When I first registered in Texas, they told me that something didn’t match the details with Social Security and that they couldn’t process my registration. Unfortunately, they never told me exactly what didn’t match. After chasing Social Security and the county multiple times, I eventually figured out that someone had put an extra space in my middle name. The staff processing my request were very helpful, but unfortunately, they didn’t even know what exactly was not matching.
It’s really unfortunate that you have the burden of proving that your information is correct. It took me about 6/7 weeks to complete the entire process.
They also mail you a voter registration card (which itself isn’t useful anywhere), and if, for any reason, it doesn’t reach you, your name will be suspended from the list.
The whole process feels like it’s designed to discourage people from voting.
When corporations use similar tactics we call them “dark patterns”. Unfortunately, the only weapon we the people have against these tactics is regulation. But when it’s the government doing these things… anyway. Hope the Democratic Party has learned that conservative leadership won’t evolve their platform, they’ll reject democracy.
"The only weapon we the people have against these tactics is regulation"
That's not true. If it's a company doing it, you have the choice to not be a customer of the company. Don't give them any of your money if you don't like how they do business.
The same can't be said of government. If you don't give your money, in the form of taxes, you go to jail.
> The whole process feels like it’s designed to discourage people from voting.
Possible, but I doubt it. I've worked on the systems that do things like ID correlation/verification on the backend. They're ... imagine the most broken possible implementation you've ever worked on, then imagine it worse, then imagine that it's maintained by entirely different contractors than the ones that built it, with minimal incentive for improvement.
That's most of government IT implementations, and has been for decades.
Even when specific systems in this area are implemented well, the regulatory/bureaucratic complexity of the government prevents them from being more than marginally useful at best. I expanded more on some of the concerns/issues in this area in an adjacent comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49832393
Maybe that's the designed part? I mean, in lots of more "modern" countries (for the lack of better word), voting is basically showing up, presenting ID, then you can check for the results online yourself to see it registered properly, then that's it.
To me the whole system with voter registration and all other jazz, seems designed to indeed discourage people from voting. Why wouldn't you want it to be efficient and simple otherwise?
The system is designed to rely on fundamentally-flawed things like ID correlation and verification. Broken implementations were the desired outcome, because the constant doubt allows for things like disenfranchising people via voter roll purging.
That's only possible in countries with completely broken citizen IDs (like the US and the UK). Of course correlation is messy and broken and it's not used in other countries. It's also intentional because every attempt at fixing gets stopped or even backtracked.
In other countries citizens have IDs, and the ID can be sometimes wrong (ask me how I know, although that was back in the paper era) and that's the one thing that needs to be fixed. Once the ID is correct, everything works, because that's the single source of truth after that.
> The whole process feels like it’s designed to discourage people from voting.
It is, with specific emphasis on discouraging people in cities from voting. The state has done all sorts of fuckery to limit the ability of people in urban centers from having any voice in government. Some of the most incredible gerrymanders in the country, limits on voting locations and times imposed specifically on large cities, many small frictions to make voting more time-consuming and expensive.
It's why they can get away with naked corruption and bumbling incompetence and still retain a firm hold on power. Well, that, and copious oil billionaire money flowing to Texas elections.
the entire concept of "voter registration" (and associated shenanigans) is so alien to my European brain that I fail to see any reason why the richest country in the world does things this way other than voter suppression. What am I missing?
It's a distinct blue/red state issue. Blue states go out of their way to register as many of their residents as possible and allow same day registration.
The red states, Republicans use it as a tool to reduce participation of urban, non-white voters and reduce overall participation. They don't consider systematic, passive voter suppression techniques to be voter fraud.
Outside of the US spectrum, there are countries that require all citizens to vote or face fines (Peru for example). I find this interesting, because it's so out of sample compared to the typical political fights within the US about voter registration.
I'm not sure it's strictly red state/blue state. I've live in Massachusetts and Minnesota for a while, where they made it very easy to vote so that tracks.
However, now I live in New York, where they seem to go out of their way to make it difficult. The registration cutoff is several weeks before the election and for at least one election, I found myself wrongfully expunged from the voter roles.
I think it may just be how corrupt the state government is.
It's the price paid for not having a general population register. You only need to enroll to vote if you want to vote, and the voter registration is (theoretically) only for that purpose and won't be used for other purposes. Every government interaction in the anglosphere works this way; you always have to reprove your id and address from scratch.
More specifically, it pretends it doesn't have a general population register. In reality there is a nearly 1:1 match between citizens and SSNs, but everyone just pretends it doesn't exist for political reasons. The fact that the USA was ever able to do a draft is another obvious counterexample.
