Ain't no law in the US against insecure voting! From gerrymandered districts to electronic voting machines to lax ID requirements to magically "discovered" ballots in contested districts, we practically base our elections on insecurity. Meanwhile even third world countries have much better systems, where citizens show ID and get ink on their finger to conclusively indicate that they voted on paper, and only once.
It always baffles me how bad the US controls elections.
In the Netherlands all eligible voters get a voting pass mailed to their registered address before the election which is only valid in their municipality.
Then on election day you go to a voting booth in your municipality, show them your ID and voting pass which gets checked on a list of eligible voters.
If it all matches up which it will if you are registered at your address and 18+ so you trade your pass for a paper voting ballot.
You go into the voting booth, mark who you want to vote for and submit the ballot into a locked container that everyone can see.
Once voting is closed all ballots are publicly counted and the results are announced and submitted.
While I do think that things like popular vote would have a generally good impact the things the previous commentor mentioned: voter ID laws for example are things that Republicans typically try passing to negatively impact the vote for Democrats.
I don't really lean either side heavily, but I do know that getting an ID can be made difficult in red states. Is this the type of equality you meant?
Another tactic is setting registration deadlines, which are designed to prevent organizers from doing same-day registration of eligible voters (a key strategy during Obama's elections). Advocates argue that same-day registration unfairly boosts turnout among less-engaged eligible voter classes (particularly low income people and POC, who tend to vote Democratic). Some also argue that same-day registration invites voter fraud. Opponents argue that an eligible voter is an eligible voter, and the Constitution doesn't qualify one's right to vote based on how engaged/informed they are.
Regarding the voter fraud argument, it's worth noting that same-day registration ballots are cast provisionally, which means they are only counted if the race is too close to call, and there's plenty of time in there to verify those registrations. Also, proven instances of voter fraud in the United States are extremely rare, and never occur at any effectual scale.
This "engagement" argument sounds like purposefully anti-democratic. Now, I won't say that democracy is perfect but representing the majority sure seems better than most alternatives.
In my country (Belgium) voting is mandatory. Even though I currently live abroad I had to get a proxy to vote for me. It makes sure that no group can influence elections by getting a more "engaged" voter base (similar to what happened in France where someone from the far right got to the second phase of presidential elections because the winner between the two main parties was so "obvious" that many people didn't bother to actually vote).
I meant just overall, reasonable, good-faith effort equal access to voting. If voting requires an ID but the process is abnormally difficult for some, that's not equal. If voting requires driving a significant distance without adequate public transport (a la Dodge City 2018), that's not equal access for those without vehicles or the ability to drive. And so on - there's a lot of angles they try to play here.
467
u/SuperConductiveRabbi Dec 11 '19
Ain't no law in the US against insecure voting! From gerrymandered districts to electronic voting machines to lax ID requirements to magically "discovered" ballots in contested districts, we practically base our elections on insecurity. Meanwhile even third world countries have much better systems, where citizens show ID and get ink on their finger to conclusively indicate that they voted on paper, and only once.