I have been in this country for more than six years and I just learned
something really disturbing about the American voting process : you don’t
need to show any id when you vote. This is so baffling that I had to
confirm this information with several friends (I’m not a citizen yet so I’ve
never voted here). And they all confirmed it. All you need to do is
show up, give your name and address, sign, and you can cast your ballot.
This is mind-boggling.
I can understand that it’s hard to compile a nation-wide list of registered
voters (although this obviously needs to happen at some point, especially for
something as important as voting), but not even requiring voters to carry an id
when they vote is just beyond anything imaginable.
But it gets worse.
It appears that the Constitution allows the various parties in place to send
"challengers" to voting places: people who sit there, watch voters go by
and who can arbitrarily challenge any person’s right to vote.
It’s not hard to imagine what these decisions will be based on: skin
color, accent, mannerism, you name it. And this is part of the
Constitution…
Recently, this section has been challenged by various civil right activists
and it appears that at least in Ohio, one of the major swing states, challengers
would not be allowed. However, I just heard this morning that this
decision had been overturned and that challengers would indeed be let in at the
polling places.
What a mess.
So we have one wrong (you don’t need to show up id at the polling place) that
it tentatively fixed by another wrong (people can randomly challenge your right
to vote). Add to this the recent fiasco of electronic voting machines and
the very questionable Electoral College system (which has arguably been shown as
very valid three centuries ago but a dangerous anachronism today) and it makes
you wonder how come the greatest democracy of all times reached such a point of
despair in its very roots.
#1 by Kumar Mettu on November 2, 2004 - 9:49 am
Before 2000 Election I thought atleast Americans got it right. But guess not.
#2 by Anonymous on November 2, 2004 - 10:29 am
Do you have a java solution to this problem? This entry was posted on javablogs, so I figure you have a java solution to the problem or you wouldn’t have posted it there.
#3 by Eric Burke on November 2, 2004 - 10:35 am
Yep, it’s a mess. I don’t understand why thousands of different precincts can each have different rules and procedures for national elections. Or why they put partisans in charge of these procedures rather than some sort of non-partisan commission. It seems that an inner-city voter should have the same rights that I do, but that is not so. I waited in line for 40 minutes and was done. Nobody “challenged” me. Some people in urban areas are waiting in line all day.
#4 by Mike on November 2, 2004 - 10:40 am
I think the principal behind not requiring people to have id is equality. Believe it or not, everybody DOES NOT have an ID. To vote, all you need to do is register. Retired, and homeless people might be two groups of people who no longer carry IDs but they still have a right to vote.
That being said… it does seem weird that I dont show my ID!
#5 by brian on November 2, 2004 - 10:53 am
Voting regulations are mostly based on State and local law. Ids are required in some places. Other places see ids as an invasion of privacy. “National” elections are really just a suggestion to the electoral college. The constitution was written at a time when state’s rights were very important. While the electoral college might be an anachronism, the US is a republic. Our system is based on the idea that the public is too uninformed and ill prepared to make, execute or interpret laws. We vote for people to think for us.
#6 by Emmanuel Pirsch on November 2, 2004 - 10:57 am
I live in Canada and I never had to show an ID to vote. And I like it that way.
Most of the time I carry my voting registration kard (mispelled it because it looks like this word spelled correctly is questionable content). I show it instead of spelling my last name (it makes it easier for them to find my name on the list).
BTW, in Canada, we use a paper based voting system and most of the vote counting is done within 3 hours after the voting bureau close.
The other day I saw a show about some state use of electronic voting system. One of the person in charge for the election in some state or district was against a paper trail because in case of recount, it take 1 hour, per booth, to recount based of the paper trail. So this election official prefer to be unable to do a recount that take a little bit of time to do a proper recount and ensure a fair result. This is just beyong my understanding!
#7 by Anonymous on November 2, 2004 - 11:03 am
Like most things in America, the voting system is an utterly joke. But I guess that’s what comes from being the land for the “free” 😉
A the last presidental election we had filled out voting-c ards showing up in Europe…. Oh well.
#8 by Stefan Tilkov on November 2, 2004 - 11:14 am
Interestingly, Germany’s voting system, which has largely been created by the US after WWII, does about everything right the US system gets wrong. Really strange.
#9 by Gavin on November 2, 2004 - 11:18 am
Australians are also not required to show ID to vote. And, AFAIK, Australia has never experienced widespread voter fraud.
(And yes, it is also based on making pencil marks on paper, and again, election results are known same-day.)