The European population registers are as bad as voter registration btw and as manipulated. I'm currently not registered (which is illegal) as I've been purged from the population register and due to similar bureaucratic excuses, can't re-register. Fortunately it's usually irrelevant, but I have no doubt some government department is bending statistics in its favor by excluding a group of people that includes me.
American Democracy started from a place of very strict voter requirements (white, male, adult, landowner) and is trending towards fewer voter requirements.
The registration process is mostly a legacy system to ensure only qualified individuals vote, left over from a time when the bar was much higher.
Pretty sure countries in Europe have voter registration too? Here's a page to register in France. [1]
The US was organized around a very limited federal government (this has changed over time). Each state is responsible for elections within the state. There's no exact national registry of citizens, although Social Security keeps a de facto registry as most citizens are enumerated by that administration and their records include citizenship indication. Strictly speaking, registration with social security is not mandatory, it is required for employees and a child must be registered to qualify for tax credits and it makes administrative tasks simpler.
Within each state, voting is typically administered by county (or similar level) offices; although I think many states have a state wide process to register.
A given voter will vote for many positions (and often some propositions), and electoral boundaries for positions don't necessarily align with anything else or each other. So there's a lot of complexity there.
The residence address of the voter is the important thing that decides which elections they can participate in, but since there is no real registry of residence (de facto or de jure), it needs to be collected seperately.
Since the motor voter bills in the 90s. Most US states handle voter registration via the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). When you apply for your license or renew you tick the box and it automatically registers you.
The drivers license database is the defaco registry of where you live and most states require you to update your address within 2 weeks of moving (although enforcement is loose). There is a state identification card for those who don't drive that fulfills the same purpose as a drivers license.
Since RealID states now have to check immigration status if you request a RealID license (some states will issue non-RealID drivers licenses to the undocumented). There is a further Enhanced ID check that some states do that will indicate that you are a US citizen on the license. RealID and non RealID licenses are clearly marked.
Basically true voter fraud is largely a non issue because the States generally have their systems together. Voter suppression, which is the goal of most of the voting related legislation of the last 20 years, is however rampant.
Being "the richest country in the world", sharing a land border with a much poorer country, has resulted in a population of people who are legally not allowed to reside in the country (whatever you want to call them according to your political affiliation; one side uses a term rooted in their legal status, while the other side uses a term intended to suggest that their inability to produce evidence of legal residence might be for some other benign reason) that is well into seven figures by all credible estimates.
Such people are, of course, not supposed to be allowed to vote in federal elections (18 U.S.C. § 611 , but also just common sense). Voter registration represents one way to detect if someone who has illegally entered the country (and it is common knowledge that one of the two major parties treats such individuals far more favourably than the other) is trying to vote.
It's also, as you were told, seen in France and possibly other European countries; and here in Canada as well — in all these cases, despite the lack of the above problem. It seems to me like an entirely normal thing and I can't really fathom why people would object to it so strenuously. Not everyone is allowed to vote (generally children are not; incarcerated criminals are not in many countries other than the US, including Mexico, Japan and the UK, as well as Australia and NZ on longer sentences; again there is the matter of illegal immigration; in fact, a quick check indicates that non-citizen legal immigrants are not allowed to vote federally hardly anywhere); given the importance of the vote, why would you not want these simple procedures to ensure that voting is done only by those allowed to?
my country (Italy) is also full of immigrants, but it's not a huge problem.
Once I turned 18 I was automatically enrolled in the voting registries, as was everybody else once they got the requirements (18 years, citizenship, no pending penal law issues, etc). While there have been small scale issues, I've never heard of tens of thousands of people purged erroneously from the registries (while it is a regular occurrence in the USA), and no one I know has ever had to do something to be eligible to vote once they had the requirements. I'm sure it happens that people for whatever reason are not automatically registered, but it's not a common occurrence at all.
> given the importance of the vote, why would you not want these simple procedures to ensure that voting is done only by those allowed to
because these simple procedures are not necessary to achieve that objective
The model was conceived when there were wide plain, few people and traveling messaging results took days to weeks. And it was never adapted. I'd say most of European voting was with shorter distances, higher population density and newer technology.
It's not mandatory in the UK, but it's pretty frictionless. The only downside is that the data is sold commercially.
Conservatives attempted to copy the US voter ID requirements, but without realizing that the underlying demographic distribution of ID is different, and besides you can just postal vote anyway.
You aren't missing anything, it's almost all about voter suppression, and a lot of that is about racism.
And it isn't even a secret. You can find quotes where politicians talk openly about it. I'm trying to be neutral here but when I say "politicians" I mean within one party.
