×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Washington State To Allow Voter Registration Over Facebook

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the now-your-cat-can-vote dept.

Facebook 178

An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press reports that the state of Washington will soon have an application available on its Facebook page that will let residents register to vote. Washington and other states already allow online registration, but this is the first time it will be allowed over Facebook. The state's co-director of elections, Shane Hamlin, said, 'In this age of social media and more people going online for services, this is a natural way to introduce people to online registration and leverage the power of friends on Facebook to get more people registered.' Facebook won't have access to the State's database, and Hamlin says Facebook won't collect any of the personal information with which it interacts."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

178 comments

Lovely (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40683845)

Nah, no chance for vote fraud there.

Why make voting easy? Why not make it hard? That makes sure only people who care enough to at least truly believe in who they're voting for, instead of making elections a shallow beauty contest.

Re:Lovely (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40683891)

No possibility that Facebook will track voters. No constitutional issues at all. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Lovely (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#40683927)

I think they only register on Facebook don't actually vote there, although with America and their evoting machines you never know. As for unnecessarily complicating the voting process to scare off undecided voters, that may not have the effect you are hoping for. You see, the more you know, the less you trust all the bullshit the parties are feeding to you, or that elections really have an effect on your life. The people who will go to an election no matter what are the radicals.

Re:Lovely (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#40683969)

I think they only register on Facebook don't actually vote there, although with America and their evoting machines you never know. As for unnecessarily complicating the voting process to scare off undecided voters, that may not have the effect you are hoping for. You see, the more you know, the less you trust all the bullshit the parties are feeding to you, or that elections really have an effect on your life. The people who will go to an election no matter what are the radicals.

It makes a difference from the "hanging chad", people saying "I didn't vote I just clicked "like" on a picture of a kitten and it registered as a vote for Mitt Romney"

Re:Lovely (0, Troll)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about a year ago | (#40684115)

>> I just clicked "like" on a picture of a kitten and it registered as a vote for Mitt Romney

The opposition slogan could then be "Kill a Kitten for the Big O".

Re:Lovely (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about a year ago | (#40684507)

I just clicked "like" on a picture of a kitten and it registered as a vote for Mitt Romney

The opposition slogan could then be "Kill a Kitten for the Big O".

Roy Orbison is running for the Democrats? That's pretty impressive for a guy who's been dead over 20 years...

Re:Lovely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684783)

The masturbation jokes are getting out of hand around here.

Re:Lovely (5, Informative)

jpate (1356395) | about a year ago | (#40684001)

The people who will go to an election no matter what are the radicals.

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" —Emma Goldman

Re:Lovely (-1, Offtopic)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#40683929)

Why make voting easy? Why not make it hard? That makes sure only people who care enough to at least truly believe in who they're voting for, instead of making elections a shallow beauty contest.

1: You lack a verb in your run-on sentence. Presumably another "vote" before the comma.

2: It doesn't make that sure at all. It will make it harder for anyone who doesn't have enough money to buy the services that's needed to get a vote.

The whole idea of "register to vote" is, IMHO, a scam meant to reduce the number of voters. You are registered to vote when you obtain a citizenship - that's what the citizenship means. If we want a democratic election, we need to stop disenfranchising -- in name or in game -- those who are not like "us".
Other countries manage this quite well.

If Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela had been American, they would both have been denied both a right to vote and a right to run for office.

Re:Lovely (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684011)

Your correction is correct, but you weren't correcting a run-on sentence.

The problem with being a grammar Nazi is that an Obergrammatikfuhrer will come along to point out your mistakes. Then a Hauptgrammatikfuhrer will point out his errors, and so on until Grammar Hitler ends up rewriting the whole language in his image.

tl;dr your a failure

Re:Lovely (5, Funny)

quadrox (1174915) | about a year ago | (#40684129)

> tl;dr your a failure

should read

> tl;dr your'e a failure

Sincerely,
Hauptgrammatikfuhrer

Re:Lovely (1)

Bysshe (1330263) | about a year ago | (#40684407)

That would be "Hauptgrammatikführer". Führer [wikipedia.org] alternatively spelled Fuehrer in both English and German when the umlaut is not available.