#10 by Keith Sader on November 2, 2004 - 11:21 am
I think it depends on the state. In Kansas City, Missouri you are required to produce a photo-id, or your voter registration ca-rd(bayesian filter choked on ‘c?rd’) before you vote a real ballot. If you have none of these with you, you can always cast a *provisional* ballot. I’m not 100% clear on how the two are counted, but no one should be disenfranchised at the polls.
#11 by Tiago on November 2, 2004 - 11:24 am
Man, what a mess!
Not having to show an id is something, letting people vote more than once is to disconsider the right of the other voters (to be equally accounted)!
Don’t tell me it is difficult to build a list of voters or send each one to one unique place, because in my beloved 3rd-World country (Brazil) we do it. And we have each one registered with a number that is not your id and it is useless for anything else besides voting. And we have 119 million voters.
Of course, voting is mandatory in Brasil, that changes the whole perspective, but shows that it is technically possible for the US and for virtually any country.
#12 by Anthony Eden on November 2, 2004 - 11:27 am
I live in Hawaii and I had to show my ID. Keep in mind that the states do have significant control over their own voting systems and thus each state will differ.
#13 by Christian Murphy on November 2, 2004 - 11:44 am
I disagree. I don’t think it’s a mess because you don’t need to show ID when you vote. What does ID protect against? Impersonation, and I don’t see impersonation as a big threat.
#14 by sfodoug on November 2, 2004 - 11:45 am
Well, I neither think our system is perfect nor do I find it to be amazingly broken. Any system will have a margin of error, and the US is no exception.
Historically speaking, it’s unusual for the results to be within the margin of error as in the 2000 election, and I hope that we’re well outside the margin of error this year. While I definitely have a preference for who I’d like to see elected, it’s more important to me that we not repeat what happened in 2000. It was a bad precedent to set then, and it would be significantly worse if it happened again.
#15 by Ben Galbraith on November 2, 2004 - 12:12 pm
It’s very sad, but far from surprising. The American political system has been gamed for so long by so many that deep pessimism rightly permeates the entire process. (In my opinion, gerrymandering is far more insidious a practice than what you mention.) As an example of how soon the corruptive rust formed, consider that political parties, condemned by many of America’s founders for very good reasons, emerged before the nation’s second administration took office.
Challenging voters is a controversial issue, but when you have documented evidence of folks registering fictious voters, it makes good sense to have some sort of official monitor in place to prevent obvious and egregious offenses. Put a video camera on the spot with a live feed available to media outlets if people are worried about intimidation and abuses.
(By the way, did you know that according to NPR some districts require that bi-partisan election monitors stay 50 feet away from the polls? More craziness.)
As for the electoral college, its presence in the system points to a central theme of the American republic: political abstraction. America’s democratic ancestors — especially Rome — suffered from mobocracy; sophisticated populist politicians manipulating the masses into voting for policies and officials which ultimately proved destructive to society as a whole.
America has already destroyed many of these abstractions (electing Senators directly is a good example of one); we need to be quite cautious — and learn from the past — before we kill off others.
#16 by Chris on November 2, 2004 - 12:41 pm
After the 2000 election, the rules have changed slightly. If this is the first time you’ve voted since you registered you are asked for ID. They figure new voters are most likely to be fictitious.
Also, while we don’t show ID, we do have to match the address we’re registered with, our name, and they cover the signature you used to register and then have you sign. They do a comparison and if they’re close that’s good enough to say you’re really you.
Challenging a voter can obviously be abused, but it allows any party to try and satisfy themselves that there’s not any massive voting fraud going around. Whiel they can challenge your vote, they have to prove that you voted before, voted under anotehr name, your signature doesn’t match or that you didn’t know your address.
Lastly, the electoral college was meant as a means of allowing electors to switch votes in case the “ingorant masses” chose the next Hitler or a very obviously incompetent candidate – its an artifact of the Founding Fathers not fully trusting the people. It was also a means of balancing the big state/little state problem, mirroring our solution for Congress. In reality, it matched the popular vote in every election except 2000. It also tends to exaggerate the margin of victory, which many peopel believe helps the legitimacy of the winner.
Don’t attack the US voting system just because there’s things you may disagree with. If I recall correctly we’re the oldest democracy around – it seems to be working for us.
#17 by Robert Watkins on November 2, 2004 - 1:40 pm
The sad thing isn’t that you don’t need to show ID to vote. The sad thing is that you don’t need to confirm your identity to _register_ in some areas. And that the registration rolls aren’t updated automatically from other lists (such as, oh, the death register).