Since my previous iteration of the comment was completely illegitimately flagged, here it is again:
> I read your Fox News article. It does not even remotely establish anything like "talking openly" about "racism". In fact, it explicitly portrays the "politicians" in question advocating for "a proof of citizenship mandate for the voter registration process, and a nationwide photo ID rule to cast a ballot", and describing these as "really commonsense provisions", which they would be in countries that didn't form as an amalgamation of existing states (provinces, cantons, whatever you want to call them). All the arguments I've heard against this bill have been absurd, for example a canard about women supposedly not being able to prove their (entirely optional) name change when they get married.
This is a completely reasonable argument to make and it is completely unreasonable to try to suppress it, even if you disagree. If you believe there is something in the Fox News article that supports your claim, feel free to quote it. If "you can find" these quotes, show me some. Like, from within the last few years, not from the Goldwater era, please.
Do you live in one of the European countries that has a registry of all citizens? At some point, the government needs to have some notion of who you are. The US has no central registry, so it gets pushed out to the periphery like this.
The Federal government has several central registries. The social security database for example knows which socials belong to citizens and which do not. The IRS database another as are the passport and visa databases.
The problem is that they aren't interconnected in any meaningful way by design so the bulk of the work gets pushed onto states. Real ID forced a lot of the states to get their act together but it's still a bit of a goat rodeo in places.
Do you speak for all of Europe? Or do different countries in Europe have different approaches to voting? What you are missing is that this is similar to the US in that we have fifty different States each of which handle voting their own way. There is no singular answer at the federal level, though some people are trying to push in that direction.
Correct. In my country anyone is able to audit the process, and the only case of fraud was an instance of "granny farming" for local municipality elections - which after a full redo resulted in... exactly the same outcome.
Stopping voter fraud really isn't that difficult. Just don't over-complicate it with silly things like electronic voting machines or mass mail-in voting and there's not a lot that can go wrong.
Yes. Just like there is basically zero fraud in America. This isn't a problem. It is only for the dumbest people who believe Trump that 'millions of illegal immigrants voted' yet they haven't produced a single bit of evidence to prove it, but I'm sure it's real.
There’s a rich history of voter suppression tactics in the US. Naïve conservatives refuse to see the straight line from poll taxes to voter registration deadlines. Anti-democratic conservatives take great joy in continuing the racist and classist traditions of their forefathers (both by blood and by tradition), and you’ll find such characters packed in the state governments in the South.
> Naïve conservatives refuse to see the straight line from poll taxes to voter registration deadlines.
There is no such line. Of course the state and the people should be clear on who is and is not legally entitled to vote, in advance of actual voting. How could it be otherwise?
Surely the government already knows who is a citizen (otherwise it would not be able to stop noncitizens from registering), so surely it would be trivial for the government to use this list of citizens to send out ballots?
Citizen baby is born? Add them to the list of citizens. Citizen dies? Remove them from the list of citizens. Citizen moves? Have them inform their new municipality about their change of address - which they'll probably need to do anyways for tax and mail reasons.
Thats not how it works. You usually have a few places you can vote in, and there is a list of names that are checked, then you vote.
Its not like immigrant X from country Y can vote willy nilly.
This is not rocked science. Every citizen is automatically allowed to vote, and IF you cant vote where you are supposed to you can handle this case specially.
See, and here I thought that a democracy meant that everyone would get a vote!
So who gets to determine what counts as "some effort"? Is putting voter registration behind a Rube Goldberg machine enough, or should we go for an IQ test? How about sitting in a room for 72 consecutive hours before being able to cast your vote? Should we perhaps "grandfather in" people who have already proven to be trustworthy as well?
Voting is a fundamental human right. If politicians can make rules deciding who gets to vote, then those politicians will disenfranchise people voting for their opponents. The only solution is to make sure everyone can vote - including the "undesirables" like dumb people and prisoners.
Obvious example: you spelled "ought" wrong, this means that according to my arbitrary rules passed by a democratically-elected government you are not smart enough to vote. And no, you can't change the rules: you'd first have to elect a different government, which you can't do because you can't vote.
I posted an older article because I wanted the focus to be on the online registration system. According to a newer article, the number is easily in the tens of thousands [1].
Oregon auto atically registers you to vote when you get a license/ID, and has a pretty reliable mail in voting system. Other states interested in their constituents should do the same
They are really persistent, but it might still not be enough to prevent the democratic candidate from becoming senator, since the republican one is so odious that plenty of reliable republican voters are signalling their intent to vote for the democrat as a come-to-jesus message to their own party.
