerous road to go down.

 

I completely agree with you, but at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I do have to wonder if that ship has already sailed. Maybe it's more likely at this point that Google or Apple etc. has all of that info though than the Government? I mean my phone and my laptop have my fingerprints. And they know what I surf. They know what I read and they know what I post. Our devices know everything about us. My dh is in IT and he thinks at this point tech is a far bigger danger than the government, but it just goes back to that I think all of that info is out there for a huge percentage of the population and I think that percentage creeps everyday, as tech trickles down. I guess I am a pessimist in that way. 

At all three of my kids' births the nurses did hand prints and foot prints. I don't know if that's hospital or county specific. It's something I never thought to question though. It just was- they even stamped them right in the kids' baby books after the birth certificate. I never thought twice about it. Maybe I should have. But I didn't. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, texasmom33 said:

But if he had a National ID assigned at birth, it wouldn't matter if he was homeless or not, would it? At least as far as being able to vote- then the question is only unto the system which was my original question. 

Side question- does Canada have the same issues we struggle with here, or is it more consistent across provinces? 

 

But what if he wasn't assigned the ID - that could happen for any number of reasons, plenty of people have no ID.  And it is placing a requirement on people to register, so it's not nothing for people who want to not be registered - it is a condition on exercising a right of citizenship.

I don't think we have the same issues in Canada.  the rules change from time to time and are not consistent through all types of voting, but it's rare that we see accusations of voter fraud in terms of people casting spurious votes.  We don't tend to have claims of fraud of that kind - when occasionally something happens, it's known about, someone really thinks this happened.  It's not a political tactic, though I can see this changing in the near future.

We have seen instances of people trying to rig things in other ways - there was a scandal for example where a bunch of people in a riding were called and told their pollng station had moved, in order to try and suppress those votes.

Most of the time I find the requirements to vote pretty minimal.  There are lists and they will send a card if you have an address, you can present it and vote very quickly.  They then add you to a list and you get a card the next year, and cross out your name.  If you are without the card, you can bring an ID and something like a letter to show you live in the area.  If you do not have a letter or ID, you can solemnly swear you are who you are, and sometimes (or always, not sure about this as I've never done it) you need someone to come and say you are living in that area.  So, you are in a big list, but not necessarily with an address attached.

Edited by Bluegoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

 

Side question- does Canada have the same issues we struggle with here, or is it more consistent across provinces? 

On our yearly tax returns Canadians are asked whether we would like our information forwarded to Elections Canada. Our family always ticks or clicks yes.
We have to present ID to vote. The list of acceptable ID is quite long:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e
There doesn't seem to be widespread worry about either voter fraud or voter suppression.

However, even in engaged elections, we struggle with not much more than 50% of eligible voter turnout. The blanket cause is labeled apathy. I'm not sure that is correct, but that is a whole 'nother topic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KathyBC said:

On our yearly tax returns Canadians are asked whether we would like our information forwarded to Elections Canada. Our family always ticks or clicks yes.
We have to present ID to vote. The list of acceptable ID is quite long:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e
There doesn't seem to be widespread worry about either voter fraud or voter suppression.

However, even in engaged elections, we struggle with not much more than 50% of eligible voter turnout. The blanket cause is labeled apathy. I'm not sure that is correct, but that is a whole 'nother topic.

 

I think our lowest was 58% in a federal election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think our lowest was 58% in a federal election.

I stand corrected. This has been an ongoing topic with regards to both our provincial and municipal elections, and I must have assumed it was the same federally.
A quick wiki search agrees:

  • The average voter turnout for Canada's general elections since 1867 has been 70.7%
  • The highest voter turnouts were in 1958, 1960, and 1963, when voter turnout was over 79%.
  • The lowest voter turnout on record was in 2008, when voter turnout fell to only 58.8%.
  • Voter turnout in the 2011 federal election, at 61.4%, was the third lowest in Canadian history.
  • Voter turnout rose sharply in the 2015 federal election to 68.5%, the highest turnout since 1993.

Thanks for that! I feel a bit better now. :-)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When babies' footprints and fingerprints are taken, they are not sent on to the government and put in some database. My DD was born in a hospital that didn't even do any of that- she had no prints taken. They told us that it was just a keepsake anyway and we could buy a kit if we wanted. 

I think if the government had everyone's prints already the police would have a much easier time.

I was not fingerprinted for my background check. I was not fingerprinted for any of my drivers' licenses but I've never lived in TX. We don't provide fingerprints for passports.

I think I had to give a fingerprint for something military related but I can't remember for sure. Our information may be out there but it is so poorly organized and spread out among different places that it isn't as useful as it could be. 

I'm not opposed to some sort of national ID, however. I don't think at this point that not having one provides any defense against government intrusion. A national ID or ID number may not be able to ensure we vote in the correct place, but it could ensure that we only vote in one place. I'm not sure how easily we could roll it in place, however, without disenfranchising people who don't register for one or can't remember their numbers. 

Edited by Paige
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, texasmom33 said:

Sorry Corraleno, I'm not picking on you. I was going back through posts trying to understand some points and I came back to this-- the bolded of your quote. 

This already exists. Unless you are off the grid. They take your prints when you are born on your birthday certificate- sure that's state and not federal, but we as individual don't really have any control over that....... And at least in my state, you have to register finger prints to receive a drivers license or State ID. If you want a Global Entry pass for flying- give up the prints. It's a requirement.If you want a background check to work just about anywhere- finger prints. Some banks require fingerprints for certain accounts or to sign for a mortgage. Concealed handgun license= fingerprints. Work with children at most churches or schools= fingerprints. And it goes on and on and on. 

