Do you support "voucher" registration?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In Minnesota, one can register on election simply by having a person pre-registered at that precinct come with them and say they live there, vouching for them and they have some form of ID. Minnesota is not only the only state that allows this, it's the only government entity in the world that does.

I'm doing this tommorow for a friend who has moved since the last election but has no proof of his new address (his utility bills aren't made out to him, his driver's license still says his home address and his student fee and bank statements are also still sent to his parents). Do you think it should be allowed?

[Gabu]

Uh, is there any protection against election fraud there whatsoever?

[Alcon]

Unless they record the voucher and the vouchee's vote is handled provisionally, this doesn't do much of anything other than to dissuade the most casual of fraudists.

[KEmperor]

Uh, is there any protection against election fraud there whatsoever?

^^^^^^^^

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Uh, is there any protection against election fraud there whatsoever?

^^^^^^^^

What part of a provisional ballot don't you understand?

Hey, North Dakota doesn't even have registration.

[ilikeverin]

*shrug* Minnesota always has a high voter turnout and such.

But perhaps we couldn't trust you shifty other states to use this responsibly

(except for Indiana of course, there is no such thing as fraud in Indiana )

[KEmperor]

Uh, is there any protection against election fraud there whatsoever?

^^^^^^^^

What part of a provisional ballot don't you understand?

Hey, North Dakota doesn't even have registration.

I don't see anything in the OP saying that this is provisional, and don't even get me started on North Dakota.  Don't you think that there should be some proof that you are even a citizen of a state before you are allowed to fill out a ballot there?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's not provisional. If this happens, you're registered as good as anyone. But if the person vouching for you is lying it's a felony.

don't even get me started on North Dakota.  Don't you think that there should be some proof that you are even a citizen of a state before you are allowed to fill out a ballot there?

You do need proof that you are a resident of North Dakota to vote there, you need some form of ID and proof your address is in that precinct (basically a driver's license.) I voted there once. In a way, North Dakota's law is stricter than Minnesota's, since you need ID and proof of address every time you vote there. In Minnesota you only need it when you register (unless you do it this way)

[Gabu]

It's not provisional. If this happens, you're registered as good as anyone. But if the person vouching for you is lying it's a felony.

How would you find out that the person is lying if you take them at their word?

[Jake]

Sure, but combine it with the purple indelible ink used in Iraq.

[Sam Spade]

Minnesota's way of "running" elections is such a joke that only idiots like BRTD could get a kick out of it.

[Alcon]

It's not provisional. If this happens, you're registered as good as anyone. But if the person vouching for you is lying it's a felony.

don't even get me started on North Dakota.  Don't you think that there should be some proof that you are even a citizen of a state before you are allowed to fill out a ballot there?

You do need proof that you are a resident of North Dakota to vote there, you need some form of ID and proof your address is in that precinct (basically a driver's license.) I voted there once. In a way, North Dakota's law is stricter than Minnesota's, since you need ID and proof of address every time you vote there. In Minnesota you only need it when you register (unless you do it this way)

In other words, it provides no protections whatsoever unless someone specifically investigates the case, finds conclusive proof that the person does not reside at the given address and the person vouching was aware of this?

That's a joke system.  If it worked as I described, it would be fine, but that's no good.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's not provisional. If this happens, you're registered as good as anyone. But if the person vouching for you is lying it's a felony.

How would you find out that the person is lying if you take them at their word?

Not sure. Never looked up if anyone was ever prosecuted for this.

It's not provisional. If this happens, you're registered as good as anyone. But if the person vouching for you is lying it's a felony.

don't even get me started on North Dakota.  Don't you think that there should be some proof that you are even a citizen of a state before you are allowed to fill out a ballot there?

You do need proof that you are a resident of North Dakota to vote there, you need some form of ID and proof your address is in that precinct (basically a driver's license.) I voted there once. In a way, North Dakota's law is stricter than Minnesota's, since you need ID and proof of address every time you vote there. In Minnesota you only need it when you register (unless you do it this way)

In other words, it provides no protections whatsoever unless someone specifically investigates the case, finds conclusive proof that the person does not reside at the given address and the person vouching was aware of this?

That's a joke system.  If it worked as I described, it would be fine, but that's no good.

Well if you think that, what do you think of the Minnesota legislature not doing anything about it?

Minnesota's way of "running" elections is such a joke that only idiots like BRTD could get a kick out of it.

You make it sound like I wrote the election laws.

[Sam Spade]

Minnesota's way of "running" elections is such a joke that only idiots like BRTD could get a kick out of it.

You make it sound like I wrote the election laws.

No, but you support the manner in which they are run, and get excited talking about the system, so I have no choice but to conclude that if you ran a state, you'd enact the same measure.