Survey Says One of the big stories from last week’s election was long lines for the polls. It got really ugly in some places. In Fairfax County, Virginia, some voters had to wait on line until 10:30 at night to vote. In Miami, lines lasted as long as seven hours. Some voters in Florida cast their ballots for President after Mitt Romney began his concession speech. In Ohio, long lines plagued many voting districts. The good news: people are fed up with it. A post-election survey conducted by the MacArthur Foundation found that 88 percent of Americans who voted last week support national voting standards, including polling hours and ballot design. Another interesting outcome from the poll: more people are concerned about legitimate voters being turned away from the polls than are concerned about ineligible voters. (“Voters surveyed are more likely to express concern about “eligible voters being denied the opportunity to vote” (64 percent) than about “ineligible voters getting to vote (36 percent).”) Maybe, just maybe, we’ll finally see momentum toward dealing with the problem. In fact, just today one Senator introduced legislation to create a federal grant program for states to improve their election administration. I think we’ll be seeing more on this in the coming months. Also…to just try to wrap the long line story in a few more facts… Anecdotal stories aren’t necessarily the best way to gauge the extent of a problem. In fact, most American voters probably did not have intolerable waits. There’s actually some data about this from the 2008 election.  86 percent of voters waited 30 minutes or less to vote. 9 percent waited 30 to 60 minutes 5 percent waited more than an hour. It’s worth noting that 5 percent of the electorate in 2008 means more than 6 million people.  The problem was worse for African-American voters. Twenty-seven percent of African Americans reported long waits to vote compared with 11 percent of whites. It will be interesting to see what the 2012 survey results are…. FYI Photo is of voters waiting in line in Clarendon, Virginia, in 1924. You can see many of the voters holding posters supporting Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis. He lost to Calvin Coolidge…which of course brings to mind Dorothy Parker’s famous quip about him when told he had died: “How could they tell?” Image Source: Library of Congress
View Separately

Survey Says

One of the big stories from last week’s election was long lines for the polls. It got really ugly in some places. In Fairfax County, Virginia, some voters had to wait on line until 10:30 at night to vote. In Miami, lines lasted as long as seven hours. Some voters in Florida cast their ballots for President after Mitt Romney began his concession speech. In Ohio, long lines plagued many voting districts.

The good news: people are fed up with it. A post-election survey conducted by the MacArthur Foundation found that 88 percent of Americans who voted last week support national voting standards, including polling hours and ballot design.

Another interesting outcome from the poll: more people are concerned about legitimate voters being turned away from the polls than are concerned about ineligible voters. (“Voters surveyed are more likely to express concern about “eligible voters being denied the opportunity to vote” (64 percent) than about “ineligible voters getting to vote (36 percent).”)

Maybe, just maybe, we’ll finally see momentum toward dealing with the problem. In fact, just today one Senator introduced legislation to create a federal grant program for states to improve their election administration. I think we’ll be seeing more on this in the coming months.

Also…to just try to wrap the long line story in a few more facts… Anecdotal stories aren’t necessarily the best way to gauge the extent of a problem. In fact, most American voters probably did not have intolerable waits. There’s actually some data about this from the 2008 election. 

  • 86 percent of voters waited 30 minutes or less to vote.
  • 9 percent waited 30 to 60 minutes
  • 5 percent waited more than an hour.

It’s worth noting that 5 percent of the electorate in 2008 means more than 6 million people. 

The problem was worse for African-American voters. Twenty-seven percent of African Americans reported long waits to vote compared with 11 percent of whites.

It will be interesting to see what the 2012 survey results are….

FYI Photo is of voters waiting in line in Clarendon, Virginia, in 1924. You can see many of the voters holding posters supporting Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis. He lost to Calvin Coolidge…which of course brings to mind Dorothy Parker’s famous quip about him when told he had died: “How could they tell?”

Image Source: Library of Congress

There’s no such thing as voting by phone.

Scams like this proliferate in the final weeks before an election. We see everything from flyers promoting the wrong day for the election or threatening that people with unpaid bills will get caught at the polls to billboards warning of voter fraud. There’s no end to the  imagination and creativity brought to bear by some people who want to suppress the vote. 

The wonderful group Fair Elections Legal Network is all over a lot of these scams, including this latest “vote by phone” fraud.

