How About This Voter ID Alternative?

[Intense]

Electronic Poll Roster Suggested as Voter ID Alternative

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Gov. Mark Dayton and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie say they have found an alternative to the voter identification push at the state Capitol, unveiling an electronic roster system that would utilize the photographs that are already in the state's file system instead of a physical ID.

"There are 84,000 people who don't carry a photo ID -- don’t' need it, but their photo could be inside of the system and right there," Ritchie said. "The individual who simply lost their wallet -- or had their wallet stolen, their photo is inside the system."

Ritchie says this alternative would eliminate the need for voters to present an ID at the polls.

Electronic Poll Roster Suggested as Voter ID Alternative

Sounds agreeable, so long as it is a Positive Match. If the State officially accepts it, it should be okay there. If The Fred accept it, it should extend further. ..... God, I hate my License Photo.

 

[Vast LWC]

This is stupid on the democrats part because it will make the system even more fool proof. They won't even be able to use their fake photo ID's to vote. I hope they adopt this & shoot themselves in the foot.

Yeah...

Of course, you realize that the fault in your argument is that it assumes that Democrats are trying to block these types of legislation in order to be able to conduct voter fraud.

Which is, of course, not the case.

Which is why they're not "shooting themselves in the foot", and why I would happily support such a system.

 

[Intense]

State issued photo ID is a not issue as far as limiting someones right to vote. Even if these 84,000 people all showed up to the polls & had no ID they will all be allowed to vote provisional ballot. If the election is close enough for those votes to matter, it will not take long to check all those identities before the vote is certified.

Untrue.

Low income voters can ill afford to take valuable time off of work to head to the DMV and wait on lines all day to get a voter ID. If you've ever spent any time waiting on line at a DMV in a high-population area, you know exactly what I mean.

In effect, this makes a Voter ID requirement equivalent to a "poll tax", and will especially affect voter turnout in cities. Which is of course why Republicans are pushing so hard for them.

I think the OP's suggestion is an excellent one, because this effect will be done away with.

And checking identities will of course take very long amounts of time, in addition to causing all sorts of legal challenges. Look at the hanging chad debacle in Gore v Bush. That took months to resolve, and they weren't even checking actual voter identification.

Wrong, Low Income Voters have a hard enough time breaking away from the boob tube.. They should learn to listen more to talk radio.

 

[KissMy]

This is stupid on the democrats part because it will make the system even more fool proof. They won't even be able to use their fake photo ID's to vote. I hope they adopt this & shoot themselves in the foot.

Yeah...

Of course, you realize that the fault in your argument is that it assumes that Democrats are trying to block these types of legislation in order to be able to conduct voter fraud.

Which is, of course, not the case.

Which is why they're not "shooting themselves in the foot", and why I would happily support such a system.

Just because you don't cheat doesn't mean your party is not heavily cheating. They bus the same people from one polling place to another all election day long having them impersonate their selected voters that are on the rolls.

 

[candycorn]

I like it too. I'd be more enthused if they made it a fingerprint match interface if we're going high-tech with the effort. Then again, the idea of the usually very ancient poll worker trying to call up your prints makes me chuckle. Not a bad idea.

It needs to positively confirm the person presenting the Voter Registration Card is who the card says he or she is.

It needs to be provided at no direct cost to the voter; elsewise it's a poll tax

FINGERPRINTS now?

No...but the OP was to suggest having a photograph called up of the voter who shows up to vote if I recall. I was saying just have a fingerprint reader instead to prevent some poll worker from having to make a judgment on your hair color being different, whether or not you're wearing glasses etc...

Perhaps I mis-understood the OP's intent???

 

[candycorn]

I like it too. I'd be more enthused if they made it a fingerprint match interface if we're going high-tech with the effort. Then again, the idea of the usually very ancient poll worker trying to call up your prints makes me chuckle. Not a bad idea.

It needs to positively confirm the person presenting the Voter Registration Card is who the card says he or she is.

It needs to be provided at no direct cost to the voter; elsewise it's a poll tax

Actually a fingerprint biometric identification system wouldn't be hard to put together with existing off the shelf technology.

**********************************
Background:

I work in Human Resources for an organization with thousands of employees. About 3-years ago we moved from manual timesheets to KRONOS Time and Attendance. The core of the system is (a) Database software that tracks employee time and attendance, (b) Time Clocks, and (c) Biometric add on function. The software of course is geared to the business function of time and attendance information that is then downloaded into Oracle Payroll to track time off for exempt/non-exempt employees and for time and attendance for hourly employees. The employee "punches in" in one of two methods: Swipe their ID card through the clock reader, enter their PIN, and then provide biometric identification or enter their employee ID into the clock, enter their PIN and then provide biometric identification.

