Why does voter registration have to be so complicated in America?

As a European this voter registration mess really amazes me. Do the rules really have to be different for different states? Why not have a system in which the absolute majority of people get automatically registered? In my opinion groups like ACORN shouldn't be necessary. I can understand why they are needed, but I also understand why the republicans get so frustrated. America has among the lowest voter participation rates in the western world. For educated people the rate (about 80%) is similar to that of Europe, but for less educated people the rate is about half. That's a disgrace!

Here in Sweden (not at all saying we have a perfect system) you get your registration sent by mail. If your place of residence is unknown (which sometimes happens if you are a student and never have payed any taxes) you need to actively get registered. Then on election day you have to identify yourself and your name is erased from the voter registration rolls. I suppose it works like that in most European countries. Isn't that possible in America too? It ought to be so much easier.

They have been in control for the last 8 years so we now have a very complicated system.

The more complicated, the happier republcons are because it keeps people from voting. The statistics show that the fewer people vote, the more likely a republicon will win. The more people vote, the more likely a Dem will win.

Has there never been a time when there's been a Democrat President and also overall control of Congress and the Senate by the Democratic Party ?

Seems to to me this is like the issue of term limits - neither party does anything about it.

1992-1994

There were bigger priorities

1976-1980

The Democratic congress couldn't work with the democratic President

1960-1968

Half the democrats didn't want blacks voting.

there are always "bigger priorities" other than a forthcoming election in that case.

You paint an extremely poor picture of the past.

If all of the European countries can manage a fair voting system then WTF is wrong with the USA.

so there was no drive for them to look at the election system. That's why there were bigger priorities.

Their ideology rests on the rule of a few. The higher the voter turnout, the greater the chances a Democrat will be elected. This goes for any office.

and that adds further to the complexity.

Some states/sections use electronic voting machines with paper receipts.

Other states/sections use what's called a butterfly ballot where the voter takes a pin-like puncher and "punches" a hole in their selection. Remember the "hanging chads" of the 2000 election? Yup, this is that.

Still others use ScanTron type cards, like most Americans are familiar with from their school days. The voter fills in a bubble with either black ink pen or dark pencil and the ballot, full of various filled in circles/bubbles, is scanned.

Some even use the old early 20th Century method of pulling a lever to cast a vote (like pulling a lever on a slot machine). Pulling the lever causes a stamp of either a candidate's name, or a YES/NO as needed, to be made on a paper card.

Here the procedure is the same everywhere in the country. After all, the country is much smaller than America, more like one of your states. The procedure is probably quite different in different European countries, but not much different.

By the way, here is a rather corny "election of dummies" movie about how to vote in Sweden http://www.val.se/filmer/valmyndigheten_film_engelska.wmv

Polls open at 7 a.m. on Saturday morning until 9 p.m.
Reopen 7 a.m. Sunday until 9 p.m..
Lord's Day? Tuff Shiite! "God wants more participation!"

We have it on a Tuesday.

Go figure.

We all have social security numbers generated for us. We all have an age associated with that social security number. We all pay taxes based on that number, and thereby give an address where we most recently lived so we can get a return.

We should have automatic registration. Obama can do this.

It's not exactly rocket science doing what you've suggested.

Can Obama really do something about that as a president? I suppose he needs the support from Congress at least.

It can be argued a 14th amendment issue if congress passes a law and he signs it.

With our current Supreme Court who the fuck knows if the law will stand.

whoever was the evil du jour in the eyes of those in control.
Remember, the US was first settled and run for many years by people who were anti-everyone but their own ethnic/religious background.
Of course, women could not vote, either.

Restriction was the name of the game.

Democrats tradidionally want to register everyone, republicans still would like to register only republicans, and then only those who agree with them.

mark

Basically, there would be very little push to do election administration on a federal level because states want to control that sort of thing.

Furthermore, elections are actually run at a county level. And, even at that level, there will be dozens of different ballot styles within the county due to the way division lines are drawn for the downballot races.

It's more complicated, but it's also very decentralized. I dislike the complication, but I like the decentralization.

Since electors are distributed on an per state basis, it's understandable if some differences exist between states. However, differences between counties doesn't at all seem right. Everyone within a state should be given exactly the same opportunity to vote.

Many of the complicated registration laws grew out of the repeal of Jim Crow laws that prohibited minorities from voting. When they could no longer outright ban minoritites from voting, they did their best to create barriers to access.

In Europe we Scandinavians are known for being very organized. We always follow the rules and want everything to be correct. The Italians make fun of us (and we make fun of them). Maybe those Scandinavians who once came to MN & WI actually brought something with them.

Just sayin' :hide:

Wisconsin has same-day registration. So if you have the ability to get to the polls with a proof of residency, like an electricity bill, you get sworn in and can vote immediately. I don't see any reason why it needs to be more complicated than that.

A few years ago I went to a conference in Italy, where I was one of two or three Americans, but there were quite a few attendees from Denmark. I sort of banded together with them because we were all horrified by the Italian organizers' tendency to start every session at least half an hour after the scheduled time. I like how citizens of each European country have their own idiosyncrasies and people aren't afraid to tease each other about them.

I also concluded during this conference that the average Scandinavian speaks better English than the average American.

The tenth amendment to the constitution says,



In theory, this means that the federal government's powers are highly limited, and the states exercise control over most aspects of governing. In the two centuries since the constitution was enacted, the federal government has found creative ways to get around this restriction, but in many aspects such as elections, the states retain the power to conduct business their own way.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

of greater powers for the federal government than the Founders envisioned. Of course, they didn't know there was going to be a civil war.

to make registration and voting easy.

Not really. Presidential elections are actually 50 separate state elections, to determine which candidate each state's Electors will select. So the various states have quite a bit of control over the process. Some of them have chosen to make registering and voting more difficult, for reasons discussed upthread.

to disfranchise the marginalized--are a theme throughout the history of election administration in the US, according to Alexander Keyssar of Harvard.

He points out that advance registration requirements came into being in the South after Reconstruction because racist politicians realized "the Negro is a footloose tribe". In general, poorer people move more often and any requirement involving keeping one's address fixed for a period of time will disfranchise mobile poor people disproportionately.

Similar considerations led to similar restrictions elsewhere aimed at immigrants, throughout the nineteenth and 20th centuries but especially from 1870 through the height of immigration to 1920.

Thus what the republicans are doing in 2008 has a long history--designed to protect upper-class wealth from "redistribution" by universal suffrage, today represented by ACORN.

There have been occasional progressive policies to move toward universal suffrage as well as retrogressive policies to restore the political power of wealthy men of property. As Milton Friedman would put it, politics in the US is a balance between the principle of one person, one vote and the principle of one dollar, one vote.

See Keyssar's 2001 book, "The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the US", at http://books.google.com/books?isbn=0465029698