Issue One: Voter Registration (Part of the 9 Issues, 45 Days Series) We do it differently here in the U.S. and not necessarily for the better.  I’m reprinting here in full the Op Ed I did in the Washington Post… Easing the burden of voter registration This month, Ferenc Gyurcsány, the former prime minister of Hungary, and three other members of his political party set up tents in front of the parliament building in Budapest and embarked on a week-long hunger strike. They ended it with a rally before thousands of their compatriots — all to protest a proposed law that requires Hungarians to register before voting in the upcoming election. Why so much passionate resistance to registering 15 days before the election? One ally of the protesters went so far as to say that they were doing it “to call the attention of the people to how the government is bringing down democracy.” Gyurcsány said that he believes “it is unacceptable that anyone who happens to decide two days before an election that he wants to vote cannot do so and take part in the election.” Americans have been registering to vote since the late 19th century and don’t see it as incompatible with democracy. Notably, though, North Dakotans don’t have to register to vote. They can just show up on Election Day. But if most other Americans are not registered by Oct. 9, they will be shut out from voting in this year’s presidential election. (There are exceptions in several states, such as Maine, that allow Election Day registration.) Americans by now are accustomed to the burdens of voter registration: find out how to register; fill out the paperwork; hope to see your name on the rolls when you show up at the polls. But to most people throughout the world, the U.S. system is mystifying. Other governments systematically create eligible voter lists, enabling the vast majority of their adult population to vote. And the governments affirmatively maintain the rolls. In the United States, we put the burden on the voter. And in doing so, we keep company with nations such as the Bahamas, Belize and Burundi. Today, Hungarians do not have to register to vote, and the proposal to impose registration by their current far-right prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has drawn sharp opposition. It is seen as a form of voter suppression that is part of a larger anti-democratic platform, which includes the law Orbán backed in 2010 that creates a government media oversight council; critics said it amounted to censorship. No one in the United States would say that voter registration is anti-democratic. Yet many political and social scientists believe that our country’s practice of putting the registration burden on individuals, coupled with outmoded, paper-intense registration systems, are major causes of the United States’ perennially low voter turnout. One study estimated that voter registration barriers in the United States depress turnout by 5 to 10 percent. For the last 60 years, presidential election turnout has rarely hit 60 percent of the voting eligible population. In local elections — for mayor or even governor — turnout routinely falls well below 40 percent. These turnout percentages put the United States almost at the end of the line worldwide for election participation. Despite these sobering numbers, however, some state legislatures have passed laws in recent years that make voter registration drives even more difficult — and fraught with financial and legal peril. Florida recently passed restrictive laws with such severe penalties for potential missteps during the registration process that the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote all but abandoned their registration efforts. (The groups sued and ultimately won, allowing them safely to resume registering Florida voters.) We can do better. To start, we could look to the north, to Canada, or to the south, to Mexico, for examples. In Canada, election officials gather information on citizens from other data sources (for example, tax rolls) and create a continuously updated, comprehensive list of voters. Almost 93 percent of eligible Canadian voters are automatically put on its voter rolls. The ones who don’t make it on can register on Election Day. In Mexico, where voters do have an obligation to register themselves, the government runs what it calls a Permanent Updating Campaign, where it proactively finds and encourages registration, and it deploys mobile registration units to rural and remote parts of the nation to get people registered. It even gave young people gift bags in 2008 to encourage registration. Mexico’s registration rate is above 90 percent. Here in the United States, our voter registration rate is somewhere between 66 and 75 percent. But no one is going on a hunger strike over that. Instead, we’re passing laws making it harder to launch registration drives and purging our voter rolls. After Gyurcsány recovers from his week-long starvation diet, maybe he’ll come visit America. Or for the sake of his health, maybe he shouldn’t. Image Source: UNC Chapel Hill
View Separately

Issue One: Voter Registration

(Part of the 9 Issues, 45 Days Series)

We do it differently here in the U.S. and not necessarily for the better. 

I’m reprinting here in full the Op Ed I did in the Washington Post…

Easing the burden of voter registration


This month, Ferenc Gyurcsány, the former prime minister of Hungary, and three other members of his political party set up tents in front of the parliament building in Budapest and embarked on a week-long hunger strike. They ended it with a rally before thousands of their compatriots — all to protest a proposed law that requires Hungarians to register before voting in the upcoming election.

Why so much passionate resistance to registering 15 days before the election?

One ally of the protesters went so far as to say that they were doing it “to call the attention of the people to how the government is bringing down democracy.” Gyurcsány said that he believes “it is unacceptable that anyone who happens to decide two days before an election that he wants to vote cannot do so and take part in the election.”

Americans have been registering to vote since the late 19th century and don’t see it as incompatible with democracy. Notably, though, North Dakotans don’t have to register to vote. They can just show up on Election Day. But if most other Americans are not registered by Oct. 9, they will be shut out from voting in this year’s presidential election. (There are exceptions in several states, such as Maine, that allow Election Day registration.)

Americans by now are accustomed to the burdens of voter registration: find out how to register; fill out the paperwork; hope to see your name on the rolls when you show up at the polls. But to most people throughout the world, the U.S. system is mystifying. Other governments systematically create eligible voter lists, enabling the vast majority of their adult population to vote. And the governments affirmatively maintain the rolls.

In the United States, we put the burden on the voter. And in doing so, we keep company with nations such as the Bahamas, Belize and Burundi.

Today, Hungarians do not have to register to vote, and the proposal to impose registration by their current far-right prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has drawn sharp opposition. It is seen as a form of voter suppression that is part of a larger anti-democratic platform, which includes the law Orbán backed in 2010 that creates a government media oversight council; critics said it amounted to censorship.