When the employee is hired they are "registered" with the system. Information transferred from the Human Resources system (Name, Assignment, Schedule, Employee ID, etc.). The person biometric signature is then registered with the system. Biometric registration consists of registering two different fingers (usually one from each hand) with the system.

The system DOE NOT store an image of the fingerprint. What happens is that a complex mathematical analysis is done of the fingerprint resulting in a numerical result, this result is then encrypted. There is no image of the fingerprint stored in the system. When an employee clocks in, their fingerprint is then read to determine the mathematical result, this is then compared with the stored result to verify identification. The system has no need to try to read thousand of different records because the employee ID is supplied (either through magnetic strip or RFID) by swiping the card or through punching their EE ID - and the result of the biometric read compared with a single stored result.


**********************************
Voting:

This type of system could be readily adapted to biometic voter identification and the operation of the system would be very easy on voting day.

The following steps would be needed:

1. Modify/develop the core software from time and attendence to simply voter registration tracking.
2. Modify/develop readers to replace the clocks (simplify the interface) to one button operation so the voter hits "Start", enters their Voter Identification number.
3. Register biometric identification at time of registration​

Once the voter registration records have been updated so each person has a Voter ID and an encrypted mathematical result on record:

1. Voter checks in with welcome desk.
2. Voter directed to voting booth.
3. Voter hits "Start".
4. System prompts for Voter ID number, Voter enters the number and hits "Continue".
5. System prompts the voter to place finger on reader.
6. System scans and compares the displayed finger to the stored result.
7. System accepts or rejects the result.
8. If accepted the voting clerk directs the person to the next step to actually vote.​

A secondary process would need to be in place (just as there is today) for provisional ballots for those that may have not been properly registered, have had their hands damaged through an accident, etc.




Again, the system DOES NOT store fingerprint images but yet provides a biometric comparison. The system is almost instantaneous in it's identification because it not trying to "scan" thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of entries to find a match because it is comparing a specific voter to a specific stored result - that makes it very fast.


>>>>

We have palm readers in some of the more secure areas of our hospital. As far as I know, if the power is on, there is no issue with them not working and granting access in a matter of mili-seconds.

What I was saying was that instead of calling up a photo of someone, just have a fingerprint reader. I agree with SaveLiberty; a picture ID should suffice but there seems to be a discussion about the costs of democracy; as if we have a choice.

 

[KissMy]

I like it too. I'd be more enthused if they made it a fingerprint match interface if we're going high-tech with the effort. Then again, the idea of the usually very ancient poll worker trying to call up your prints makes me chuckle. Not a bad idea.

It needs to positively confirm the person presenting the Voter Registration Card is who the card says he or she is.

It needs to be provided at no direct cost to the voter; elsewise it's a poll tax

FINGERPRINTS now?

No...but the OP was to suggest having a photograph called up of the voter who shows up to vote if I recall. I was saying just have a fingerprint reader instead to prevent some poll worker from having to make a judgment on your hair color being different, whether or not you're wearing glasses etc...

Perhaps I mis-understood the OP's intent???

You can still tell if it is them after a makeover.

 

[candycorn]

I like it too. I'd be more enthused if they made it a fingerprint match interface if we're going high-tech with the effort. Then again, the idea of the usually very ancient poll worker trying to call up your prints makes me chuckle. Not a bad idea.

It needs to positively confirm the person presenting the Voter Registration Card is who the card says he or she is.

It needs to be provided at no direct cost to the voter; elsewise it's a poll tax

People have a major issue with a photo ID, but not with fingerprinting?

he he he...

If it had been sat up at the outset that, just for the sake of argument, postal workers were to come to your house on election day and record your vote and you had the audacity to suggest polling places in every neighborhood in the Country, you'd be called a communist.

For some bizarre reason, the left wingnuts feels as though requiring voter registration to matter by verifying the registrant is the person casting the ballot is somehow infringing on the rights to vote. The OP suggested a video screen to visually identify the person standing in front of the poll worker. Prints would do the same thing.

 

[candycorn]

FINGERPRINTS now?

No...but the OP was to suggest having a photograph called up of the voter who shows up to vote if I recall. I was saying just have a fingerprint reader instead to prevent some poll worker from having to make a judgment on your hair color being different, whether or not you're wearing glasses etc...

Perhaps I mis-understood the OP's intent???

You can still tell if it is them after a makeover.

Yes, I can. In my condo. On a lazy Saturday afternoon.

If I'm a poll worker born during the Civil War with what will be cheap technology and a waiting line hundreds deep; maybe not.

Again, I was just coming up with what I think is a better Idea than the OP. I think a picture ID suffices in all cases myself.

