Why so many problems with registration and voting process?

[Phantasee]

The Selective Service isn't the same as recruiters. It's mandatory (failure usually results in jail time or a huge fine), but you have to enroll at your own volition.

No you don't, I never did anything to enroll for the Selective Service. One day they just sent me a letter informing me that I was enrolled.

What is this Selective Service and why have I never heard of it before? I mean, if it's mandatory for everyone, it ought to have turned up in at least a couple conspiracy theories...

[Duckie]

The Selective Service isn't the same as recruiters. It's mandatory (failure usually results in jail time or a huge fine), but you have to enroll at your own volition.

No you don't, I never did anything to enroll for the Selective Service. One day they just sent me a letter informing me that I was enrolled.

What is this Selective Service and why have I never heard of it before? I mean, if it's mandatory for everyone, it ought to have turned up in at least a couple conspiracy theories...

It's called the draft, as 0.3 seconds of googling will show you.

[Knife]

Sweet, so the Federal government of Australia can organize twenty million and change to vote. It's such an easy thing to scale that up to 300 million. Oh wait....

[Phantasee]

No you don't, I never did anything to enroll for the Selective Service. One day they just sent me a letter informing me that I was enrolled.

What is this Selective Service and why have I never heard of it before? I mean, if it's mandatory for everyone, it ought to have turned up in at least a couple conspiracy theories...

It's called the draft, as 0.3 seconds of googling will show you.

I did learn that via googling, but I'm wondering why I've never heard of something of such large scope? I would think that all those conspiracy theories talking about the reinstatement of the draft would have mentioned it. Is it just something you don't think to mention because it's so common it's become background?

[Stark]

Sweet, so the Federal government of Australia can organize twenty million and change to vote. It's such an easy thing to scale that up to 300 million. Oh wait....

You're right, this explains why the American system is so flawed.

Wait... does it?

[Lusankya]

Sweet, so the Federal government of Australia can organize twenty million and change to vote. It's such an easy thing to scale that up to 300 million. Oh wait....

You're right, this explains why the American system is so flawed.

Wait... does it?

Oh, don't worry. Knife's about to elaborate on the exact problems that will make it IMPOSSIBLE to scale it up to the US population, aren't you, Knife? Because if he doesn't we'll be forced to conclude that's he's full of shit, and you don't want that, do you, Knife?

[Knife]

Sweet, so the Federal government of Australia can organize twenty million and change to vote. It's such an easy thing to scale that up to 300 million. Oh wait....

You're right, this explains why the American system is so flawed.

Wait... does it?

No but the insistent droning of how great Australia's is pretty much tells how good either Florida or New York or even Texas voting can be, not all of them at once, just one or the other. Unless you really want to compare the logistics of the two numbers....

[Lusankya]

Sweet, so the Federal government of Australia can organize twenty million and change to vote. It's such an easy thing to scale that up to 300 million. Oh wait....

You're right, this explains why the American system is so flawed.

Wait... does it?

No but the insistent droning of how great Australia's is pretty much tells how good either Florida or New York or even Texas voting can be, not all of them at once, just one or the other. Unless you really want to compare the logistics of the two numbers....

Every five years, Australia conducts a census of every member of its population. Clearly this couldn't happen in America, because America's population is larger than Australia's, and the logistics are too hard.

In 100 words or less, please explain what is wrong with the logic in the above statement.

[The Yosemite Bear]

is there something wrong that I have my unmailed absentee ballot stamped and ready to go out in monday's mail already? (the local registar of voters tried to disenfranchise yosemite, and so with some help from the federal government (post masters and the local judge madjistrate) were all absentee ballots now)

[Knife]

Sweet, so the Federal government of Australia can organize twenty million and change to vote. It's such an easy thing to scale that up to 300 million. Oh wait....

You're right, this explains why the American system is so flawed.

Wait... does it?

Oh, don't worry. Knife's about to elaborate on the exact problems that will make it IMPOSSIBLE to scale it up to the US population, aren't you, Knife? Because if he doesn't we'll be forced to conclude that's he's full of shit, and you don't want that, do you, Knife?

