Hacker News Reader

Comment by rtkwe | Hacker News Reader

This is one of the big reasons I think Warren's first priority plan of voting reforms might be more important than any other. Gerrymandering, poll closures, voter ID laws all of it is one big effort to hold on to power despite losing the support of the voters which is the whole basis of the legitimacy of government power in the US.

View on HN

How exactly do you think she will execute that plan?

Voter ID laws have been enshrined in some states through ballot measures voted on by the public, for example.

Not only that, turnout and money in politics are arguably more of a priority to tackle, in that they would make addressing voter ID laws or gerrymandering much easier.

Overall I'm not sure her "plans" to solve these issues goes far enough, or gives enough detail of how they would be executed.

> How exactly do you think she will execute that plan?

Like most Presidential plans, it requires Congressional support, but beyond that it's not unusually difficult; while the feds can't do it for all elections easily, Art. I S4 gives Congress the power to make or alter regularions for House elections superceding state rules and Congress can also adjust the safe harbor rules for considering Presidential electoral votes properly given to use Presidential elections as a hammer, and states are unlikely to separate out qualifications for different offices to limit the effect of such federal regulations, because it would radically increase the administrative complexity of elections.

There's the most power on the level of federal elections where congress has the power to dictate the "time, place, and manner" at any time (Article 1 Section 4). So for the whole of Congress they have pretty full and broad powers to make whatever they want happen. To get similar things at the state levels there's the ever useful strategy of just dangling a large pot of money for states. And ballot measures aren't completely binding they can be modified by the legislature of the individual states.

I do think money in politics is a big issue but with Citizens United it's hard to do anything about that since "spending money is speech" means there's very very little wiggle room in the 1st amendment for putting a stopper on the geyser of corporate money. [1]

[0] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-dem...

[1] Is a real messy problem. Personally I think corporations getting the full rights of citizens is a bit bonkers and I wish there was an easy way to draw a line between people collectively pooling their money for speech and a corporation doing the same thing. Maybe some test around profit making or something to tamp down on the feedback loop of companies spending money to make way more money in return from legislative changes.

In the vein of "dangling money", elections are expensive to run and states would not want to double spend to follow their rules + Fed rules.

Yeah I imagine that's part of the calculus too that it would be easier to use the same rolls, machines and rules but getting them to reform the district drawing process would be somewhere our hypothetical Warren admin would probably have to incentivize with money.

Restoring the full Voting Rights Act would be a good start.

SCOTUS essentially said "this is out of date, therefore unenforceable." Then challenged congress to pass an updated one, but they have not. Some of the stuff going on was illegal under the VRA for the states it touched. I'd like to see them pass an updated one that impacts all 50 states equally, it would be much harder for SCOTUS to find it outdated then.

This is a super valid question given all the obstructionism that's likely to come out of any attempt to reform the system - that said I'd take a politician who recognizes the importance of this over one who is happy to wallow in the corruption any day.

Being in favor of enfranchisement is certainly a better starting point than being against it.

If she had a democratic senate, it’s easy. You tie it to highway funds and block grants.

The Federal government reigns supreme.

FWIW, Buttigieg has been saying the same thing since the beginning of his campaign.

https://ask.peteforamerica.com/DtOnDub2Be0/105

So did Lawrence Lessig in his ill-fated campaign in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig_2016_president...

I don't know about the rest of it, but gerrymandering definitely needs to go. Getting rid of gerrymandering is nothing but a "win" for every American voter regardless of political affiliation.

I don't know how it will ever go away with the Supreme Court ruling the way it did.

At the state level, like North Carolina is doing now.

A federal ruling would've been nice, but if it must happen in statehouses, then that is where voting rights activists must concentrate their efforts.

Yeah it's what'll have to happen now absent a plan like Warren's at the federal level [0] (though even this only deals with federal elections). The issue is the same people you have to convince to stop gerrymandering are the people currently doing it to protect their own electoral prospects!