I think once you get past the age of 18, unless you make a concerted effort,  it's almost impossible to go about without having fingerprints on file. And since a huge proportion of those checks run through the FBI- that's Federal. They have them. I guess I just fail to see why it can't be the case since it already IS there in their hands. I think people can deny it all they want, but I just can't see the vast majority of American adults- whether by birth or by adopted citizenship not having given up fingerprints at some point and they're already on file. Is it the formality of admitting as much that freaks people out? 

 

1.) Since when do they take fingerprints at birth? And what database are these on?

2.) Only 4 states require fingerprints (most just a thumbprint) for a DL.

3.) Many background checks do not require fingerprints.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Paige said:

When babies' footprints and fingerprints are taken, they are not sent on to the government and put in some database. My DD was born in a hospital that didn't even do any of that- she had no prints taken. They told us that it was just a keepsake anyway and we could buy a kit if we wanted. 

I think if the government had everyone's prints already the police would have a much easier time.

I was not fingerprinted for my background check. I was not fingerprinted for any of my drivers' licenses but I've never lived in TX. We don't provide fingerprints for passports.

I think I had to give a fingerprint for something military related but I can't remember for sure. Our information may be out there but it is so poorly organized and spread out among different places that it isn't as useful as it could be. 

I'm not opposed to some sort of national ID, however. I don't think at this point that not having one provides any defense against government intrusion. A national ID or ID number may not be able to ensure we vote in the correct place, but it could ensure that we only vote in one place. I'm not sure how easily we could roll it in place, however, without disenfranchising people who don't register for one or can't remember their numbers. 

And what is collected from imprints would not be useful in a fingerprint DB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

Personally, I would be OK with a federal registry (as texasmom says, SSN effectively get us 80% of the way there already in terms of federal oversight; and Facebook and Twitter and Google and our installed auto GPS system go immeasurably further in terms of completely unaccountable and invisible private sector datamining) and commensurate national ID card.  (I realize I'm not with the American majority here, though.)

I am NOT OK, though, with having my vote trackable to me.   As a general matter (and again I realize I'm not with the American majority here), I don't believe we have a "right" -- legal, de facto or ethical -- to anonymity; and in fact I believe the (apparent, faux) anonymity of web-based communication has real attendant dangers.  However one of the places where I DO believe it's critical to maintain anonymity is voting.  It's one of the reasons I so value paper ballots, which are quite easy to make anonymous.

 

I agree that without anonymity no system will be accepted or utilized. This seems to be the crux of this if I understand the tech people who have commented on this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

Sorry Corraleno, I'm not picking on you. I was going back through posts trying to understand some points and I came back to this-- the bolded of your quote. 

This already exists. Unless you are off the grid. They take your prints when you are born on your birthday certificate- sure that's state and not federal, but we as individual don't really have any control over that....... And at least in my state, you have to register finger prints to receive a drivers license or State ID. If you want a Global Entry pass for flying- give up the prints. It's a requirement.If you want a background check to work just about anywhere- finger prints. Some banks require fingerprints for certain accounts or to sign for a mortgage. Concealed handgun license= fingerprints. Work with children at most churches or schools= fingerprints. And it goes on and on and on. 

I think once you get past the age of 18, unless you make a concerted effort,  it's almost impossible to go about without having fingerprints on file. And since a huge proportion of those checks run through the FBI- that's Federal. They have them. I guess I just fail to see why it can't be the case since it already IS there in their hands. I think people can deny it all they want, but I just can't see the vast majority of American adults- whether by birth or by adopted citizenship not having given up fingerprints at some point and they're already on file. Is it the formality of admitting as much that freaks people out? 

 

I did not get fingerprinted for my ID or driver’s license.  Not even the enhanced ID requires fingerprinting here.  Also the only footprint they made of my children at the hospital was that for my the younger son, they put it on the commemorative, non-recorded record of birth thingy that they gave me to take home.  The actual certificate filed with the county didn’t take any foot or handprints. I remember checking the form several times to make sure we had listed his name correctly. There was no finger or foot printing on it.  I don’t know how prevalent what you describe is but I don’t think baby footprints are ending up in a searchable database.  And these are definitely not requirements everywhere.  For my older son, they didn’t do the commerative thing (maybe becuase he was in the NICU? Or perhaps because the hospital I had my younger son at was a bit more generous with the freebies...besides the commemorative cert they gave us a really nice baby blanket and a lactation gift basket.)

I’ve actually only ever been fingerprinted when I was arrested and a juvenile.  It was a protest situation, I wasn’t a delinquent, honest, ? I’ve never been fingerprinted for a job or even volunteering at schools.  If I had not been arrested I never would have been fingerprinted and I’m quite certain the record exists but it doesn’t pop on my background check so I think it’s been expunged.  I’m not going to test this theory by committing any crimes and seeing if they locate me via my 21 year old juvenille arrest prints.  

The other things don’t apply to me like concealed carry but for basic living vs. optional licenses as an average suburban soccer mom from ID to mortgage to working needs...I don’t actually have the impression that everyone’s fingerprints are on file somewhere. 

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

1.) Since when do they take fingerprints at birth? And what database are these on?

2.) Only 4 states require fingerprints (most just a thumbprint) for a DL.

3.) Many background checks do not require fingerprints.

 

I have had fingerprints taken multiple times when I accept a new or additional job / project. I keep joking that surely they have not changed. I find it odd that a thorough background check would not include prints. Fingerprinting at birth for data (not just as keepsake) was being discussed a few years back. I am sure we have not heard the last of it.

Edited by Liz CA
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

 

I've received a letter to update my signature card and they still counted my ballot, just let me know I was on notice to update it.  Not sure what they would do if I ignored the notice.  I updated my signature form.  