Oh, I'm sorry. Here I was under the impression that some people around here were implying that an Australian type system would be perfect for the US. Hey, I'm all for it, so go ahead and detail how you will incorporate it into the US political system since stark by implication and you by statement said it would. So instead of me proving how it won't work, why don't you enlighten me on how it will besides..nay nay Australia's works great you should do it to."

Every five years, Australia conducts a census of every member of its population. Clearly this couldn't happen in America, because America's population is larger than Australia's, and the logistics are too hard.

In 100 words or less, please explain what is wrong with the logic in the above statement.

The US government does this every ten years. How does this make your proposal any more workable?

[CmdrWilkens]

Sweet, so the Federal government of Australia can organize twenty million and change to vote. It's such an easy thing to scale that up to 300 million. Oh wait....

You're right, this explains why the American system is so flawed.

Wait... does it?

Oh, don't worry. Knife's about to elaborate on the exact problems that will make it IMPOSSIBLE to scale it up to the US population, aren't you, Knife? Because if he doesn't we'll be forced to conclude that's he's full of shit, and you don't want that, do you, Knife?

Actually since that would be requiring Knife to prove a negative the onus was on the original proponent to prove that it COULD ramp up the 300 million (which is the point I was making earlier and Knife is making now).

The US population is incredibly fluid, very disperssed and large in number. It is filled with tens of thousands of local election measures for which district, township, city, and state locality all need to be determined. I'm not saying it can't be done rather I'm saying that with large swaths of urban poor and rural poor in paticular its very challenging. Already the Ohio debacle is pointing out that across all the various government databases simple clerical errors could have led to more than 100,000 challenged registrations. That's simle mistakes in the system scrwed up data for at least 100,000 people.

The same day registration is nice but already local elections baords are swamped with deadlines more than a month out NC and GA haven't even finished issuing all of their new voter registration cards. If you switch to day-of registration you will see massive lines and delyas at polling places that will turn voters off from voting.

[Lusankya]

Ok, so instead of detailing what problems could arise from scaling Australia's system up to America, you just say “Waaah! It's impossibelz! ... IN AMERICA!" And then you admit that something with simililar logistical issues (i.e. the census) works perfectly fine in both Australia and America, despite our differences in population.

So pretend I'm stupid. Pretend I can't actually see what significant issues there are with scaling it up. Sure there are more people in America - how does this make it so difficult that it becomes IMPOSSIBLE! Until you do that, I won't even have to pretend that you're full of shit, because you have provided ample evidence that you are.

[TC Pilot]

No you don't, I never did anything to enroll for the Selective Service. One day they just sent me a letter informing me that I was enrolled.

You didn't? Hmm, maybe I'm misremembering that.

If that's the case country-wide (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), then I guess the only excuse for voting is that the government doesn't consider itself obligated to make its citizens eligible to vote.

[thejester]

I would have thought taxation would be a more accurate model for why scaling something for 20 million people up to 300 million people should be possible.

[Ghost Rider]

Ok, so instead of detailing what problems could arise from scaling Australia's system up to America, you just say “Waaah! It's impossibelz! ... IN AMERICA!" And then you admit that something with simililar logistical issues (i.e. the census) works perfectly fine in both Australia and America, despite our differences in population.

So pretend I'm stupid. Pretend I can't actually see what significant issues there are with scaling it up. Sure there are more people in America - how does this make it so difficult that it becomes IMPOSSIBLE! Until you do that, I won't even have to pretend that you're full of shit, because you have provided ample evidence that you are.

I usually don't care because this sort of back and forth is happening constantly in N&P, but you do grasp...Knife nor Wilkens can prove a fucking negative.

So no need to pretend you're stupid. You are doing that very nicely with the added strawman at the end. Now prove that just because Australia can do it to a smaller number, it can be done to America's numbers. And to point out Wilkens did not say it was impossible and Knife just made a sarcastic statement about said scaling.

[Lusankya]

Actually since that would be requiring Knife to prove a negative the onus was on the original proponent to prove that it COULD ramp up the 300 million (which is the point I was making earlier and Knife is making now).

