500,000 Texans Register To Vote In Five Months Through New Online Registration

How are they going to maintain election integrity?
Who will they have to show proof of identification to?


Of course, this ruling came from an activist federal judge. (not even a state judge, tells you this wasn't actually an issue of Texas law)

Just YET ANOTHER example of abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

We need a national voter ID that is automatically registered at age 18 and auto revokes upon death. No registration. No voter purges.

 

You need state-issued voter IDs and some way of making sure federal judges don't interfere in that.

You want a national voter ID for voting in national elections, sure.
Many conservative Libertarians have long been against the idea of a national ID due to civil liberties concerns, but now things are just getting ridiculous and it looks like Democrats don't leave them any other option.

 

Local government can do what they want. Federal and congressional positions need a uniform standard

 

Like making sure the person who votes in a federal election is actually who they say they are.

By the way, I still think that it should be states who are given charge over running senate elections to the US Senate.

(That might surprise many people who do not understand the Constitution well)

 

What did you have to do for online banking. ?

 

I'm fine with this provided the proper precautions are taken. I do wish that they would use the SS number though. That would make things so much easier to unregister dead people, cancel your old address, etc.
I'm sure that someone would have a problem with a national database that could keep track of that sort of thing because anything that's easy to do must be bad.

 

This story is texas. And in CA you can only register if you provide proof of citizenship.

 

They provide their SS when they get their license. It’s all linked.

 

This would be the best way to do this 'everyone votes lulz' idea. But the people who think this will result in a 'more open' democratic society are going to be surprised at how it leads to a more stupefied society. History is littered with examples of what we're doing and the results aren't pleasant.

 

It seems the judge's decision was more about politics than anything else.

At the Texas State's website, people can request a voter registration application online. It gets mailed to them postage paid. All they have to do is fill it out and mail it back.

At the DMV, they have already seen people in person and gotten their SSN, a signature, and a thumb print.

If the state's Attorney General had a problem with the ruling, he would have appealed but he didn't, and Texas has an AG who is always on top of things when it comes to protecting Texans.

 

People do move out of state.

 

What do you think is not safe about it? The process goes through a computer system if it's done in person as well.

So, this is only an issue because these voters (who are also lazy and uneducated) are expected to vote Democrat?

 

In my view, even if they ignorantly voted Republican that would be bad(again, for those who think orange man bad was a bad orange man , how did that transpire, exactly?)

Having a kitchen full of chefs isn't better then a select few chefs. This is a push to make us Australia:
https://www.thoughtco.com/compulsory-voting-1435409

No, hell no. It's not "progress", it's a march to our political ruin.

 

Or tie it to Selective Services, which is still mandatory

 

The only arguments I've seen here against making the process easier and more inclusive is that "those" people are...

lazy
uneducated
apathetic
uninformed.

Maybe it's time for both parties to actually stand for something substantial instead of relying on disenfranchised citizens to not be able to participate in the voting process

I read the article at the link you provided. I do not see a problem with compulsory voting.

How would this lead to political ruin?

 

I don't think having more people registered to vote is an issue.

Travis County (which is mostly Austin, TX) claims that a remarkable 97% of eligible voters here are registered. I find that a little fishy, that we have 850,000 registered voters out of a total population of around 1 million, but that's beside the point. Anyway, only about 70% of registered voters (approx 600,000) actually bothered to vote in 2020, one of the most "emotional" elections in history.

It doesn't matter if 100% of people are registered if people are not inspired to get out and vote, even with 3 weeks of early voting before election day.

I do have a problem with compulsory voting. Voting is a right. Choosing not to vote between two crappy candidates is also a right.

Venezuela instituted compulsory voting after dictator Maduro succeeded in coup of the government and re-wrote their constitution. In Venezuela, voting is mandatory and the government utilitzes technology to see who voted for whom (no secrecy). Anyone not voting for Maduro does not get their "government issued food box" or other government services.

With computer technology, many countries are pushing for people to get "social credit scores" like in China and Venezuela. Have the "proper" social and political views and don't get punished. People with "wrong" views get punished by government and society. Don't let it happen here. It would be all to easy, as technology and tyranny advance at about the same pace.

 

That's fair. My state allows for non-I'd driver license. I didn't realize Texas was doing real driver ids

 

No, it's just the only reason I can conceive of as to why democrats have a fetish for making our elections insecure.

 

I wasn't aware of that. It changes my opinion of compulsory voting.

 

Nobody wants the elections to be insecure. People have the right to vote (even if you don't like who they vote for). That shouldn't be taken away just so one party has the advantage if they don't.

 

We always think, "It can't happen here," because it never has. Venezuelans used to think the same thing, but their country fell into dictatorship in about 20 years after people voted for Socialist Chavez.

People on the left today are afraid of a right-wing Authoritarian government taking one-party power. People on the right today fear a left-wing Totalitarian government taking one-party power. This isn't a good time for either side to rush a grab for more power and be making sweeping changes to precedents, traditions and long-held standards, IMO, but it looks like that's the way we're heading.

 

Correcting details in that post....

Texas DL's expire every 6 years, but can be renewed if they are expired 2 years or less without having to take a driving test. A person does need to show up in person at least every 12 years (not 16 years) and can renew online at the 6-year renewal in between.

Thanks @MJ Davies for posting this thread. My license expires later this year, so the thread motivated me to go check out the requirements for renewal since I did renew online 6 years ago! My, how time flies.

 

An ID doesn't take that away. Having to go down to the dmv doesn't either. Charging a ton of money to get your ID can take it away for the poorest of Americans. Why aren't the Dems pushing for IDs but have the government bear all the costs?

The only reason to oppose id's and in person registration for an ID, absolutely, is because you think it gives you a political advantage.

This is especially true right now when millions of Americans lack confidence in the election system, and that's when the Dems push legislation that will only deminish that confidence further.

 

Driving isn't a requirement to be an educated voter. Indeed, unnecessary driving is a waste of time.