I don't live in a state with a signature requirement, but I wonder how that impacts people with disabilities? Many of my students don't have stable signatures at all, would they be able to vote in your state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Daria said:


I don't live in a state with a signature requirement, but I wonder how that impacts people with disabilities? Many of my students don't have stable signatures at all, would they be able to vote in your state?

Yes they can vote.  

1. There are still voting locations for people with disabilities who want accommodations from the county to assist them in voting.  

2. People who can’t write may mark an X and have witnesses sign.  I assume the county records show who is marking an X  

3.  People with changing handwriting for whatever reason are still allowed to vote, just told to update their signature.  As far as I know, there’s no limit on the number of times you may update your signature.  

Edited by LucyStoner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Yes they can vote.  

1. There are still voting locations for people with diabilities and want accommodations from county to assist them in voting.  

2. People who can’t write may mark an X and have witnesses sign.  

3.  People with changing handwriting for whatever reason are still allowed to vote, just told to update their signature.  As far as I know, there’s no limit on the number of times you update your signature.  


But many of my students, like many people with dysgraphia or physical disabilities, could change their signature card 1,000 times, and it would likely never match the signature they used on voting day.  Being able to update a signature card wouldn't help.  So, then they'd be limited to special voting locations, or required to have a witness?  That would definitely turn some of them away.  

I don't see how signature laws are any better than ID laws.  Both seem like voter suppression to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Daria said:


But many of my students, like many people with dysgraphia or physical disabilities, could change their signature card 1,000 times, and it would likely never match the signature they used on voting day.  Being able to update a signature card wouldn't help.  So, then they'd be limited to special voting locations, or required to have a witness?  That would definitely turn some of them away.  

I don't see how signature laws are any better than ID laws.  Both seem like voter suppression to me.  

 

People here vote by mail.  You are signing an envelope.  When your signature doesn’t match, they are basically giving you the same sort of heads up that the post office does when you change your address, giving you the opportunity to confirm that the change is you.   If you go to the office for adaptive tech, you can go anytime and there’s no line. 

My brother has cerbral palsy, his handwriting is terrible and he’s never missed a ballot.  My sons have dysgraphia and my niece has dyspraxia.  I’m not worried that they won’t be able to vote in this jurisdiction.  

Witnesses can be anyone you chose and they don’t have to see your ballot because again, all they are witnessing is that your marked the OUTER envelope, the ballot is still inside and inner envelope.  

Voter ID states usually still require a signature- you sign the log and not the ballot envelope.  I think equating signing a signature to voter suppression is a stretch, especially when there is assistance available and the relative ease of the mail in ballot.  

I am sympathetic to your concerns but in my experience which is hardly divorced from the realities of living with disabilities, it’s not a big issue.  More than one person I know with physical limitations has told me that they like the extra time they have with mail in voting.  My brother opted to vote absentee before mailed was required because he can take his time.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

Sorry Corraleno, I'm not picking on you. I was going back through posts trying to understand some points and I came back to this-- the bolded of your quote. 

This already exists. Unless you are off the grid. They take your prints when you are born on your birthday certificate- sure that's state and not federal, but we as individual don't really have any control over that....... And at least in my state, you have to register finger prints to receive a drivers license or State ID. If you want a Global Entry pass for flying- give up the prints. It's a requirement.If you want a background check to work just about anywhere- finger prints. Some banks require fingerprints for certain accounts or to sign for a mortgage. Concealed handgun license= fingerprints. Work with children at most churches or schools= fingerprints. And it goes on and on and on. 

I think once you get past the age of 18, unless you make a concerted effort,  it's almost impossible to go about without having fingerprints on file. And since a huge proportion of those checks run through the FBI- that's Federal. They have them. I guess I just fail to see why it can't be the case since it already IS there in their hands. I think people can deny it all they want, but I just can't see the vast majority of American adults- whether by birth or by adopted citizenship not having given up fingerprints at some point and they're already on file. Is it the formality of admitting as much that freaks people out? 

I’m in no way off the grid, but I’ve had my fingerprints taken exactly once, ten years in to my current job. Yet I’ve done everything else you listed except get a concealed carry permit and Global Entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Danae said:

I suspect it's also because the most efficient way to implement such a thing would involve a national ID number and there is strong opposition to such a requirement.

 

Won’t SSN be a national ID number? My income tax returns were tied to my ITIN before getting my green card. Then I was issued an SSN. I need to update SSA about my naturalization status.  So it is quite easy to verify by SSN if I am a citizen or green card holder or a H1b visa holder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

I'm not sure if I'm paranoid, or if I'm resigned. Either way I assume everyone and their dog now has access to if I voted and how I voted thanks to all of the above. I can prove they know if I voted, because I get things in the mail reminding me of when I did and that I need to thanks to multiple, extremely annoying "Get Out and Vote" "non-profits" who apparently think I'm too stupid to figure it out for myself. It's no stretch for me to think "they" also have ample access to how I voted. 

 

All voter information is a matter of public record.  Anyone can request a list of people who (but not how they voted) voted in any election and it has to be provided for them as long as the notarize a statement that the information is not being used for commercial purposes.  It contains your full name, address, voter ID#, and date of registration, and voting pct.  The parties use these lists to identify party affiliation if you vote in primaries.

During an election you can sign up to have the daily lists emailed to you directly for GOTV purposes.  I just spent two weeks doing this.

