[OT] Foreign Policy
smorrey at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 14:01:48 MST 2008
We already have Voter ID requirements.
About 3% of registered voters are randomly selected (ahead of time
it's in the poll books), and must provide some proof of identity. No
reason is given for the ID check requirement, some are just "lucky",
some may have moved recently etc.
This can be a piece of mail (because it's a federal offence to posses
someone else's mail), with the name and address professionally printed
on it. or it can be a government issued ID, or it can be the
individuals voter registration card.
However the name AND address are what are being verified.
Also anyone at any time can challenge ANYONES right to vote. This
comes as a verbal challenge.
"I challenge your right to vote here sir/mam (insert reason here)"
I saw it happen 2 times at the polling location I managed.
In one instance it was because the person who had attempted to vote no
longer lived in that precinct.
Someone from their ward saw them, and challenged their right to vote there.
They revealed that they no longer lived there, but thought they were
supposed to vote in the precinct they had registered in.
This is not the case, you always vote in the precinct you currently
live in, regardless of where you are registered. So we sent them to
the proper location.
In the other case, it was a minor (the kid would have turned 18 the
next day), and again someone from their ward challenged their right to
It is your duty as an American Citizen to challenge the vote of anyone
for whom you have cause to believe does not have the right to vote.
This may be a minor, or someone who has moved away recently, or
someone whom you believe to not be a US Citizen, or someone who is a
At worst, you are wrong, then the person will have had to cast a
provisional ballot which requires an extended review, but could still
count. At best you will have done your part to ensure a free and fair
On Jan 24, 2008 1:25 PM, Bryan Sant <bryan.sant at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 12:42 PM, Michael L Torrie <torriem at chem.byu.edu> wrote:
> > That's quite a logical fallacy there. I guess you must know what the
> > EFF's intent is, though. And a bit ironic, given that you said you
> I do know the EFF's intent. They want voter fraud to continue because
> it primarily helps the Dems.
> > support Ron Paul, and his platform should, if it's consistent with
> > itself, be in favor of banning ID checking at polling stations.
> > Freedom, small government, and all that.
> Ha. Good attempt at painting me into some crazy anarchist corner.
> I'm all for small government. Small government. Not *no government*.
> Preventing voter fraud, even if it requires some volunteer to quickly
> make sure the name on your picture ID matches what they have in their
> book, is a rational use of "government" (if you can call the voting
> booth worker guy that).
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
More information about the PLUG