So - we found a bug, are fixing it, and it will cause an extra load on the people sorting through the backlog. Seems like a system working as it should. Bugs happen, and it is this kind of situation which makes me glad individual states manage their own voting systems - a problem in one doesn’t impact everyone.
As a TX resident possibly affected by this, I for one am grateful for my neighbors at the local election office working hard to get this resolved.
It punishes large counties, who'll have to pay overtime or hire new employees to help with the sudden backlog, or risk leaving people in the county disenfranchised. Punishing cities is part of the Republican agenda. Whether this one is incompetence (seems likely) or intentional manipulation remains to be seen. But, it is certainly convenient for Republicans that it is most costly, and most likely disruptive, for the cities that don't vote for Republicans. Somehow, Travis and Harris counties, in particular, are always having to jump through extra hoops to make sure their voters are able to vote. And, sometimes, the things they'd like to do to make it easier to vote are outlawed by the state (e.g. Harris county, specifically, has limits on the number of ballot drop-off locations they can have, imposed by the state).
And, what would have happened had journalist not discovered it a couple of months before the election? Would those registrations have just been lost until after?
> Whether this one is incompetence (seems likely) or intentional manipulation
And that's the issue right? All your points on what could have happened are good points - but this really does seem like the kind of bug that shows up even in systems implemented by competent people. As the most likely interpretation, I'll give my neighbors the benefit of the doubt. If we can't trust our neighbors to (mostly) do the right thing, but suspect foul play for every hiccup, then our republic really does have a problem.
If we had evidence that it _was_ intentional sabotage, well then - this situation would look rather different. Probably worse than picante sauce from New York City [1].
It's a spectrum, not a binary. We're really far from the "packing bags and leaving the country" end where you're a slave to the state. America is nothing like an Iran or China where we have no power and no rights to overturn the state.
Let's see if any of these petty games helps Trump with midterms. I highly doubt it. Kalshi is already calling it a double win for Democrats.
The economic impact of the Iran War looks like it really cost Trump everything. And it's funny because he always campaigned on not getting into wars.
China doesn't seem that bad in most respects either. Only in freedom of speech, and resulting internet censorship, but in quality of life and in productivity they seem to be thoroughly pwning the USA.
> Kalshi is already calling it a double win for Democrats.
It's quite common for Kalshi bets to go from <1% to 100% chance in minutes when news breaks. "Prediction markets" is almost Orwellian in its inaccuracy.
> We're really far from the packing bags and leaving the country end.
Some of my American friends in Canada have taken in American friends who left so quick they didn't have a long-term place to land yet. Whether you have packed your bags and left, that depends who you are. It's not a flood, but an exodus has begun amongst those whose lives have been disrupted: academics, trans, queer, etc
The judge's decision was not a free speech argument, but a due process one. Rights were taken away without warning, or opportunity to argue or appeal. That sounds like arbitrary executive rule.
I was always taught that the executive branch enforces the law, not interprets it. If the executive branch or legislative branches disagree with the judicial branch, then they have the responsibility to appeal or deal with it; they can't just ignore it because they disagree.
When I first registered in Texas, they told me that something didn’t match the details with Social Security and that they couldn’t process my registration. Unfortunately, they never told me exactly what didn’t match. After chasing Social Security and the county multiple times, I eventually figured out that someone had put an extra space in my middle name. The staff processing my request were very helpful, but unfortunately, they didn’t even know what exactly was not matching.
It’s really unfortunate that you have the burden of proving that your information is correct. It took me about 6/7 weeks to complete the entire process.
They also mail you a voter registration card (which itself isn’t useful anywhere), and if, for any reason, it doesn’t reach you, your name will be suspended from the list.
The whole process feels like it’s designed to discourage people from voting.
When corporations use similar tactics we call them “dark patterns”. Unfortunately, the only weapon we the people have against these tactics is regulation. But when it’s the government doing these things… anyway. Hope the Democratic Party has learned that conservative leadership won’t evolve their platform, they’ll reject democracy.
I'm not convinced the Democratic Party is capable of learning anything ever at all.
Or maybe I'm confusing incompetence with malice. Maybe they want to lose and be the spoiler party.
9 replies →
"The only weapon we the people have against these tactics is regulation"
That's not true. If it's a company doing it, you have the choice to not be a customer of the company. Don't give them any of your money if you don't like how they do business.
The same can't be said of government. If you don't give your money, in the form of taxes, you go to jail.
6 replies →
a gun?
3 replies →
Maybe that's because it is, maybe most people the current Texas leadership want to get votes from are not the ones that newly first register in Texas?
> The whole process feels like it’s designed to discourage people from voting.