Stefanie

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

I completely agree with you, but at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I do have to wonder if that ship has already sailed. Maybe it's more likely at this point that Google or Apple etc. has all of that info though than the Government? I mean my phone and my laptop have my fingerprints. And they know what I surf. They know what I read and they know what I post. Our devices know everything about us. My dh is in IT and he thinks at this point tech is a far bigger danger than the government, but it just goes back to that I think all of that info is out there for a huge percentage of the population and I think that percentage creeps everyday, as tech trickles down. I guess I am a pessimist in that way. 

At all three of my kids' births the nurses did hand prints and foot prints. I don't know if that's hospital or county specific. It's something I never thought to question though. It just was- they even stamped them right in the kids' baby books after the birth certificate. I never thought twice about it. Maybe I should have. But I didn't. 

Again, having a phone with a fingerprint ID screen is a choice, not a constitutional right. PLENTY of people do not have those phones, or choose to just use a passcode, not the fingerprint. 

4 hours ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

1.) Since when do they take fingerprints at birth? And what database are these on?

2.) Only 4 states require fingerprints (most just a thumbprint) for a DL.

3.) Many background checks do not require fingerprints.

And many many many jobs do not require a background check. You certainly don't need to be fingerprinted to work almost any job, as the OP said. I worked in veterinary hospitals, libraries, and a call center and never had a background check nor did I get fingerprinted. My son works at one now and didn't do a background check. I DID get fingerprinted to work at a summer camp for the FWC though, but most people don't spend a summer working for a goverhment agency. You don't need to be fingerprinted to work at McDonalds or whatever. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patty Joanna said:

Way back in the thread—a right to vote, I get.   But the right to vote for someone who doesn’t qualify for a passport—help me out here.  

The OP commented that since people have to show a passport or DL in order to board a plane, it shouldn't be a big deal to require that all voters produce that sort of ID when they vote. People who responded to that weren't saying that noncitizens should have the right to vote, but rather that citizens should not be forced to pay for an identification document like a passport in order to vote. Driving a car and traveling internationally are privileges, not rights, and people who want to do those things can choose to pay $145/$65 for a passport or passport card, or $60 (in my state) for a driver's license. But requiring every citizen to pay those fees in order to exercise their right to vote, even if they don't drive and will never travel abroad, is unfair and tends to disenfranchise poor people. 

In my state, even a state ID costs $45, and then there are the fees associated with getting certified copies of the documents you need, like birth certificates, marriage certificates, adoption or divorce decrees, etc. I think if the government wants to require a government-issued photo ID in order to vote, then they should provide one at no cost to any citizen who doesn't otherwise have one. And there should be reasonable alternatives for proving identity, citizenship, and residency for those who don't happen to have certified copies of a bunch of legal documents sitting in a drawer, or who may not have a rental contract or a utility bill in their name. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, maize said:

The cut off would have to be before early voting starts.

I read at least one article this past week about an elderly lady who cast her ballot early and died before election day.

I don't have a problem with someone's vote being there who voted in early voting but then died before the election. That would be a rare case situation anyway, not enough to sway the vote. And the point of getting rid of voter fraud is not keep people who cast a vote and then die from voting but rather to keep people from pretending to be someone they are not. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re voting record is a matter of public record

5 hours ago, Sdel said:

 

All voter information is a matter of public record.  Anyone can request a list of people who (but not how they voted) voted in any election and it has to be provided for them as long as the notarize a statement that the information is not being used for commercial purposes.  It contains your full name, address, voter ID#, and date of registration, and voting pct.  The parties use these lists to identify party affiliation if you vote in primaries.

During an election you can sign up to have the daily lists emailed to you directly for GOTV purposes.  I just spent two weeks doing this.

Stefanie

While it's true that voting record is public, the exact information available and the degree of access available varies widely by state.  In my state, while the information is public it isn't particularly easy -- a curious / nosy / prurient person or organizer would have to physically go to a municipal office and ask by name for a particular voter -- the state doesn't share lists, and certainly not electronically.  So while (for example) an investigative reporter could uncover whether a particular person is registered, to what party, and how often the person has cast a vote in prior elections, it's a fairly onerous process to do so and you can't just pull down whole lists.  The information on the voter rolls here is name, address=precinct, party affiliation and prior elections voting -- no ID number or date of registration.  

This was one of the big controversies when the Kris Kobach-led committee two years ago demanded voter information from the states -- a very great many Secretaries of States, blue and red alike, resisted on the basis of voter privacy.  That it's public on a case by case individual basis does not equate to its being distributed and consolidated in aggregate.

In my state, the registrars themselves *verify* eligibility at the time of registration (by birth certificate or passport or naturalization papers) but do not record the content of that information, just verify that it was presented.  Once.  Thereafter it does not need to be re-presented every time.  (The same is true for drivers' licenses -- you show it once upon initial licensing; you don't have to re-show it every time for renewal... and once you have a DL that then becomes verification -- people who are not citizens can get DL but there is a denotation in DMV records, to which voting registrars cross-check, if they are non-citizens.)  People who register on line or at LWV voter registration drives or other events where they have not verified eligibility (and whom the registrars don'f verify with DMV) appear on the voter rolls with an asterisk denoting they have not yet fulfilled that verification; when they show up to vote they're directed to the moderator to do so (they get a snail mail or email explaining this so they can be prepared).  In a typical election that I've worked there is usually a handful of these, nearly always new young voters.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

Way back in the thread—a right to vote, I get.   But the right to vote for someone who doesn’t qualify for a passport—help me out here.  