[0] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-dem...

edit: It only directly deals with federal elections. She does have plans to get states to follow along but there's not as much power to directly force them.

An issue for proposals that seek to ban gerrymandering is that it is quite difficult to quantify and measure how "gerrymandered" a particular district is, since it all depends on what your goal is. Are you trying to do blind population representation? Are you trying to "groups" of people (for some definition of "group"), etc.

FiveThirtyEight did a good podcast series on gerrymandering that discusses a lot of these problems (and potential solutions to them): https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/

You'll get edge cases, but in a lot of gerrymandering situations it's clear enough even if it can't be perfectly quantified.

We've got SCOTUS precedent for this sort of thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

SCOTUS recently said partisan gerrymanders were non-justiciable which as far as I can tell basically shuts the book on it until the balance on the court changes.

If congress passes a law that says "Partisan gerrymandering is illegal, the courts can determine if a district is gerrymandered", then that would be enough to make partisan gerrymanders justiciable.

Not exactly. There's still state-by-state work happening on this front, which can still make a big difference. And there's hope: Voting fairness is something that the republican voters seem to respond to, even as their representatives seek to claw it back, as the case in Florida nicely illustrates.

Relevant paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02064.pdf

Gerrymandering is only possible in first-past-the-post systems, if you have several mandates per district, the problem goes away completely.

Another nice side-effect is that proportional representation breaks the two-party system.

You don't even need proportional representation, which brings its own separate set of problems. Just use approval voting or range voting. That destroys the two party system by itself, which in turn destroys gerrymandering because then local parties or independent candidates can adapt to how the lines are drawn regardless of how you draw them.

> Are you trying to do blind population representation? Are you trying to "groups" of people (for some definition of "group"), etc.

This interacts especially poorly with first past the post.

Suppose you have a state which is 60% Republican and has 10 districts. Do you draw 10 districts that are each 60% Republican? Then the Republicans may get all 10 seats, but in theory the Democrats at least have a chance in any given district, so nobody can do anything too outrageous or they could still be ousted. Whereas if you draw the districts along party lines then you get 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats but they're all safe seats which means that nobody is really accountable to the voters anymore.

Switch to range voting and the problem goes away, because two closely aligned candidates no longer split the vote which means there is no longer any such thing as a safe seat, nor can one side or the other claim disproportionately many seats because more closely balanced districts would elect centrists.

Voter ID laws and Poll closures both target specific voting blocs with strong party affiliations intentionally and (often) explicitly. Both make it harder to vote.

In a perfect world ID laws could be ok but it would require a huge project to ensure every legal voter had some form of ID, eg. going door to door to ensure people who have trouble getting to out of the way DMV locations don't get left out and assistance with gathering any required documents, so far none of them have included this crucial step. It doesn't help that the number of voter fraud incidents is vanishingly small so the supposed issue voter ID laws are supposed to be addressing is a lie.

> it would require a huge project to ensure every legal voter had some form of ID

Without an ID, how do people at polling places know they're a legal voter?

Using the honor system made sense a century or two ago when most people lived all their lives in the same place where they grew up and everyone at the polling place knew everybody. But that's not the case now and hasn't been for a long time. With all the talk about securing our election process against tampering (which I'm all in favor of), if it doesn't include voter ID, it's not secure.

> the number of voter fraud incidents is vanishingly small

The number of known voter fraud incidents is very small. But if ID isn't required to vote and we just accept people's word when they say they're eligible to vote, how could you ever prove voter fraud?

> how could you ever prove voter fraud?

There have been expansive studies on the subject, all of which have found incredibly low rates of actual voter fraud (as distinct from clerical errors or mistakenly voting at the wrong precinct): https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debu...

Far left organization, seems like a fair and unbiased source of information

What does that matter? It's a page of links to peer-reviewed studies, legal opinions, and article from major journalism outlets, not an opinion piece.