That's a load of crap. Neither you nor he has named ONE single way in which the logistics would be significantly different. All you have done is spout the usual counter-productive American crap of "Waah! It won't work for us! Because we're AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!" Your arguments are bullshit, you don't realise this because you have been brainwashed your entire lives into considering the rest of the world to be some "other". At least you made an attempt at an explanation (which is bullshit, btw). Knife didn't even bother, because he's a retard.

The US population is incredibly fluid, very disperssed and large in number. It is filled with tens of thousands of local election measures for which district, township, city, and state locality all need to be determined. I'm not saying it can't be done rather I'm saying that with large swaths of urban poor and rural poor in paticular its very challenging. Already the Ohio debacle is pointing out that across all the various government databases simple clerical errors could have led to more than 100,000 challenged registrations. That's simle mistakes in the system scrwed up data for at least 100,000 people.

You think that Australia lacks all of these problems? And one of the problems you mention - having tens of thousands of different critera would be addressed by having a single regulatory body such as the one in Australia.

I would have thought taxation would be a more accurate model for why scaling something for 20 million people up to 300 million people should be possible.

That would also work. And I notice that the US manages to succeed at taxing the population in spite of having 300 million people.

So no need to pretend you're stupid. You are doing that very nicely with the added strawman at the end. Now prove that just because Australia can do it to a smaller number, it can be done to America's numbers. And to point out Wilkens did not say it was impossible and Knife just made a sarcastic statement about said scaling.

Oh, you can fuck off too. PLENTY of similar things - the census and taxes, to name a couple scale up perfectly well. I also hear that the US has this thing called "Social Security" or some such where everyone's details are kept. If the government can keep track of you for fucking taxes, they can keep track of you for fucking voting. Why is scaling up the voting system so special that the government can't do it?

You all sound like the wankers who claim that universal health care won't work in America - yes, it won't work, but the problem isn't "scalability" or "cost" or any of that crap. The problem is political and social will.

[Guardsman Bass]

The same day registration is nice but already local elections baords are swamped with deadlines more than a month out NC and GA haven't even finished issuing all of their new voter registration cards. If you switch to day-of registration you will see massive lines and delyas at polling places that will turn voters off from voting.

Did this happen in Minnesota? They switched to Same-Day Registration and it seemed to work okay (although it ended up letting Jesse Ventura be elected). Plus, it's not like it's this onerous business; just have people show up with photo ID and proof of residency (it would be very helpful to also, at this point, require that all states make available a state ID that lists citizenship status).

[starslayer]

While I agree that the Australian system would certainly be better than our current registration system if it could be made to work, I don't think it can on the national level for political reasons. The relevant clause of the Constitution:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The first bit leaves elections explicitly up to the states, and in general makes voter registration a state-by-state issue. The second part may give Congress the power to mandate something like the Australian system (implied powers, just like the expansion of the ICC), but I'm not sure. If it does not, then a Constitutional amendment would be required, and that ain't happening. Also, if it does not, then without the amendment, you'd need to get the 50 states to all agree to do it the same way, and they'd still all have agencies specific to each state carry it out. If Congress does have the power to establish this system, they still probably wouldn't do it, because they don't care enough.

You didn't? Hmm, maybe I'm misremembering that.

I got a letter saying, "You're registered for the draft! Yay! Now tear off the card at the top, sign it, and sign this letter and send it back to us, so we know you know you're registered for the draft." So I did. It's also all run out of Illinois for some reason.

[thejester]

Yeah, I figured the biggest obstacle would be federalism/lolbertarian bullshit.

[Aeolus]

Yeah, I figured the biggest obstacle would be federalism/lolbertarian bullshit.

By that do you mean the constitution? It is a state matter. legally that is beyond dispute.

[thejester]

Yeah, I figured the biggest obstacle would be federalism/lolbertarian bullshit.

By that do you mean the constitution? It is a state matter. legally that is beyond dispute.

Sure, but that's what I meant. The argument seems to be 'the Constitution won't let us do it, ergo we shouldn't' rather than 'let's amend the Constitution so that we can implement a good idea.'

