voter ID bill (Dayton: appointed, 2013, credit)

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Thegonagle

Electronic voter registration and electronic sign-ins, AKA "electronic poll books." They already have a pretty good idea of how to implement it, they just need the legislature to say "do it."

This was presented as a reasonable alternative to "photo ID required to vote" that wouldn't disenfranchise voters who faced challenges getting a state ID. By implementing electronic poll books, they could build photo ID into the registration database.

Photo ID built in or not, electronic poll books would make voting more secure and prevent the above "fraud" without giving everybody else extra hoops to jump though.

This is what I think should have been done. It doesn't have the same issue of disenfranchising voters and it would have been much cheaper than the expected costs of implementing photo ID.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

So you would have a photo of each voter in the database at the polling place, and a record of whether they've requested an absentee ballot? I think that's a good idea. I followed the voter ID amendment here pretty closely and hadn't heard that one.

Now that the voter ID amendment has been defeated, why do you think it is that its opponents haven't brought this idea back up?

This is why:

Originally Posted by xandrex

This is what I think should have been done. It doesn't have the same issue of disenfranchising voters and it would have been much cheaper than the expected costs of implementing photo ID.

Electronic poll books do not sufficiently disenfranchise minority and/or Democratic voters.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

So you would have a photo of each voter in the database at the polling place, and a record of whether they've requested an absentee ballot? I think that's a good idea. I followed the voter ID amendment here pretty closely and hadn't heard that one.

Now that the voter ID amendment has been defeated, why do you think it is that its opponents haven't brought this idea back up?

Originally Posted by Globe199

This is why:

Originally Posted by xandrex

This is what I think should have been done. It doesn't have the same issue of disenfranchising voters and it would have been much cheaper than the expected costs of implementing photo ID.

Originally Posted by Globe199

Electronic poll books do not sufficiently disenfranchise minority and/or Democratic voters.

I believe you are confused on this issue.

My question was why haven't the opponents to the Voter ID amendment, who were largely the Democrats who are now in control of the state legislature and the governor's office, brought up the idea of implementing electronic poll books.

Are you suggesting it's because they want to "disenfranchise minority and/or Democratic voters"?

[Globe199]

I misread your original message.

We have a pretty good election system in Minnesota. We have the highest turnout in the country. I don't think it needs a lot of messing with, except to expand early voting. Unfortunately, Mark Dayton doesn't want to make many changes to election laws without "bipartisan support" which isn't happening.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

I misread your original message.

We have a pretty good election system in Minnesota. We have the highest turnout in the country. I don't think it needs a lot of messing with, except to expand early voting. Unfortunately, Mark Dayton doesn't want to make many changes to election laws without "bipartisan support" which isn't happening.

Can you please cite a source for the last statement about the governor's intents? Since the governor and I both seem to disagree with you and feel that some changes to the system are necessary, I'd be interested in reading what sorts of changes he has in mind. Perhaps I can help lend some of that "bipartisan support" he's looking for. Please post a link. Thanks..

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Can you please cite a source for the last statement about the governor's intents? Since the governor and I both seem to disagree with you and feel that some changes to the system are necessary, I'd be interested in reading what sorts of changes he has in mind. Perhaps I can help lend some of that "bipartisan support" he's looking for. Please post a link. Thanks..

Found this on google in 1.6 seconds:

Early voting? Dayton says it needs 'broad bipartisan support' | Hot Dish Politics | StarTribune.com

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Found this on google in 1.6 seconds:

Early voting? Dayton says it needs 'broad bipartisan support' | Hot Dish Politics | StarTribune.com

Thank you. Standard internet protocol is for you to back up your statements and llink to your source in the first place, so drop the snotty tone. It's not my job to back up your claims. That's your job, and I thank you, even if it took a day and some prompting on my part to get you to do it.

I note that the article says nothing about the electronic poll books that were being discussed before this diversion.

I had asked why it might be that this alternative to Voter ID hasn't been mentioned by the opponents to the Voter ID amendment if they really believed that it was good alternative. I'd hate to think that they were really just using that as a distraction to get people to vote no on the amendment.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

so drop the snotty tone.

Then:

It's not my job to back up your claims. That's your job, and I thank you, even if it took a day and some prompting on my part to get you to do it.

I have no idea why Mark Dayton wants to be all bipartisan about election laws. He took advantage of the GOP's anti-marriage amendment disaster last fall, and signed the bill allowing marriage equality. Turned it right around on them. But for some reason he isn't willing to do the same thing with elections after the ID amendment bombed. After the shutdown in 2011, the state GOP doesn't deserve an olive branch from him. Certainly a GOP governor would not extend such a gesture to a minority DFL legislature.

I can only speculate, but it could be that he too sees our elections as already being run pretty well.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Then:





I have no idea why Mark Dayton wants to be all bipartisan about election laws. He took advantage of the GOP's anti-marriage amendment disaster last fall, and signed the bill allowing marriage equality. Turned it right around on them. But for some reason he isn't willing to do the same thing with elections after the ID amendment bombed. After the shutdown in 2011, the state GOP doesn't deserve an olive branch from him. Certainly a GOP governor would not extend such a gesture to a minority DFL legislature.

I can only speculate, but it could be that he too sees our elections as already being run pretty well.

I'm not talking about the governor. What about others who are saying they supported electronic poll books? Where are they now?

[xandrex]

It's probably best that Dayton is doing this in a bipartisan manner. Voting law shouldn't be done on a partisan basis or with the hint of partisanship. I would expect the same bipartisanship if the GOP were in control.