There was a scandal not that long ago about graveyard voters: voters who were dead but managed to exercise the franchise anyway. In some cases, they’d been dead for decades. Gotta admire that spirit.
#18 by Pierre CARION on November 2, 2004 - 1:58 pm
Here, in San Diego, people have to show an ID …
#19 by kevin down the hall on November 2, 2004 - 2:21 pm
Cedric – of all the various forms of voting fraud that can take place, I’m less concerned about impersonation than others. Why? Cost-benefit analysis. The benefit is just an extra vote here and there, nothing major. The potential cost? IT’S A FELONY. You’ll go to prison for a long time and your life forever changed. It’s not worth it… not when there are so many subtler and more devious ways to cheat.
#20 by J Yu on November 2, 2004 - 3:24 pm
it’s naive to think the mess is because of the voting system. migrate any system from any other country, this election will be as messy as it is, and even more. without trust, no system can work.
#21 by Patrick Schriner on November 2, 2004 - 4:56 pm
As a comment from germany – I was really puzzled at the european election this year, as I WAS NOT asked for an id. My voter
#22 by Alexis MP on November 2, 2004 - 5:43 pm
Not having to show ID is like optimistic locking – it’s fine the vast majority of the time and when it’s not, just do the manual check.
#23 by jolly on November 2, 2004 - 11:08 pm
I just worked all day as a poll worker today in CA. It’s a great experience and it renews my optimism for democracy in this country (though it’s a lousy way to earn $80!) Over 700 people voted all day long at my polling station and almost everyone was very civil, waiting in lines that sometimes stretched 45 minutes long. It was heartening to see people vote from all walks of life, from the 18 yr old to the elderly, from numerous ethnicities, male and female, people of various vocations voting before or after work.
In CA, you have to show an ID if you are a newly registered voter. If you are already on the rolls, you do not have to show an ID. Note that the ID you show can be anything from a driver’s license to a utility bill. You also have the *right* to cast a ballot regardless of ID. The catch is that the ballot is a “provisional” one. When in doubt, we let people cast the provisional ballot and let it be sorted out later. Yes, there’s a chance of fraud, but it’s better than having people get belligerent at polling places. People must also cast provisional ballots if they are absentee voters who don’t surrender the absentee ballots they should have already received in the mail (i.e. possibility of double-counting). I only saw one person today reject that; maybe she was fraudulent or just mad because she never got her absentee ballot in the mail. Who knows. Like I said, most people obeyed the rules, waited patiently in line, and served their civic duty as citizens.
It’s not a perfect system, but I think it’s a workable one. Even the touch-screen voting machines from Diebold performed without a hitch!
For those who don’t know, it’s also part of the rules that the precincts post their results from the electronic machines on-site tonight (a form of a paper trail). So if you go peek tomorrow at your polling station, the results from that precinct from the e-voting machines should be taped to a window or wall somewhere.
#24 by Ravi on November 3, 2004 - 1:41 am
Hey Cedric,
India is the world’s largest democracy and guess what we have voter id’s and electronic voting system !!! Oh, and we are also list as a third world/developing nation !!!
Cheers,
Ravi…
#25 by Tiago on November 3, 2004 - 2:26 am
Cool post, jolly, very insightful. It renewed my optimism too.
What makes it even more saddening, because “the masses” only believe they are choosing something, but instead they are being deceived each time they turn the TV on. But that’s another story…
#26 by Marcus Brito on November 3, 2004 - 2:43 am
It’s sad to see these kind of things from the oldest democracy around, as someone else pointed out. Here in Brazil, voting is mandatory, you need a voting registration and the elections are fully electronic — the final results are usually known 1 or 2 hours after the voting ends.
BTW, every person has a designed voting section. On voting day, you should show up at your designed section (usually a public school or some other large place) and show your voting registration — they’ll look up your name on an online database, and if you’re there, you’re allowed to vote.
Maybe I should add that Brazil was a military dictatorship less than 40 years ago. Guess we learn fast.
#27 by Robert McIntosh on November 3, 2004 - 6:38 am
As others have mentioned, this isn’t true for every state. I had to show my voter registration, my id and my signature was checked against both.
#28 by noyb on November 3, 2004 - 8:37 am
You don’t need ID in the UK either. Voter fraud never seems to be an issue so I’m guessing that ID isn’t a real worry.