[Chris OFarrell]

It's not like the AEC is entirely effective, however; the parties can still bypass the spirit of the law with their retarded touting how-to-vote cards at places of voting, which they could probably stop if all parties weren't happy to get idiots to follow the pretty piece of paper instead of thinking.

Of course, it's way better than the bizarrely broken American system, but doubtless Americans will simply say 'IT'S WORKED FOR A HUNDRED YEARS' and decide that means it can't be improved.

Yes, but the parties are also required on said cards to show that this IS for a particular party and ID themselves, they legally have to say something like 'Vote Liberal' or 'How to vote Liberal' or something like that.

And they aren't allowed inside the election center grounds themselves of course.

[Thanas]

Well, since Australia is a smaller country, how about we take the European Union as a better analogy?

Elections to the European Parliament work, although they are left to the member states, who in turn often delegate that to their own states/districts. Last time I checked there was no trouble, and the EU's population is higher than the US. Elections in the Federal Republic of Germany work as well, and Germany's population is about a quarter of that of the USA.

So why is it that Germany and the EU (which is even less unified than the USA) manage to hold elections that are being organized by the states and not encounter any huge problems and the USA cannot?

[charlemagne]

So why is it that Germany and the EU (which is even less unified than the USA) manage to hold elections that are being organized by the states and not encounter any huge problems and the USA cannot?

Well the German system was built from scratch after WW2 and we didn't have to change any old, preexisting system to implement the new one. I guess that's easier to do than to meddle with the US-system until something practible comes out of it. But that's no excuse to not even try "because it's hard" I guess.

[Knife]

That's a load of crap. Neither you nor he has named ONE single way in which the logistics would be significantly different.

Yes we did, my dear, we both mentioned a rather significant bump in population and Greg mentioned population densities. Do you even attempt to digest these posts or do you just skim through them looking for buzzwords?

All you have done is spout the usual counter-productive American crap of "Waah! It won't work for us! Because we're AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!" Your arguments are bullshit, you don't realise this because you have been brainwashed your entire lives into considering the rest of the world to be some "other". At least you made an attempt at an explanation (which is bullshit, btw). Knife didn't even bother, because he's a retard.

This is an interesting argument considering you have advocated putting in place Australia's registration system by waving the magic wand and perhaps the Australian flag. I'm fairly impressed by the balls you have, young lady, to put accuse Greg and I of 'America, fuck yeah!' when you are engaging in the very fucking thing, change the country's name.

You think that Australia lacks all of these problems? And one of the problems you mention - having tens of thousands of different critera would be addressed by having a single regulatory body such as the one in Australia.

And since it is so, you'll have no problems detailing why and how this will work in America? Right? Oh wait you'd rather go 'Rar, American's suck if you don't see my brilliance.'

I would have thought taxation would be a more accurate model for why scaling something for 20 million people up to 300 million people should be possible.

That would also work. And I notice that the US manages to succeed at taxing the population in spite of having 300 million people.

lol, There were 33 billion of unpaid taxes in 06-07 according to the GAO with another 58 billion in unpaid payroll taxes of all things.

Yes we tax our populace, but don't interpret that as if we successfully tax 300 million people perfectly. Also, Greg's example with the registration in Ohio proves the point further. But don't let that stop you in your magic wand solution, no need to think it out and actually come up with a semi detailed plan, Australia's great and that should do it.

Oh, you can fuck off too. PLENTY of similar things - the census and taxes, to name a couple scale up perfectly well. I also hear that the US has this thing called "Social Security" or some such where everyone's details are kept. If the government can keep track of you for fucking taxes, they can keep track of you for fucking voting. Why is scaling up the voting system so special that the government can't do it?

Now you're just being an asshole. We don't tax very efficiently and registration and organizing a vote is a little different than just counting fucking people in houses. I'll give you credit that more common census would help greatly with a national compulsory registration and vote but you're too stubborn to even just say that and instead go off on strawmen and character attacks.

You all sound like the wankers who claim that universal health care won't work in America - yes, it won't work, but the problem isn't "scalability" or "cost" or any of that crap. The problem is political and social will.

Oh my god, look an actual argument here at the bottom after all these posts. Yay!