Not that they don't qualify for a passport, just that they don't ahve the PROOF that they qualify for a passport. That takes paperwork that some people don't have, can't find, can't afford, or perhaps never had, in the case of some elderly people who never recieved a birth certificate. And it's not just the birth certificate they need a certified copy of, but divorce decrees or marriage certificates or name change forms...all sorts of forms that they may not have gotten, not have kept, lost, etc and which cost money to replac,e as well as a not inisignificant amount of time to track down. And some people can't find it all. So they are citizens, but lack the certified paperwork to prove it. 

1 hour ago, Janeway said:

I don't have a problem with someone's vote being there who voted in early voting but then died before the election. That would be a rare case situation anyway, not enough to sway the vote. And the point of getting rid of voter fraud is not keep people who cast a vote and then die from voting but rather to keep people from pretending to be someone they are not. 

Which is the same for voter fraud, rare and not enough to sway the vote

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KathyBC said:

On our yearly tax returns Canadians are asked whether we would like our information forwarded to Elections Canada. Our family always ticks or clicks yes.
We have to present ID to vote. The list of acceptable ID is quite long:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e
There doesn't seem to be widespread worry about either voter fraud or voter suppression.

However, even in engaged elections, we struggle with not much more than 50% of eligible voter turnout. The blanket cause is labeled apathy. I'm not sure that is correct, but that is a whole 'nother topic.

I could definitely support that long list of back up ID options being used in the United States.  Unfortunately, here the lists are usually much shorter and sometimes even intentionally discriminatory. Case in point, what the court pointed out about permitting a concealed carry license to be used as ID but not state university ID cards.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As poll workers, we're trained that at the polls, ID is solely to prove IDENTITY.  Not ELIGIBILITY.  Eligibility to vote (certified birth certificate, or passport, or naturalization papers.... or cross check with the Department of Motor Vehicles which itself requires one of those primary forms of ID at the time of licensing -- non-citizens can obtain a driver's license but their non-citizen status is recorded at DMV precisely because DMV will automatically enroll to vote if you opt in) has already been demonstrated to the registrar at the time of registration.

So: you moved across town and your driver's license has the old address?  OK (because it still verifies identity).  You're 80 years old, don't drive any longer, and your DL is expired?  OK (because the expired license still verifies identity).  You moved into CT from another state but haven't gotten around to getting a new license, though you did register to vote in your new CT address?  Your out-of-state license is OK (because it still verifies identity -- the registrar verified your current address through real estate records or a rental contract etc).  The only ID on you is your university ID from a different state?  OK (because it still verifies identity).

The registrars, who are deeply trained and have also access to DMV, real estate, local school enrollment and local tax roll records as well as whatever documentation voter registrants show up with, are tasked with verifying ELIGIBILITY as well as current address=precinct.  If a voter is on the roll, that process has been completed.  It does not need to be re-done over and over by volunteers who only get an hour of training.  All the poll workers are doing is verifying that a voter *is* the name on the roll.... not that the name "deserves" to be on the roll.  So a very long list of ID is acceptable.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

As poll workers, we're trained that at the polls, ID is solely to prove IDENTITY.  Not ELIGIBILITY.  Eligibility to vote (certified birth certificate, or passport, or naturalization papers.... or cross check with the Department of Motor Vehicles which itself requires one of those primary forms of ID at the time of licensing -- non-citizens can obtain a driver's license but their non-citizen status is recorded at DMV precisely because DMV will automatically enroll to vote if you opt in) has already been demonstrated to the registrar at the time of registration.

So: you moved across town and your driver's license has the old address?  OK (because it still verifies identity).  You're 80 years old, don't drive any longer, and your DL is expired?  OK (because the expired license still verifies identity).  You moved into CT from another state but haven't gotten around to getting a new license, though you did register to vote in your new CT address?  Your out-of-state license is OK (because it still verifies identity -- the registrar verified your current address through real estate records or a rental contract etc).  The only ID on you is your university ID from a different state?  OK (because it still verifies identity).

The registrars, who are deeply trained and have also access to DMV, real estate, local school enrollment and local tax roll records as well as whatever documentation voter registrants show up with, are tasked with verifying ELIGIBILITY as well as current address=precinct.  If a voter is on the roll, that process has been completed.  It does not need to be re-done over and over by volunteers who only get an hour of training.  All the poll workers are doing is verifying that a voter *is* the name on the roll.... not that the name "deserves" to be on the roll.  So a very long list of ID is acceptable.

I wish this was how it worked in every state.

I saw a passport rejected as ID at our polling place last year. Probably because it does not prove current address. Though perhaps the person hadn't updated their voter registration with current address and was trying to cast a provisional ballot?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re provisional ballots

5 minutes ago, maize said:

I wish this was how it worked in every state.

I saw a passport rejected as ID at our polling place last year. Probably because it does not prove current address. Though perhaps the person hadn't updated their voter registration with current address and was trying to cast a provisional ballot?

In CT we try hard to minimize provisional ballots, because the obligation to show up at town hall and "cure" the documentation issue after the fact is onerous to voter and registrar alike.  So any voters who are asterisked as incompletely documented (these are most usually young voters, who registered on line or at voter registration events, who did not have their driver's licenses on them at the time they registered... though they could be registrants who for whatever reason don't have a driver's license or DMV issued ID) are contacted before the election and forewarned that they're asterisked and will need to bring in proof of whatever is lacking (usually either DL if they have one but didn't at time of registration, or BC to prove eiligility; or proof of address like a bill or bank statement). 

In any event, the regular checker at the regular line doesn't make the determination that the vote has to be provisional, or give out the provisional ballot.  The asterisked folks go directly to the moderator to work it out, and the moderator is the only one with access to the provisional ballots.  I hope the passport person at your poll was sent there to work it out.  We had exactly one provisional ballot at my poll station on Tuesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Colombia we do carry a "Cedula" (national identity card) and frequently need to show that card and provide the ID number on things we sign.  Also, Fingerprints are sometimes taken. (one finger).