Possible, but I doubt it. I've worked on the systems that do things like ID correlation/verification on the backend. They're ... imagine the most broken possible implementation you've ever worked on, then imagine it worse, then imagine that it's maintained by entirely different contractors than the ones that built it, with minimal incentive for improvement.
That's most of government IT implementations, and has been for decades.
Even when specific systems in this area are implemented well, the regulatory/bureaucratic complexity of the government prevents them from being more than marginally useful at best. I expanded more on some of the concerns/issues in this area in an adjacent comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49832393
Maybe that's the designed part? I mean, in lots of more "modern" countries (for the lack of better word), voting is basically showing up, presenting ID, then you can check for the results online yourself to see it registered properly, then that's it.
To me the whole system with voter registration and all other jazz, seems designed to indeed discourage people from voting. Why wouldn't you want it to be efficient and simple otherwise?
The system is designed to rely on fundamentally-flawed things like ID correlation and verification. Broken implementations were the desired outcome, because the constant doubt allows for things like disenfranchising people via voter roll purging.
5 replies →
That's only possible in countries with completely broken citizen IDs (like the US and the UK). Of course correlation is messy and broken and it's not used in other countries. It's also intentional because every attempt at fixing gets stopped or even backtracked.
In other countries citizens have IDs, and the ID can be sometimes wrong (ask me how I know, although that was back in the paper era) and that's the one thing that needs to be fixed. Once the ID is correct, everything works, because that's the single source of truth after that.
> The whole process feels like it’s designed to discourage people from voting.
“the purpose of a system is what it does”
>The whole process feels like it’s designed to discourage people from voting.
Now you get it.
> The whole process feels like it’s designed to discourage people from voting.
It is, with specific emphasis on discouraging people in cities from voting. The state has done all sorts of fuckery to limit the ability of people in urban centers from having any voice in government. Some of the most incredible gerrymanders in the country, limits on voting locations and times imposed specifically on large cities, many small frictions to make voting more time-consuming and expensive.
It's why they can get away with naked corruption and bumbling incompetence and still retain a firm hold on power. Well, that, and copious oil billionaire money flowing to Texas elections.
the entire concept of "voter registration" (and associated shenanigans) is so alien to my European brain that I fail to see any reason why the richest country in the world does things this way other than voter suppression. What am I missing?
It's a distinct blue/red state issue. Blue states go out of their way to register as many of their residents as possible and allow same day registration.
The red states, Republicans use it as a tool to reduce participation of urban, non-white voters and reduce overall participation. They don't consider systematic, passive voter suppression techniques to be voter fraud.
Outside of the US spectrum, there are countries that require all citizens to vote or face fines (Peru for example). I find this interesting, because it's so out of sample compared to the typical political fights within the US about voter registration.
7 replies →
I'm not sure it's strictly red state/blue state. I've live in Massachusetts and Minnesota for a while, where they made it very easy to vote so that tracks.
However, now I live in New York, where they seem to go out of their way to make it difficult. The registration cutoff is several weeks before the election and for at least one election, I found myself wrongfully expunged from the voter roles.
I think it may just be how corrupt the state government is.
It's the price paid for not having a general population register. You only need to enroll to vote if you want to vote, and the voter registration is (theoretically) only for that purpose and won't be used for other purposes. Every government interaction in the anglosphere works this way; you always have to reprove your id and address from scratch.
More specifically, it pretends it doesn't have a general population register. In reality there is a nearly 1:1 match between citizens and SSNs, but everyone just pretends it doesn't exist for political reasons. The fact that the USA was ever able to do a draft is another obvious counterexample.
4 replies →
The European population registers are as bad as voter registration btw and as manipulated. I'm currently not registered (which is illegal) as I've been purged from the population register and due to similar bureaucratic excuses, can't re-register. Fortunately it's usually irrelevant, but I have no doubt some government department is bending statistics in its favor by excluding a group of people that includes me.
1 reply →
American Democracy started from a place of very strict voter requirements (white, male, adult, landowner) and is trending towards fewer voter requirements.
The registration process is mostly a legacy system to ensure only qualified individuals vote, left over from a time when the bar was much higher.
The "male" bar is not "higher bar". It is just a suppression of rights of half the population. Sake with white.
And frankly, similat to "landowner". You arw simply biasing it toward slaveowners and their class.
Pretty sure countries in Europe have voter registration too? Here's a page to register in France. [1]
The US was organized around a very limited federal government (this has changed over time). Each state is responsible for elections within the state. There's no exact national registry of citizens, although Social Security keeps a de facto registry as most citizens are enumerated by that administration and their records include citizenship indication. Strictly speaking, registration with social security is not mandatory, it is required for employees and a child must be registered to qualify for tax credits and it makes administrative tasks simpler.