Yes, I'm sure it diligently looked at reviews that were opposite or critical of those studies and decided it would further their cause to list them. Where is the list that refutes this data? Here's a hint, a little searching on Google will show you that there are opposing organizations who, conveniently, leave out this far left website's "legitimate reviews" in favor of ones that follow THEIR side.

> With all the talk about securing our election process against tampering (which I'm all in favor of), if it doesn't include voter ID, it's not secure.

If it does include ID it isn't secure. So you've made voting harder but not really made it any harder for bad actors to defraud (because high quality fake State IDs can be ordered, right now, straight for abroad).

Plus statistically voter fraud isn't a real problem, it is well within the margin of error and there's no indication that it has increased. Election fraud seems far more problematic (because it requires fewer bad actors), and that may require more paper ballots and oversight (e.g. stream the vote count online).

There's no "margin of error" in an election. They're counting an exact number of votes. Are the 537 votes in Florida that tipped the 2000 election "within the margin of error"?

You don't just show up and vote pretty much anywhere any more and when you're put on the list of registered voters the information is freely out there to be challenged and validated against many other sources. People do this a lot and yet most of the errors found are things like misspellings, old registrations without any votes since the new registration was made (ie someone moved and they were still on the roles at their old location) and similar small largely inconsequential errors.

> The number of known voter fraud incidents is very small.

Don't forget there was a whole presidential commission set up after 2016 to hunt for any signs of voter fraud and they found, as far as I recall, nothing.

Again I'm not against ID in spirit but the implementation never attempts to make sure that every voter has an ID. Fundamentally that's the issue to me with voter ID laws; in the absence of any evidence of consequential voter fraud it's just another tactic to limit the ability to vote for political gain.

> the implementation never attempts to make sure that every voter has an ID

I would be fine with requiring voting jurisdictions to make reasonable efforts to do this if ID will be required to vote. I would also be fine with providing federal funds to allow, for example, increased resources at DMVs or other ID issuing facilities to support this.

You can prove fraud if you show up to a polling place and the poll worker says they already have a record of you voting.

It’s not actually the honor system either they ask for your address.

> It’s not actually the honor system either they ask for your address.

I wasn't talking about eligibility based on address (though of course that should be checked too), but based on citizenship.

The only way to prove citizenship on the spot would be with a passport. The government knows your citizenship status when you register to vote.

Honestly I wouldn’t mind if the only requirement to vote was a passport to prove citizenship. It would probably disenfranchise lots of folks though, given only a fraction of the country has one.

> The government knows your citizenship status when you register to vote.

Yes, but if you register at a time other than the time you vote, how do you prove at the time you vote that you're the same person who registered and had all that information checked when they registered?

That's what the ID is for. A passport would also work, but I don't think that should be the only possible way to do it. Now that most states are supporting RealID, your state will most likely be able to issue you an ID that you have to prove citizenship to get.

You’re aware non citizens can get RealID drivers licenses too right? The only way you can prove citizenship is with a passport. Of course if you were going to the effort of attempting to impersonate someone you’d probably forge documents too which aren’t deeply checked in my experience of living in a state that had an ID requirement designed to disenfranchise black voters [0].

Ultimately it’s not a problem worth the energy of being solved.

[0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/

As it is now, you don't need to forge anything. All you need to register for vote in California is to fill and mail a form. You can put last 4 digits of your SSN if you don't provide your state ID#. You don't need to have an address, you can just draw a map where you live. Supposedly, if you register like that (by mail) you have to show a photo ID first time you vote, however, in practice, nobody wanted to see my photo ID despite my attempts to show it.

What stops someone from filing a bunch of those with random names and random 4 digit SSNs with maps to the Skid Row or SOMA or any homeless encampment? You think they might be checking name match with the SSN? Could be, but then you can also apply for ITIN with the same random names and see if they can distinguish one from another.