As a permanent resident alien, I am not allowed to vote, but when my wife goes to vote she is usually in and out of the voting place in minutes and it is AMAZING at how fast they have the vote totals after the polls close.

Still, we have some voting fraud, but places like Florida could probably learn a lot by looking at some of the ways they do things in other states, where they are not involved in total incompetence and possibly massive election fraud by election officials.

One thing that may differentiate is that I do not believe they permit "early voting" here. Also, elections here are always held on Sundays.  

How to do this and eliminate voter fraud, while allowing the people in the USA not to have a National Identity Document and possibly providing their Fingerprint, so a machine can verify it when they vote, is the beginning of a series of complex questions.  People voting twice, in more than one jurisdiction. Dead people voting are just the tip of the iceberg.

Edited by Lanny
change "often" to "sometimes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Liz CA said:

 

I have had fingerprints taken multiple times when I accept a new or additional job / project. I keep joking that surely they have not changed. I find it odd that a thorough background check would not include prints. Fingerprinting at birth for data (not just as keepsake) was being discussed a few years back. I am sure we have not heard the last of it.

Fingerprint data isn't need for most background checks.  Even many federal positions do not require fingerprints for the FBI background check. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents for what its worth: I think that if ID is required to vote, then the ID should be free from the state. So you show up at the DMV, Secretary of State, whatever with your documents, and no charge. Otherwise it is a poll tax. I also think the documents you need, like a birth certificate, should be provided for free, ie. through our tax dollars. Otherwise, again, it's a poll tax....you have to pay in order to vote. I truly believe it should be viewed this way.

I also think that for the indigent, disabled, elderly, the state/taxpayers should have to provide transportation to the locations where ID's are provided using a handicap accessible van or bus because again, if a person has to pay a driver or uber/taxi in order to get an ID in order to vote, it is a poll tax. So instead of our tax dollars being spent finding out for instance, "Why drunken Argentinian men engage in risky behavior" (drunken apparently not being the operative word so $175,000 was awarded for that study), it should be spent helping the citizenry exercise their constitutional right to vote.

Anything that has software is pretty much hackable so despite hanging chads and such, paper ballots are probably better. I am thankful Michigan just passed a vote by absentee ballot without having to provide a reason law. This is going to be so much better for everyone. It may take them longer to process mail in ballots, but so what? We don't have to know the outcome of an election on the day of. That's just a luxury. If it takes 30 days, that's okay. The newbies don't take office until the new year. So slow everything down, take the time to count well. It is for the benefit of the nation that we get it right.

Voter fraud is really not common. It is a minute % of ballots, and not enough to throw even a local election much less anything statewide or federal. So yes, it is annoying when a person who is dead has a vote cast in their name or due to spelling issues there is a mix up with two voters or whatever, but it isn't the issue that needs to be tackled. Voter suppression is a huge issue, and that does affect outcomes in very big ways and needs to be the thing that is tackled.

And that said, if paper ballots are used, and every one of them is pre-addressed, pre-stamped, encouraging most voters to mail their ballots, I honestly think voter suppression would be harder. It's pretty darn obvious that something is going on when a box of uncounted ballots turns up like they did in Broward County, Florida. You know that you know that you know something is fishy, and if you find them, you have this physical thing that can be counted. But computers are just too easy to hack, and some of that hacking can be very subtle, hard to detect until it is too late. Plus, mail in ballots have the added bonus of not getting voters all collected together at one place which makes them easy targets for voter suppression groups. It isn't a perfect solution, but it I think the best one out of the options. Our paper ballot just simply had an oval by each name. Each name had it's party affiliation denoted or "independent" as was the case. You took the black marker and filled in the oval. They were easy to read, and there were election officials with private spaces who could take voters who could not see or read, and do them orally. Yes, these voters were at the mercy of the honesty and integrity of the election official, but to be honest the vast majority of the people who volunteer for these jobs do so out of an intense sense of civic duty and patriotism. It would be possible to even say that one could take a relative or friend to help you if you want. But again, a mail in ballot goes a long ways for those with disabilities because they can just have someone they trust help them fill it in. We'll never be able to make a full proof ballot that works perfectly for all, so that shouldn't be the goal. Making it work really, really well for a huge percentage of the citizenry should be the goal, and then we can live and learn, look for ways to always improve where we can.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

Sorry Corraleno, I'm not picking on you. I was going back through posts trying to understand some points and I came back to this-- the bolded of your quote. 

This already exists. Unless you are off the grid. They take your prints when you are born on your birthday certificate- sure that's state and not federal, but we as individual don't really have any control over that....... And at least in my state, you have to register finger prints to receive a drivers license or State ID. If you want a Global Entry pass for flying- give up the prints. It's a requirement.If you want a background check to work just about anywhere- finger prints. Some banks require fingerprints for certain accounts or to sign for a mortgage. Concealed handgun license= fingerprints. Work with children at most churches or schools= fingerprints. And it goes on and on and on. 

I think once you get past the age of 18, unless you make a concerted effort,  it's almost impossible to go about without having fingerprints on file. And since a huge proportion of those checks run through the FBI- that's Federal. They have them. I guess I just fail to see why it can't be the case since it already IS there in their hands. I think people can deny it all they want, but I just can't see the vast majority of American adults- whether by birth or by adopted citizenship not having given up fingerprints at some point and they're already on file. Is it the formality of admitting as much that freaks people out? 