Within each state, voting is typically administered by county (or similar level) offices; although I think many states have a state wide process to register.
A given voter will vote for many positions (and often some propositions), and electoral boundaries for positions don't necessarily align with anything else or each other. So there's a lot of complexity there.
The residence address of the voter is the important thing that decides which elections they can participate in, but since there is no real registry of residence (de facto or de jure), it needs to be collected seperately.
[1] https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/R1...
Since the motor voter bills in the 90s. Most US states handle voter registration via the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). When you apply for your license or renew you tick the box and it automatically registers you.
The drivers license database is the defaco registry of where you live and most states require you to update your address within 2 weeks of moving (although enforcement is loose). There is a state identification card for those who don't drive that fulfills the same purpose as a drivers license.
Since RealID states now have to check immigration status if you request a RealID license (some states will issue non-RealID drivers licenses to the undocumented). There is a further Enhanced ID check that some states do that will indicate that you are a US citizen on the license. RealID and non RealID licenses are clearly marked.
Basically true voter fraud is largely a non issue because the States generally have their systems together. Voter suppression, which is the goal of most of the voting related legislation of the last 20 years, is however rampant.
You're not missing anything.
Being "the richest country in the world", sharing a land border with a much poorer country, has resulted in a population of people who are legally not allowed to reside in the country (whatever you want to call them according to your political affiliation; one side uses a term rooted in their legal status, while the other side uses a term intended to suggest that their inability to produce evidence of legal residence might be for some other benign reason) that is well into seven figures by all credible estimates.
Such people are, of course, not supposed to be allowed to vote in federal elections (18 U.S.C. § 611 , but also just common sense). Voter registration represents one way to detect if someone who has illegally entered the country (and it is common knowledge that one of the two major parties treats such individuals far more favourably than the other) is trying to vote.
It's also, as you were told, seen in France and possibly other European countries; and here in Canada as well — in all these cases, despite the lack of the above problem. It seems to me like an entirely normal thing and I can't really fathom why people would object to it so strenuously. Not everyone is allowed to vote (generally children are not; incarcerated criminals are not in many countries other than the US, including Mexico, Japan and the UK, as well as Australia and NZ on longer sentences; again there is the matter of illegal immigration; in fact, a quick check indicates that non-citizen legal immigrants are not allowed to vote federally hardly anywhere); given the importance of the vote, why would you not want these simple procedures to ensure that voting is done only by those allowed to?
my country (Italy) is also full of immigrants, but it's not a huge problem.
Once I turned 18 I was automatically enrolled in the voting registries, as was everybody else once they got the requirements (18 years, citizenship, no pending penal law issues, etc). While there have been small scale issues, I've never heard of tens of thousands of people purged erroneously from the registries (while it is a regular occurrence in the USA), and no one I know has ever had to do something to be eligible to vote once they had the requirements. I'm sure it happens that people for whatever reason are not automatically registered, but it's not a common occurrence at all.
> given the importance of the vote, why would you not want these simple procedures to ensure that voting is done only by those allowed to
because these simple procedures are not necessary to achieve that objective
Holdover beliefs from back when only White, male, landowners could vote.
These tactics don't work as well if you are a homeowner that has stayed in the same (gerrymandered) area for an extended length of time.
The model was conceived when there were wide plain, few people and traveling messaging results took days to weeks. And it was never adapted. I'd say most of European voting was with shorter distances, higher population density and newer technology.
> so alien to my European brain
Voter registration is mandatory in France.
It's not mandatory in the UK, but it's pretty frictionless. The only downside is that the data is sold commercially.
Conservatives attempted to copy the US voter ID requirements, but without realizing that the underlying demographic distribution of ID is different, and besides you can just postal vote anyway.
do people regularly get purged from voting registries in France?
You aren't missing anything, it's almost all about voter suppression, and a lot of that is about racism.
And it isn't even a secret. You can find quotes where politicians talk openly about it. I'm trying to be neutral here but when I say "politicians" I mean within one party.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/when...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/inside-house-republicans-pl...
https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/historyvotersuppression/web...
Since my previous iteration of the comment was completely illegitimately flagged, here it is again:
> I read your Fox News article. It does not even remotely establish anything like "talking openly" about "racism". In fact, it explicitly portrays the "politicians" in question advocating for "a proof of citizenship mandate for the voter registration process, and a nationwide photo ID rule to cast a ballot", and describing these as "really commonsense provisions", which they would be in countries that didn't form as an amalgamation of existing states (provinces, cantons, whatever you want to call them). All the arguments I've heard against this bill have been absurd, for example a canard about women supposedly not being able to prove their (entirely optional) name change when they get married.