If ID were to be required then you'd have to make multiple fake ids - inherently more complex and dangerous task than filling out a bunch of voter registration forms. And it could be very dangerous to show with these fake IDs at the polls where they could have government-issue scanners checking them out.

  Supposedly, if you register like that (by mail) you have to show a photo ID first time you vote

In fact, it's illegal for a poll worker to demand photo ID in CA.

If you have any proof that someone would go to that massive effort of harvesting homeless people’s votes then I’m sure people would love to hear about it.

Given the fact that CA is also moving heavily towards vote by mail the ID issue is again entirely superfluous.

Reminds me of when my senator forgot his ID when he went to vote - so he submitted an absentee ballot the same day. Without an ID. Hysterical.

Not that I've ever mentioned that there is a homeless vote harvesting going on but since you asked: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=homeless+voter+fraud&ia=web .

ID, obviously, won't prevent vote by mail fraud but that one is harder to do since it requires a valid mailing address to receive a ballot, supposedly.

But without requiring an ID, how do they validate the name? How do they validate the address? How do they stop someone from giving a completely made up name and a somewhat plausible sounding address?

Serious questions, because I'm in a vote-by-mail state, so I don't actually have to go anywhere to vote. I don't know how that all works. I had assumed they required ID and checked it, but now I'm realizing I've given too much credit to the voting system.

They have voter registration information for everyone registered in the precinct.

But how do they know the person showing up to vote is the person they have registration information for?

Because you’d have to have the right name and address while also knowing the person you’ve impersonated hasn’t voted yet.

Then you’d have to wonder why you’re going to the effort for one extra vote because this is a made up problem.

They only ask the name. The prospective voter can read the address from the log before ever being asked it as long as they can read it upside down. Even reciting "your own" address incorrectly isn't cause to deny you a ballot.

The angst against "voter ID" as a form of voter disenfranchisement makes no sense to me, as an immigrant the first thing I did when I got to the U.S. is secure a form of government issued ID - stateID or drivers license, because I understood that having an ID enabled me to do something as simple as getting a library card so that I could borrow books for my family and I https://web.ocpl.org/n/LibraryCardApplication/#/ In fact the DMV is packed with immigrants trying to get stateID because they recognize the benefits accrued from having one. The process is simple and straightforward and in my view would silence the whole "non-citizens and illegal immigrants are allowed to vote".

Maybe people could how it's done in other countries.

Here in France: when I move to a new city I go register with an ID. Then before elections I receive a voting card. Also: elections are on Sunday so most working people can go vote if they want to.

I'm not 100% clear on what you mean, sounds like automatic voter registration, ie when you go to the DMV to get your license/ID you're automatically registered to vote?

That would help a lot and I'd love to see it but it only deals with one side and doesn't solve the issue of people who are legally able to vote but don't have a current ID.

I'd also love to see election day moved to a Sunday or be made a federal holiday with some requirement that everyone be given sufficient (potentially paid?) time to vote.

Oregon has a "motor voter" act, where you are automatically registered to vote if you have a driver's license (and are of age). We also do vote by mail, so it doesn't matter when the election day is. Just send in (or drop off) your ballot before voting closes.

> when you go to the DMV to get your license/ID you're automatically registered to vote?

No. First thing to understand is you are required to have a valid ID (ID card, passport or driver's license) so almost everyone has at least an ID card (even children).

You have to go register to be able to vote in a city. You don't have to change when you move but it is easier to vote where you live instead of going back to where you lived 3 years ago.

Voter suppression is not nearly comparable in France and in the US. The system used in France would thus likely not work.

For instance imagine that the voting enrollment office is 30km from your work/home and that it is only open during work hours. It is likely that poor people/people without a car/etc would not enroll.

FWIW, Hillary Clinton had a serious, detailed voting rights reform plan that was clearly one of her top priorities. Liberals who were convinced into believing that free college and another radical health care overhaul should be prioritized when basic voting rights stood precariously in the balance were played in my opinion.

whynotboth.gif?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com