No one in the United States would say that voter registration is anti-democratic. Yet many political and social scientists believe that our country’s practice of putting the registration burden on individuals, coupled with outmoded, paper-intense registration systems, are major causes of the United States’ perennially low voter turnout. One study estimated that voter registration barriers in the United States depress turnout by 5 to 10 percent.

For the last 60 years, presidential election turnout has rarely hit 60 percent of the voting eligible population. In local elections — for mayor or even governor — turnout routinely falls well below 40 percent. These turnout percentages put the United States almost at the end of the line worldwide for election participation.

Despite these sobering numbers, however, some state legislatures have passed laws in recent years that make voter registration drives even more difficult — and fraught with financial and legal peril. Florida recently passed restrictive laws with such severe penalties for potential missteps during the registration process that the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote all but abandoned their registration efforts. (The groups sued and ultimately won, allowing them safely to resume registering Florida voters.)

We can do better. To start, we could look to the north, to Canada, or to the south, to Mexico, for examples. In Canada, election officials gather information on citizens from other data sources (for example, tax rolls) and create a continuously updated, comprehensive list of voters. Almost 93 percent of eligible Canadian voters are automatically put on its voter rolls. The ones who don’t make it on can register on Election Day.

In Mexico, where voters do have an obligation to register themselves, the government runs what it calls a Permanent Updating Campaign, where it proactively finds and encourages registration, and it deploys mobile registration units to rural and remote parts of the nation to get people registered. It even gave young people gift bags in 2008 to encourage registration. Mexico’s registration rate is above 90 percent.

Here in the United States, our voter registration rate is somewhere between 66 and 75 percent. But no one is going on a hunger strike over that. Instead, we’re passing laws making it harder to launch registration drives and purging our voter rolls. After Gyurcsány recovers from his week-long starvation diet, maybe he’ll come visit America. Or for the sake of his health, maybe he shouldn’t.

Image Source: UNC Chapel Hill

Pennsylvania Voter ID Ad

I didn’t post this when it first came out because I wanted to find a place of Zen before talking about it. 

But you know I can’t. Every time I watch it steam starts coming out of my ears. Voters, citizens are a democracy’s most precious natural resource. And this ad treats them like potential criminals or like lazy shits if they can’t get ID.

Seriously, our election system and our government are here to serve us, not the other way around. But this ad reeks of loyalty pledges and red scare tactics, neatly tailored and with production values for the early twenty-first century.

Did I mention I can’t find a place of Zen about this ad? So relieved the Pennsylvania judge enjoined implementation of the law for this election.

(via tpmtv)

Source: youtube.com

A judge postponed Pennsylvania’s controversial voter identification requirement on Tuesday, ordering the state not to enforce it in this year’s presidential election but allowing it to go into full effect next year.

The good news: not in effect this year.

The bad news: it’s constitutional and will take effect later on?

I haven’t read the decision yet so more to come on this, but a few initial thoughts.

First, Pennsylvania had been doing a confusing and probably bad job trying to help people get ID (and thus keep their ability to vote). So this is a sensible decision. A friend of mine’s mother had been taking people to PennDOT centers to help people get ID and reported long lines and confusion. Other reports really show what a mess it has been, taking up to twenty hours of effort, multiple trips and a lot of paperwork to get ID.  

Pennsylvania kept changing the rules to make it easier and easier to get ID. Eventually the only requirement to get an ID was that the prospective voter show up, provide name, DOB, social security number and address. No documentation required apparently. I guess that was an admirable instinct even if it did sort of run counter to the spirit of the law. 

Second, why oh why is Pennsylvania doing this at all? The state is spending millions on this. It produced a reprehensible video supporting the law and backed it with a  $1.3 million media spend. Lord know how much the state is spending in legal fees and to keep PennDOT facilities open. 

All this to implement a requirement to prevent a form of voter fraud that Pennsylvania says has never happened in state. 

This may not really be a voting rights issue as much as it should be a wasteful government spending issue. (Though it is a voting rights issue, ok.)

Third, doesn’t it strike everyone as a good idea to delay implementation of massive new voting requirements until after presidential elections. Or let me put it another way, doesn’t it seem suspicious when legislatures vote on a strictly partisan basis to implement massive new voting requirements six months before a presidential election? 

I’m no fan of these laws, but at least when Alabama passed its version of the law, it delayed implementation until 2014—because, duh, it knew that there would be litigation and that it might take some time and thought to implement properly.

Ok. Off to read the decision.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Ruling: Judge Halts Enforcement Of Law For Election

Source: The Huffington Post

Monday’s Historical Image This is a great looking presidential election board game from the late nineteenth century. The side medallions feature images of the first twenty-two presidents.   I have no idea what the rules of the game were then and am really curious if we were constructing a game today what the rules might be. Image Source: New York Historical Society
Pop-upView Separately

Monday’s Historical Image

This is a great looking presidential election board game from the late nineteenth century. The side medallions feature images of the first twenty-two presidents.  

I have no idea what the rules of the game were then and am really curious if we were constructing a game today what the rules might be.

Image Source: New York Historical Society

Source: nyhistory.org