This is a completely reasonable argument to make and it is completely unreasonable to try to suppress it, even if you disagree. If you believe there is something in the Fox News article that supports your claim, feel free to quote it. If "you can find" these quotes, show me some. Like, from within the last few years, not from the Goldwater era, please.
[flagged]
1 reply →
Do you live in one of the European countries that has a registry of all citizens? At some point, the government needs to have some notion of who you are. The US has no central registry, so it gets pushed out to the periphery like this.
The Federal government has several central registries. The social security database for example knows which socials belong to citizens and which do not. The IRS database another as are the passport and visa databases.
The problem is that they aren't interconnected in any meaningful way by design so the bulk of the work gets pushed onto states. Real ID forced a lot of the states to get their act together but it's still a bit of a goat rodeo in places.
4 replies →
> my European brain
Do you speak for all of Europe? Or do different countries in Europe have different approaches to voting? What you are missing is that this is similar to the US in that we have fifty different States each of which handle voting their own way. There is no singular answer at the federal level, though some people are trying to push in that direction.
You think there’s no voter fraud in Europe?
Correct. In my country anyone is able to audit the process, and the only case of fraud was an instance of "granny farming" for local municipality elections - which after a full redo resulted in... exactly the same outcome.
Stopping voter fraud really isn't that difficult. Just don't over-complicate it with silly things like electronic voting machines or mass mail-in voting and there's not a lot that can go wrong.
1 reply →
voter fraud around here is mostly people buying votes, not so much having people registered who didn't have the requirements
Yes. Just like there is basically zero fraud in America. This isn't a problem. It is only for the dumbest people who believe Trump that 'millions of illegal immigrants voted' yet they haven't produced a single bit of evidence to prove it, but I'm sure it's real.
16 replies →
[dead]
[dead]
There’s a rich history of voter suppression tactics in the US. Naïve conservatives refuse to see the straight line from poll taxes to voter registration deadlines. Anti-democratic conservatives take great joy in continuing the racist and classist traditions of their forefathers (both by blood and by tradition), and you’ll find such characters packed in the state governments in the South.
> Naïve conservatives refuse to see the straight line from poll taxes to voter registration deadlines.
There is no such line. Of course the state and the people should be clear on who is and is not legally entitled to vote, in advance of actual voting. How could it be otherwise?
4 replies →
[dead]
[flagged]
Surely the government already knows who is a citizen (otherwise it would not be able to stop noncitizens from registering), so surely it would be trivial for the government to use this list of citizens to send out ballots?
Citizen baby is born? Add them to the list of citizens. Citizen dies? Remove them from the list of citizens. Citizen moves? Have them inform their new municipality about their change of address - which they'll probably need to do anyways for tax and mail reasons.
8 replies →
Are the non-citizen voters in the room with us right now?
11 replies →
Which doesn’t happen all that often and the government is probably aware of who is a citizen and who isn’t.
1 reply →
Do you think other countries don't have 'non-citizens'?
why can't you do the process when you vote?
1 reply →
Why should non-citizens be excluded from voting? If the community they live in makes a democratic decision they should be included.
12 replies →
Thats not how it works. You usually have a few places you can vote in, and there is a list of names that are checked, then you vote.
Its not like immigrant X from country Y can vote willy nilly.
This is not rocked science. Every citizen is automatically allowed to vote, and IF you cant vote where you are supposed to you can handle this case specially.
[flagged]
See, and here I thought that a democracy meant that everyone would get a vote!
So who gets to determine what counts as "some effort"? Is putting voter registration behind a Rube Goldberg machine enough, or should we go for an IQ test? How about sitting in a room for 72 consecutive hours before being able to cast your vote? Should we perhaps "grandfather in" people who have already proven to be trustworthy as well?
Voting is a fundamental human right. If politicians can make rules deciding who gets to vote, then those politicians will disenfranchise people voting for their opponents. The only solution is to make sure everyone can vote - including the "undesirables" like dumb people and prisoners.
Obvious example: you spelled "ought" wrong, this means that according to my arbitrary rules passed by a democratically-elected government you are not smart enough to vote. And no, you can't change the rules: you'd first have to elect a different government, which you can't do because you can't vote.
2 replies →
[dead]
I posted an older article because I wanted the focus to be on the online registration system. According to a newer article, the number is easily in the tens of thousands [1].
[1] https://www.votebeat.org/texas/2026/09/23/dps-error-backlogg...
TIL a great deal of voter registration in Texas still happens using paper forms: https://www.votebeat.org/texas/2024/10/28/voter-registration...