This is crazy.  I think if I lived where you do, I'd move if I were asked for my fingerprints that often. Prints are not taken here at birth - it's not done. That was true when my son was born nearly 20 years ago and it's true now. I asked the hospital if they could do his baby book for me and they said they can't - they don't have any of the supplies. I work at the same hospital and they still don't do it - there is no reason to.  I have never in my life been fingerprinted. I have had a driver's licenses in two states with multiple renewals and I have a valid passport, also with multiple renewals. When I travel with my husband, his TSA precheck applies to me - still no fingerprints. I have had a basic background check done for work - no fingerprints. No fingerprints for the many mortgages I have had, nor for the bank accounts. Background checks at church - no fingerprints.

Now Disney, they have my fingerprint due to their stupid ticketing system. This is the only time I recall ever being asked for a fingerprint. If I had been more alert at the time, I would have refused. They say they don't store them, but I find that hard to believe. They have to at least temporarily store them or the ticket tag system wouldn't work. We are going to have Magic Bands when we go in January and I think I'm just going to use my ID to verify it. Disney does not need my fingerprints. If my ticket or Magic Band is stolen - what, exactly will happen? Someone else gets to go to Disney. That's not a tragedy. But, I also get to report the theft to the credit card company and the travel insurance that we have for purchases made on the credit card will kick in and replace them. I understand not everyone has that available to them, but we do and it gives us additional freedom to protect our personal information. By the way, the credit card company doesn't have our fingerprints, either.

Law enforcement has to get a warrant to get your fingerprints unless you are being lawfully arrested & booked for a crime. They can't just walk around requiring people to give them their fingerprints. They can ask for them, but no one has to do it, just like you aren't required to give up your DNA without a warrant. There is no comprehensive database of the fingerprints of every person in the country. IAFIS is the closest and in order to be in that one, you have to have committed a crime, your prints were picked up as part of a criminal investigation or you have voluntarily submitted to a background check (when you apply for a job that requires a fingerprinted background check or apply for a concealed carry permit, those are voluntary actions). In the case of a criminal investigation, the fingerprint might be in the system, but if they don't know who it belongs to, then it isn't connected to an identity. Not only that, there is no requirement that law enforcement turn over information to be entered into IAFIS. Participation is voluntary, although local and/or state law may require it, there is not a federal law to require them to do so. So, no, it really doesn't work like that.

Edited by TechWife
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

My two cents for what its worth: I think that if ID is required to vote, then the ID should be free from the state. So you show up at the DMV, Secretary of State, whatever with your documents, and no charge. Otherwise it is a poll tax. I also think the documents you need, like a birth certificate, should be provided for free, ie. through our tax dollars. Otherwise, again, it's a poll tax....you have to pay in order to vote. I truly believe it should be viewed this way.

I also think that for the indigent, disabled, elderly, the state/taxpayers should have to provide transportation to the locations where ID's are provided using a handicap accessible van or bus because again, if a person has to pay a driver or uber/taxi in order to get an ID in order to vote, it is a poll tax. So instead of our tax dollars being spent finding out for instance, "Why drunken Argentinian men engage in risky behavior" (drunken apparently not being the operative word so $175,000 was awarded for that study), it should be spent helping the citizenry exercise their constitutional right to vote.

I wish we had an applause smiley! I wholeheartedly agree with you!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 6:58 PM, DoraBora said:

I've wondered lately whether the hodgepodge of methods we use to cast our ballots across the country might actually be a good thing.  It seems to me that when some precincts are using punch cards, others have touch screen ballots, and still others use Sharpie pens to fill in bubbles, etc., it could make the system a bit harder to mess with...  

Ha! My precinct has used all of these methods since I've lived here. First we used punch cards, but after the whole "handing chads" issue they upgraded to touch screen ballots, but after reports of tech problems, we went to filling in bubbles on paper ballots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some reasons why requiring ID is more complicated than it might seem, at first.

In North Dakota, a few months after Democrat Heidi Heitkamp won her Senate seat, Republicans initiated a process to require ID with a street address for voting. That doesn't sound too restrictive, does it? The problem is Native American voters in ND were crucial to Heitkamp's election, and most who live on reservations do not have street addresses. They receive mail at post office boxes, and literally live on rural roads without addresses. The Supreme Court under Trump declared this discriminatory practice constitutional.

In some states, your government-issued concealed-carry permit is considered valid ID for voting, but your government-issued public housing ID is not. Think about that! There is often bias inherent in the process of selecting which IDs are valid and which aren't. And as Faith-manor described above, IDs that require fees and transportation amount to a poll tax. 

One Person, No Vote is an incredibly well-researched book by Carol Anderson that details strategies of voter suppression used in various states today, as well as the history of suppression of minority, women's and poor people's votes in this country. Eye-opening read for me. 

Amy

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm no Luddite, but we shouldn't be voting with these machines at all. They can all be so easily hacked. There have been so many cases where people have been discovered poking around voting machines, sometimes people suspected of being foreign agents. I'm not so much of a conspiracy theorist that I think the vote has been stolen, but good grief, I think it absolutely could be. And it's not about changing all the votes - it's about getting the machine to be just a tiny bit off in just a few key precincts and then destroying any trail, which some places already do for them. Like, Georgia (supposedly by accident) wiped all the data from their machines a few years ago. Oops.

So to me, the very question in the OP is based on the false premise that an electronic voting system is desirable in the first place. I'm okay with the way we do ours in my not-a-state (vote is on a tablet type machine, it prints a paper ballot that you can check before feeding it into a separate machine that reads what you've printed. But even with that, I'm like, is this more expensive than just doing scantron? And if so, are the benefits (of which I don't see a ton... getting the marks clearly down, I suppose, but otherwise...) really worth the money and risks?

