I'm sure it's a bit more complex but logistically, I can't think of any way you'd ensure this in most cases.
What we do here is we set Mail-in aside. They're only counted after the in-person election. When you vote in person, you add your signature next to your name for every ballot you accept (or your name is crossed out if you vote in another location). Either way, they know that you voted in person. Then they check the Mail-in against that.
Most American states (maybe all?) don't have a system of that kind. We have lists of eligible voters (based on the census I believe) so no registration is necessary. Since you don't keep track of that, you don't know who voted in person and can't double check the Mail-in. You could compare it to voter registrations in most regular elections but many states threw a wrench in that plan by sending ballots to everyone. And even aside for that, do any states actually mark down that you already voted in person? I haven't seen any evidence of that so far (but would love to be proven wrong). Without that, there would be no way to know that you voted in person and it defeats the entire point of what I've said so far.
Alternatively, you could put together a list of all people who voted by mail (as a friend of mine suggested), though this would require all mail-in ballots to arrive before election day (which is not going to be the case in any US state).
That's sort of what it comes down to, there's many different ways to pull off election fraud, some easier and more blatant than others. The mail-in scams and voting machines are things that everyone talks about. The issues I like to bring up are ones that nearly-nobody seems to be discussing for some reason.
Even when it comes to Voter ID, it helps mitigate some stuff but someone hell-set on subverting those systems could do it with or without Voter ID. Let's not kid ourselves, if there was a Federal Voter ID mandate, California would probably hand out free photo ID to everyone, including illegals. You need something to compare the IDs against, which would probably have to be a census that excludes illegals (here's hoping Trump has luck with that).
I just worry that many people are trying to push for Voter ID as an end-all, be-all solution to in-person fraud without realizing that Voter ID doesn't fully prevent many of the issues they're worried about.
I just worry that many people are trying to push for Voter ID as an end-all, be-all solution to in-person fraud without realizing that Voter ID doesn't fully prevent many of the issues they're worried about.
Definitely. Voter ID is only as good as the people enforcing it, anyway. Same with all election fraud safeguards.
California is already giving free IDs to illegals, I'm sorry to tell you. :(
California is already giving free IDs to illegals, I'm sorry to tell you. :(
Oh of course they are, I'm not shocked at all. At that point, I'm not sure what Voter ID on its own could do. This also gets into the argument of federal oversight over what are otherwise state-handled elections. More federal oversight is not always desirable (nor constitutional) but if a country blatantly does not give a damn like the West Coast states certainly don't, is there another option? It's why using the Census as a basis, and excluding illegals from the Census like Donald Trump wants to do, seems to be the best bet.
Our elections are all handled federally but our country is also smaller than most US states so it's far easier. We've also had this system in place since the beginning so the federal oversight is not new. As I've said, even among the most radical of idiots I haven't heard of anyone here wanting to just abolish Voter ID (though we do have some people wanting internet voting, which funnily enough would still be slightly more secure here than in America due to how our banks are already set up to work with government services such as insurance agencies).
I'm sure it's a bit more complex but logistically, I can't think of any way you'd ensure this in most cases.
What we do here is we set Mail-in aside. They're only counted after the in-person election. When you vote in person, you add your signature next to your name for every ballot you accept (or your name is crossed out if you vote in another location). Either way, they know that you voted in person. Then they check the Mail-in against that.
Most American states (maybe all?) don't have a system of that kind. We have lists of eligible voters (based on the census I believe) so no registration is necessary. Since you don't keep track of that, you don't know who voted in person and can't double check the Mail-in. You could compare it to voter registrations in most regular elections but many states threw a wrench in that plan by sending ballots to everyone. And even aside for that, do any states actually mark down that you already voted in person? I haven't seen any evidence of that so far (but would love to be proven wrong). Without that, there would be no way to know that you voted in person and it defeats the entire point of what I've said so far.
Alternatively, you could put together a list of all people who voted by mail (as a friend of mine suggested), though this would require all mail-in ballots to arrive before election day (which is not going to be the case in any US state).
In FL I believe mail-in votes are being counted as they are received.
No way around fraud as I see it, if unsolicited ballots are being mailed out.
I don't know the answers to all these questions. I hope someone does.
That's sort of what it comes down to, there's many different ways to pull off election fraud, some easier and more blatant than others. The mail-in scams and voting machines are things that everyone talks about. The issues I like to bring up are ones that nearly-nobody seems to be discussing for some reason.
Even when it comes to Voter ID, it helps mitigate some stuff but someone hell-set on subverting those systems could do it with or without Voter ID. Let's not kid ourselves, if there was a Federal Voter ID mandate, California would probably hand out free photo ID to everyone, including illegals. You need something to compare the IDs against, which would probably have to be a census that excludes illegals (here's hoping Trump has luck with that).
I just worry that many people are trying to push for Voter ID as an end-all, be-all solution to in-person fraud without realizing that Voter ID doesn't fully prevent many of the issues they're worried about.
Definitely. Voter ID is only as good as the people enforcing it, anyway. Same with all election fraud safeguards.
California is already giving free IDs to illegals, I'm sorry to tell you. :(
Oh of course they are, I'm not shocked at all. At that point, I'm not sure what Voter ID on its own could do. This also gets into the argument of federal oversight over what are otherwise state-handled elections. More federal oversight is not always desirable (nor constitutional) but if a country blatantly does not give a damn like the West Coast states certainly don't, is there another option? It's why using the Census as a basis, and excluding illegals from the Census like Donald Trump wants to do, seems to be the best bet.
Our elections are all handled federally but our country is also smaller than most US states so it's far easier. We've also had this system in place since the beginning so the federal oversight is not new. As I've said, even among the most radical of idiots I haven't heard of anyone here wanting to just abolish Voter ID (though we do have some people wanting internet voting, which funnily enough would still be slightly more secure here than in America due to how our banks are already set up to work with government services such as insurance agencies).