And apparently they sometimes get lost or processed incorrectly, leaving people disenfranchised.
Oregon auto atically registers you to vote when you get a license/ID, and has a pretty reliable mail in voting system. Other states interested in their constituents should do the same
It'll be the least shocking thing ever to find out this "error" disproportionately affected Democratic leaning districts.
They are really persistent, but it might still not be enough to prevent the democratic candidate from becoming senator, since the republican one is so odious that plenty of reliable republican voters are signalling their intent to vote for the democrat as a come-to-jesus message to their own party.
This wasn’t an error, it’s voter suppression.
Everything's bigger in Texas, including the corruption and incompetence of state government.
So - we found a bug, are fixing it, and it will cause an extra load on the people sorting through the backlog. Seems like a system working as it should. Bugs happen, and it is this kind of situation which makes me glad individual states manage their own voting systems - a problem in one doesn’t impact everyone.
As a TX resident possibly affected by this, I for one am grateful for my neighbors at the local election office working hard to get this resolved.
It punishes large counties, who'll have to pay overtime or hire new employees to help with the sudden backlog, or risk leaving people in the county disenfranchised. Punishing cities is part of the Republican agenda. Whether this one is incompetence (seems likely) or intentional manipulation remains to be seen. But, it is certainly convenient for Republicans that it is most costly, and most likely disruptive, for the cities that don't vote for Republicans. Somehow, Travis and Harris counties, in particular, are always having to jump through extra hoops to make sure their voters are able to vote. And, sometimes, the things they'd like to do to make it easier to vote are outlawed by the state (e.g. Harris county, specifically, has limits on the number of ballot drop-off locations they can have, imposed by the state).
And, what would have happened had journalist not discovered it a couple of months before the election? Would those registrations have just been lost until after?
> Whether this one is incompetence (seems likely) or intentional manipulation
And that's the issue right? All your points on what could have happened are good points - but this really does seem like the kind of bug that shows up even in systems implemented by competent people. As the most likely interpretation, I'll give my neighbors the benefit of the doubt. If we can't trust our neighbors to (mostly) do the right thing, but suspect foul play for every hiccup, then our republic really does have a problem.
If we had evidence that it _was_ intentional sabotage, well then - this situation would look rather different. Probably worse than picante sauce from New York City [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S828Y7Eais
1 reply →
[flagged]
> A de-facto dictatorship.
It's a spectrum, not a binary. We're really far from the "packing bags and leaving the country" end where you're a slave to the state. America is nothing like an Iran or China where we have no power and no rights to overturn the state.
Let's see if any of these petty games helps Trump with midterms. I highly doubt it. Kalshi is already calling it a double win for Democrats.
The economic impact of the Iran War looks like it really cost Trump everything. And it's funny because he always campaigned on not getting into wars.
China doesn't seem that bad in most respects either. Only in freedom of speech, and resulting internet censorship, but in quality of life and in productivity they seem to be thoroughly pwning the USA.
8 replies →
> Kalshi is already calling it a double win for Democrats.
It's quite common for Kalshi bets to go from <1% to 100% chance in minutes when news breaks. "Prediction markets" is almost Orwellian in its inaccuracy.
4 replies →
> We're really far from... leaving the country
Are we now? https://trends.google.com/explore?q=how%2520to%2520emigrate&...
3 replies →
> We're really far from the packing bags and leaving the country end.
Some of my American friends in Canada have taken in American friends who left so quick they didn't have a long-term place to land yet. Whether you have packed your bags and left, that depends who you are. It's not a flood, but an exodus has begun amongst those whose lives have been disrupted: academics, trans, queer, etc
[flagged]
[flagged]
"the White House's legal challenge" is something they can certainly pursue, but they can't just ignore a judge's orders in the meantime.
> Judges are not all-powerful dictators.
No, but the three branches are (in theory) co-equal, which makes that also apply to said White House.
2 replies →
The judge's decision was not a free speech argument, but a due process one. Rights were taken away without warning, or opportunity to argue or appeal. That sounds like arbitrary executive rule.
4 replies →
I was always taught that the executive branch enforces the law, not interprets it. If the executive branch or legislative branches disagree with the judicial branch, then they have the responsibility to appeal or deal with it; they can't just ignore it because they disagree.
1 reply →
I think you should read and reread what you wrote here until you spot the irony
3 replies →
It's incorrect in any case. The supreme court decreed him immune from prosecution (for "official acts", that is)
1 reply →
Your argument is essentially that the Executive can ignore the Judicial branch, and the process of law, if they say they have a good reason.
8 replies →