https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c-voter-registration-pennsylvania-trump-maga/ "Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is set to make a big move in this direction by unveiling a big change on Tuesday that will implement what’s known as “automatic voter registration” statewide. "Automatic registration makes getting on the voter rolls something you have to opt out of, rather than actively sign up for in advance. An underappreciated success story, it has been put into effect in two dozen states, mostly by Democrats. It typically works by automatically registering customers at state Department of Motor Vehicles offices (or other agencies) or by automatically extending them that option, while offering an opt-out alternative. "I see voter participation as key to strengthening democracy,” Shapiro told me in an interview, noting that he is “committed to ensuring free and fair elections, and to making sure every eligible voter can make their voice heard.” "The insight behind automatic voter registration is that the registration process often creates a bureaucratic barrier that needlessly dissuades voting, and is sometimes manipulated by vote-suppressors. By keeping a registration process in place while removing the need to affirmatively initiate it, studies show, AVR encourages democratic participation. AVR also tends to make voter rolls more accurate and more up to date." I wonder who would oppose this, and why.
Moving from opt-in to opt-out has been promoted in various contexts. Another interesting one is 410K accounts. In the political context, of course, either side that thinks any changes are going to help the other side are probably going to oppose changes even if they appear to be politically neutral on their face. Nudge (book) - Wikipedia
Its too bad, their pet voter ID thing makes much more sense in the context of AVR, but we all know secure elections arent the motivation
Why would AVR be seen as anything other than helping both sides? Or is this the phenomenon of "I'm more interested in not helping you than in helping myself"? I'm looking for any flaw in AVR, not some purely political opposition.
Whether it would actually be more beneficial to Democrats, I can't say. But I think you answered your own question in speculating who will oppose it. The article also said it's mostly been passed by Democrats? Isn't the conventional wisdom that big turnouts are typically better for Democrats? I imagine part of it, as an example, is that older folks are more likely to register, more likely to vote, and more likely to be Republican.
What I'm wondering is whether there are legitimate reasons which I haven't thought of for opposing AVR. I understand that some will oppose it because it's a proposal by democrats or might help democrats, though you're correct, it might also help republicans.
So you can combine the driver's license and the voter ID card into one card. That works for me. Present ID when voting, no excuse for not having the ID card then.
I am a vote one day (no early voting). Absentee has to be requested like it use to be and is counted but rarely used because so few should be voting that way. Must show ID when you vote on the one day. So reality this is not that big a deal. But when you mail in for no reason and now the potential for who knows how many people don’t opt out…I absolutely see how both sides could abuse this. It is not hard to vote!
I love automatic voter registration. Have a picture ID produced as well and require an ID to vote. Simple as that.
The only issue I have there is that non-citizens are issued DLs. If there's a restriction on the DL indicating those not eligible to vote (like they do now for sight, etc) and the voting machines are able to scan said restrictions on the ID, I'm good with it.
When you can mail in for no reason. The big parties can easily go around and work the system to get votes sent in by mail. Voting is important. Important enough that the person should take the effort to go to the polls and vote. Not have the machine (pub or dem) come do it for you. This opens up that door to be way too easy imo.
I think mail-in voting is a separate issue than automatic registration. Florida has allowed mass mail-in voting for many years with no reason required to be given (at least since 2002 as far as I can tell). I always vote in person, but there are people who do not based on medical reasons or employment reasons or just because they don't want to risk some emergency popping up on election day. Not to mention that many precincts around the country already have very long waits, and some people don't have the ability or time to stand in line for hours.
If you are a person who supports only voting on one day, you gotta also be supporting like making every 7/11 a polling station and plentiful voting machines. The way things are set up now making everyone vote on one day would be ridiculous, especially for places that are underserved with machines and convenient locations (minorities and students cough cough).
Since voter registration is also tied to jury duty (I'm guessing in most states), they should have and opt out for jury duty if they automatically register you to vote. Me no likey jury duty. PITA.
Yes Florida has allowed is for a while. And I disagree with it. Opens too many doors to votes coming in from people who do not really care enough to do it. The National Voting day should be one day. Polls open 24 hours. Call it a holiday. If you cannot find time to get to the polls in 24 hours and have a legitimate reason. Then absentee. We do that...I have no problems with AVR. As mentioned. I think if done right it could be beneficial with tying it to Drivers Licenses and helping on that side. But we have to make sure it is done right.
Why is 'caring enough' a measure of people jumping through the arbitrary hoops you want to impose? Sorry, that's just an imaginary standard with no grounding in reality, and one that can be adjusted to whatever suits your mood.