Basically, I can't be fussed to care if we have an electronic voting system that is eliminating the miniscule risk of voter fraud (I mean, 31 cases in more than a decade, guys, come on) when voter suppression is so much more widespread and when the electronic systems have so many security risks.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been fingerprinted for these reasons:

1. to work at a bank as a teller

2. To work in public schools as a teacher

3. Background check to be a foster parent

(none of those systems “talk” to each other, so my prints needed to be re done each time)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farrar said:

Honestly, I'm no Luddite, but we shouldn't be voting with these machines at all. They can all be so easily hacked. There have been so many cases where people have been discovered poking around voting machines, sometimes people suspected of being foreign agents. I'm not so much of a conspiracy theorist that I think the vote has been stolen, but good grief, I think it absolutely could be. And it's not about changing all the votes - it's about getting the machine to be just a tiny bit off in just a few key precincts and then destroying any trail, which some places already do for them. Like, Georgia (supposedly by accident) wiped all the data from their machines a few years ago. Oops.

So to me, the very question in the OP is based on the false premise that an electronic voting system is desirable in the first place. I'm okay with the way we do ours in my not-a-state (vote is on a tablet type machine, it prints a paper ballot that you can check before feeding it into a separate machine that reads what you've printed. But even with that, I'm like, is this more expensive than just doing scantron? And if so, are the benefits (of which I don't see a ton... getting the marks clearly down, I suppose, but otherwise...) really worth the money and risks?

Basically, I can't be fussed to care if we have an electronic voting system that is eliminating the miniscule risk of voter fraud (I mean, 31 cases in more than a decade, guys, come on) when voter suppression is so much more widespread and when the electronic systems have so many security risks.

Since Oregon went to universal vote-by-mail, the state has saved approximately $3 million each election cycle, and they now have one of the highest rates of voter turnout in the country (70-80% for national elections, compared to the national average of 48%), particularly among young, low-income, and minority voters. Since 2000, there have been 12 documented cases of voter fraud out of an estimated 100,000,000 ballots cast — a rate of 0.0000001%. It's actually much more difficult to organize any kind of coordinated voter fraud because the ballots are individually mailed and individually returned. In order to commit fraud, someone would have to steal a bunch of individual ballots, fill them in, forge signatures they've never seen, and then distribute them among multiple post offices or drop locations — versus hacking into a computer system and changing thousands of votes with a few lines of code that will leave no paper trail.

Washington and Colorado have also gone to universal vote-by-mail, and also have voter turnout rates that are much higher than the national average, with lower costs, and little risk of fraud. DRE voting systems cost more, reduce turnout, and increase the potential for fraud. Of course, for some people those are bonuses, not bugs. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Acadie said:

Here are some reasons why requiring ID is more complicated than it might seem, at first.

In North Dakota, a few months after Democrat Heidi Heitkamp won her Senate seat, Republicans initiated a process to require ID with a street address for voting. That doesn't sound too restrictive, does it? The problem is Native American voters in ND were crucial to Heitkamp's election, and most who live on reservations do not have street addresses. They receive mail at post office boxes, and literally live on rural roads without addresses. The Supreme Court under Trump declared this discriminatory practice constitutional.

In some states, your government-issued concealed-carry permit is considered valid ID for voting, but your government-issued public housing ID is not. Think about that! There is often bias inherent in the process of selecting which IDs are valid and which aren't. And as Faith-manor described above, IDs that require fees and transportation amount to a poll tax. 

One Person, No Vote is an incredibly well-researched book by Carol Anderson that details strategies of voter suppression used in various states today, as well as the history of suppression of minority, women's and poor people's votes in this country. Eye-opening read for me. 

Amy

Our rural area had no street addresses for years. Our ID just said street name and mailing address, so that's what was used for voting. Worked just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KathyBC said:

Our rural area had no street addresses for years. Our ID just said street name and mailing address, so that's what was used for voting. Worked just fine.

The new voter ID law in ND requires that a residential street address be printed on a government-issued photo ID. Native Americans have always been able to use tribal IDs, but these do not include a residential address, because "residential addresses" are meaningless on a reservation where houses are usually unnumbered and streets are often nameless dirt tracks. Those who live on reservations generally use PO boxes for mail, but ND will not accept a PO box as an address. Heidi Heitkamp was elected to Senate in 2012 by a margin of 3000 votes.The total population of eligible voters in ND is only 580,000, and it's estimated that as many as 70,000 people, mostly poor and/or Native American, cannot meet the new voter ID requirement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

It's actually much more difficult to organize any kind of coordinated voter fraud because the ballots are individually mailed and individually returned. In order to commit fraud, someone would have to steal a bunch of individual ballots, fill them in, forge signatures they've never seen, and then distribute them among multiple post offices or drop locations — versus hacking into a computer system and changing thousands of votes with a few lines of code that will leave no paper trail.

 

Our city went to a mail-in ballot for the spring election (this is not occurring at the state level here yet.)  I could have sent in three ballots easily with no one being the wiser. My adult daughter is still on the rolls here, despite having been registered to vote in another state for over a year. My college aged daughter had no idea an election was going on back at home, a couple thousand miles away. I'm sure ours was not the only household with extra ballots floating around.

I can also see the potential for political workers going to homes, community centers, churches, or senior centers and "helping" vulnerable populations fill out their ballots in a way that favors a certain candidate or party. There was a case here of a conservative candidate doing something like that in a trailer park in which large extended families lived together. I could see employers  using undue influence and demanding employees vote in a particular way, and show them the proof. This may not be widespread yet, but there is no doubt in my mind that power hungry politicians will take advantages of the weaknesses of a mail-in system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...