 

[KissMy]

No...but the OP was to suggest having a photograph called up of the voter who shows up to vote if I recall. I was saying just have a fingerprint reader instead to prevent some poll worker from having to make a judgment on your hair color being different, whether or not you're wearing glasses etc...

Perhaps I mis-understood the OP's intent???

You can still tell if it is them after a makeover.

Yes, I can. In my condo. On a lazy Saturday afternoon.

If I'm a poll worker born during the Civil War with what will be cheap technology and a waiting line hundreds deep; maybe not.

Again, I was just coming up with what I think is a better Idea than the OP. I think a picture ID suffices in all cases myself.

Well we could go all out with facial recognition software & fingerprint scans. I don't think it will be faster than looking at a picture & saying yeah that's her or saying who are you trying to fool, officer take her away.

 

[candycorn]

You can still tell if it is them after a makeover.

Yes, I can. In my condo. On a lazy Saturday afternoon.

If I'm a poll worker born during the Civil War with what will be cheap technology and a waiting line hundreds deep; maybe not.

Again, I was just coming up with what I think is a better Idea than the OP. I think a picture ID suffices in all cases myself.

Well we could go all out with facial recognition software & fingerprint scans. I don't think it will be faster than looking at a picture & saying yeah that's her or saying who are you trying to fool, officer take her away.

As I was saying, I don't see the need for any of it; just show a picture ID along with your card and go vote. Easy-Peasy-Lemon Squeezy

 

[FA_Q2]

FINGERPRINTS now?

No...but the OP was to suggest having a photograph called up of the voter who shows up to vote if I recall. I was saying just have a fingerprint reader instead to prevent some poll worker from having to make a judgment on your hair color being different, whether or not you're wearing glasses etc...

Perhaps I mis-understood the OP's intent???

You can still tell if it is them after a makeover.

There are some pretty extreme examples though...

Now throw in a crappy DMV photo and...

 

[Full-Auto]

No...but the OP was to suggest having a photograph called up of the voter who shows up to vote if I recall. I was saying just have a fingerprint reader instead to prevent some poll worker from having to make a judgment on your hair color being different, whether or not you're wearing glasses etc...

Perhaps I mis-understood the OP's intent???

You can still tell if it is them after a makeover.

There are some pretty extreme examples though...

Now throw in a crappy DMV photo and...

That was just mean...Before breakfast and all.

 

[FA_Q2]

Electronic Poll Roster Suggested as Voter ID Alternative

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Gov. Mark Dayton and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie say they have found an alternative to the voter identification push at the state Capitol, unveiling an electronic roster system that would utilize the photographs that are already in the state's file system instead of a physical ID.

Ritchie says this alternative would eliminate the need for voters to present an ID at the polls.

Electronic Poll Roster Suggested as Voter ID Alternative

Actually I think this is an excellent alternative.

This way it wouldn't present the same "poll tax"-type issues that picture ID laws do.

Should satisfy both sides.

Bullshit. This is not a poll tax as the ID's are provided free of charge. Try another straw man.

State issued photo ID is a not issue as far as limiting someones right to vote. Even if these 84,000 people all showed up to the polls & had no ID they will all be allowed to vote provisional ballot. If the election is close enough for those votes to matter, it will not take long to check all those identities before the vote is certified.

Untrue.

Low income voters can ill afford to take valuable time off of work to head to the DMV and wait on lines all day to get a voter ID. If you've ever spent any time waiting on line at a DMV in a high-population area, you know exactly what I mean.

In effect, this makes a Voter ID requirement equivalent to a "poll tax", and will especially affect voter turnout in cities. Which is of course why Republicans are pushing so hard for them.

I think the OP's suggestion is an excellent one, because this effect will be done away with.

And checking identities will of course take very long amounts of time, in addition to causing all sorts of legal challenges. Look at the hanging chad debacle in Gore v Bush. That took months to resolve, and they weren't even checking actual voter identification.

Ill point you to your own post here:

Yeah...

Of course, you realize that the fault in your argument is that it assumes that Democrats are trying to block these types of legislation in order to be able to conduct voter fraud.

Which is, of course, not the case.

Which is why they're not "shooting themselves in the foot", and why I would happily support such a system.

Republicans do not support these laws to reduce turnout or disenfranchise people any more than democrats blocking it to ensure they can cheat.

The premise that low income voters somehow cannot get an ID because of the time requirements is absolute bullshit. If they are able to get the time to vote, they are able to get the time to acquire some sort of ID within the entire year to satisfy the requirement. They certainly don't have an issue with getting an ID so they can cash their damn checks....

 

[FA_Q2]

That was just mean...Before breakfast and all.

LOL, well here is a one up for it then:

I'd like to see the pollster that identifies THAT person as the one in the ID. LOL