In fact we don’t even have an ID document in the UK, though that could change thanks to all the anti-terrorism FUD. ID cads have always seemed a bit Orwellian to me. What value they have other than to keep some civil servants in work? They have always seemed easy to fake (otherwise we’d never hear about all the under-21 Americans with fake IDs to get alcohol) so they can’t be much good at stopping fraud, terrorists, etc. If I need to prove my identity there are a host of other ways of doing this, so what added value does it provide?
#29 by Thierry on November 3, 2004 - 10:56 am
Sorry guys, but if you think you live in a democracy (to give Rule to the People), you’re wrong: we live in an oligarchy.
Today’s a sad day.
#30 by Mohan Radhakrishnan on November 3, 2004 - 9:17 pm
In India with a over 100 billion people we managed to do it. Do what ? A voter registration process that is a farce. Thousands of eligible voters are missing. It is a gigantic exercise that is not worth it and wastes time. The american way wouldn’t work here anyway. Each voter has a spot of indelible ink on the finger to prevent from voting again. I just rolled over and laughed. What if we followed the american way ? Civil war 😉
#31 by Saint Peter on November 4, 2004 - 4:03 am
100 billion people ? Hmm. that’s about 18 times the population of Earth. Where is this India again ?
#32 by Ice on November 4, 2004 - 4:36 pm
It must depend on the state. In AR, you have to show ID before you can vote
#33 by Nathan on November 4, 2004 - 4:53 pm
There’s a lot more wrong with the US system than challengers and not showing ID.
How about:
-Hold the elections on a saturday rather than a week/workday. Who the hell decided to have it on a day when most of the population is working.
-preferential system (this way you can have your vote flow on to who you think next deserves it). That way you don’t have people “throwing their votes away” by voting for a candidate who isn’t republican or democrat.
-People involved in the overseeing of voting for a particular state who are members of one of the candidate’s family or re-election team. This is a gross conflict of interest.
-It isn’t compulsory. Having a turnout that never gets anywhere NEAR 100% is shameful. It’s one of the few responsibilities a member of a country has.. The reason people should be required to vote is that it makes it more likely that the leaders of the country are legitimately chosen by the majority of citizens. As it is, Bush is the choice of just over half of just over half of the population. If you don’t want to vote, then you turn up, sign your name and then don’t fill the vote in.
-electronic voting machines with no papertrail. Anything entirely electronic is a big mistake. At least with something physical you have a record to crosscheck it with.
-Lobbyists: what a shameful bastardisation of the democratic system! Through indirect payments, schmoozing with overseas trips etc, they have more power (on behalf of corporations) than all the voters combined.
anyhow.. that’s just a small number of things wrong.. That and the resulting situation is that it’s not really a democracy.. Unless of course you’re a big corporation and you consider throwing money around a “vote”. Nowhere in the world is perfect, but claiming “the greatest democracy in history” seems to come up quite a lot..
#34 by Creford on March 6, 2005 - 6:53 am
It’s difficult to say that which is right or wrong. I agree with Cedric and also agree with Christian Murphy: “What does ID protect against?”
A excellent post!
#35 by Clara on May 9, 2005 - 9:11 am
I have to do this paper on the SC case, Bush v. Gore, and the whole thing is so depressing. Things like this wouldn’t happen if the WHOLE Electoral Colledge thing was reformed… but then again, it’s too much work. Nobody wants to change that much, and so then this system never changes… i agree with the people that say America can’t call itself a democracy… not when 50% votes, and then THOSE votes are completely irrelevant, because the SC decides on who the president is (aka Bush v. Gore). Oh, btw, also, there were four times, enough to scream out “REFORM ME!!!” in which the president won the electoral votes but not the popular vote… now who in their right mind can call that a democracy??? WHO???
#36 by warren on February 7, 2008 - 3:49 am
The great American democracy system – what a joke. GW Bush gets 16% of the national vote and is elected President. America gets what it deserves and the rest of the world laughs. I can’t imagine any other country where a buffon like Bush can be elected as President. Come on Amercia don’t be so apatheic about voting. Compulsory voting isn’t really an invasion of one’s freedom, it has a proven track record in many countries,but then I realise most americans are apatheic especially on world matters and how the rest of the world perceives America. Thank God for our political system here in Australia. You might not like the political opposition but at least you won’t have elected a complete imbecile and a interlectually challenged President like Bush
#37 by Jennifer Snow on March 13, 2008 - 12:45 pm
I’m sorry, this isn’t a comment but a question instead. Americans seem to consider a vote over when the Pacific Time Zone polls are closed. How do they count Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, etc.? I understand absentee voting, but these voters are at home, just a long way away.