Same-day voter registration

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Good or bad?

I say good. We have it in Minnesota, and it's fine.

[Speed of Sound]

Sounds like an alright plan to me.

[MODU]

"Bad" is not the word I would use.  "EXTREMELY TERRIBLE" is more like it.  There is no excuse for people who have lived in the state long enough to place residency to not be signed up 30 days in advance of the election.  If people are not signed up by then, then they forfeit their right to vote for that years election.  This way, the state has enough time to verify the voter information to make sure he/she is not using someone else's identity in order to commit voter fraud.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Don't move to Minnesota then.

Last election my precinct had almost 200% turnout. Almost twice as many people voted as were registered at that precinct when the voting started.

[MODU]

Don't move to Minnesota then.

Last election my precinct had almost 200% turnout. Almost twice as many people voted as were registered at that precinct when the voting started.

Which is exactly why same-day registration is a terrible concept.

[MaC]

A great idea to bring about more democracy and make elections more unpredictable.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

"Bad" is not the word I would use.  "EXTREMELY TERRIBLE" is more like it.  There is no excuse for people who have lived in the state long enough to place residency to not be signed up 30 days in advance of the election.  If people are not signed up by then, then they forfeit their right to vote for that years election.  This way, the state has enough time to verify the voter information to make sure he/she is not using someone else's identity in order to commit voter fraud.

^^^^^^^^

[© tweed]

Beyond Good

[angus]

Good or bad?

I say good. We have it in Minnesota, and it's fine.

This came up as a binding statewide voter referendum in California about four years ago.  It was called Proposition 52 in November 2002 I think.  I voted against it, along with a majority of californians.  About sixty percent as I recall.  Bad idea.

[J. J.]

Exceptionally bad.  You would almost never have an election that couldn't be challenged.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Bad, it allows Democrats to register homeless dirtbags and have them vote same day.

[Alcon]

Don't move to Minnesota then.

Last election my precinct had almost 200% turnout. Almost twice as many people voted as were registered at that precinct when the voting started.

Why is this a good thing?

[Rin-chan]

"Bad" is not the word I would use.  "EXTREMELY TERRIBLE" is more like it.  There is no excuse for people who have lived in the state long enough to place residency to not be signed up 30 days in advance of the election.  If people are not signed up by then, then they forfeit their right to vote for that years election.  This way, the state has enough time to verify the voter information to make sure he/she is not using someone else's identity in order to commit voter fraud.

Exactly my opinion.

Rin-chan

[ilikeverin]

Exceptionally bad.  You would almost never have an election that couldn't be challenged.

Yup, our number of challenged elections in Minnesota has been astounding.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's an open invitation for fraud. If we had it in (say) Birmingham or Tower Hamlets, I'd dread to think what'd happen...

[2952-0-0]

In Canada all elections have this option, and no one complains. Just show up in the correct voting station, show two pieces of government ID with your name, address and picture on it, and you're allowed in.

[MasterJedi]

Horriblely bad.

This is what Wisconsin has and it gave Kerry a couple hundred fraud votes in Milwaukee. They checked out addresses and they weren't there. It's open to too much fraud with this kind of system.

[The Dowager Mod]

Great idea.

[Alcon]

Great idea.

I'd like to hear your take on this, as a resident of one of the states with SDVR.  What's your response to the proven fact that it does, in fact, result in some voter fraud?

[dazzleman]

I think it's a bad idea.  People should be required to register enough in advance of the election to be sure that their registration is valid and not fraudulent.  Those who favor same-day registration are simply looking to make it harder to root out voter fraud because they think that voter fraud will favor their side.

[© tweed]

Those who favor same-day registration are simply looking to make it harder to root out voter fraud because they think that voter fraud will favor their side.

No, not quite.

[Jake]

An absolute joke if you care at all about the integrity of your elections.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Exceptionally bad.  You would almost never have an election that couldn't be challenged.

When's the last time an election in Minnesota was challenged?

Don't move to Minnesota then.

Last election my precinct had almost 200% turnout. Almost twice as many people voted as were registered at that precinct when the voting started.

Why is this a good thing?

High turnout is always a good thing.

In fact, while I haven't been able to find the exact figures, my government professor last semester claimed that Blue Earth County is the county that last election had the single highest turnout in the nation. It seems believable, since it's probably the county with the highest percentage of a college population in a state with same day registration.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK, I found out the stats. Blue Earth county had 122.79% turnout in 2004.

There was 33,333 (yes, that's the exact number) ballots cast in a county with 57,409 residents.

I also found out through Google that turnout was so high that they had to have new ballots printed during election day.

[Alcon]

Wait a moment.  Were these turn-out statistics based on voter registration before that day, or including the same-day registrations?