Sincerely,
Oberhauptgrammatikführer

Re:Lovely (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year ago | (#40685001)

Actually, that should be ,,Hauptgrammatikführer“ in case it was spelled in German, due to the language's different set of quotation marks.

Sincerely,
Divisionsoberhauptgrammatikführer

Re:Lovely (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about a year ago | (#40684621)

> tl;dr your a failure

should read

> tl;dr your'e a failure

No, no, it should read you're a..... wait, what were those two "whooshing" noises that just went over my head?

Anyway, yeah, "you're a failure".

Signed,
Grammar Hitler

(Oh wait, did I just call myself Hitler??!!)

Re:Lovely (1)

Dr. Hok (702268) | about a year ago | (#40684389)

The whole idea of "register to vote" is, IMHO, a scam meant to reduce the number of voters.

That's pretty obvious. Maybe it wasn't intended as such, but it is quite convenient for the existing political class. I never understood why there is no broad movement against this in the US.

If Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela had been American, they would both have been denied both a right to vote and a right to run for office.

It did happen to both of them in South Africa.

Re:Lovely (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#40684985)

If Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela had been American, they would both have been denied both a right to vote and a right to run for office.

Umm, no.

Both of them, assuming they were US Citizens, would have been granted the right to vote by the 14th Amendment.

Last I checked, the 14th Amendment was passed before any of their grandparents had been born, so they'd have had the right to vote.

Ditto the right to run for office. While the President is restricted to natural born citizens (as opposed to naturalized citizens), other offices are not so restricted.

Re:Lovely (2)

mister2au (1707664) | about a year ago | (#40683933)

I almost missed the point on first reading there ...

I'm guessing the implied problem is suggesting that compromised facebook accounts give the possibility for the step in fake voter registrations which can be then used for vote fraud?

Or is was a troll attempt and I read meaning into something that had none.

Re:Lovely (1)

Rei (128717) | about a year ago | (#40684601)

I don't get why you in America have to have this be so complicated. What's so wrong with a single national database and everyone with a single *public* ID number as the key, with your contact information in the database? For anything that wants to make sure you're who you say you are, you only need to enter your id number, and they can look up your official contact information and send you a confirmation. And you can automatically get mailed about any major actions taken using your ID number as well, such as changing your contact information. And because the key is public, nobody is stupid enough to try to use it as a password, like Americans do with social security numbers; when the id number is public, you have to use *real* security where security is needed. Overall, it makes identity theft almost impossible and makes it easy for anyone to authenticate you and greatly simplifies the sharing of records (much more convenient). That's what we do here. Is it some sort of paranoia about centralization of records about individuals or about public keys that keeps America from doing something like that?

Re:Lovely (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40683991)

"Why make voting easy? Why not make it hard?"

This is correct, except there is no reason to make it hard. It should not be easy and convenient, but what it must be is secure and reliable.

If you know IT you will know that these qualities are not compatible, convenient and easy will by definition not be reliable and secure.

This is purpose driven you understand, the statist needs fraud to win elections.

Just as with border security - they can do it if they wanted to yet they do not. Ask yourself why this might be.

Who is John Galt?

Re:Lovely (3, Insightful)

Pax681 (1002592) | about a year ago | (#40684317)

Who is John Galt?

here in Scotland John Galt [wikipedia.org] was a novelist and has a primary school named after him in Irvine, North Ayrshire ;)

Your first statement is correct. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684075)

There is a chance for voter *registration* fraud -- a notably different crime with a notably different detriment to society. Voter registration fraud is criminal, but it in no way changes the outcome of our democratic elections. Since people will not be voting on Facebook, people will not be committing voter fraud on Facebook.

Small "d" democracy is about everybody voting. Not the smartest, not the richest, not those who "care enough". Everybody. We require citizenship and adult age, reasonably. We (some states, not all) then tack on a whole host of other requirements which are, in my opinion, far less reasonable: you can't be in prison, you can't be on parole, you can't have been convicted of a felony, you must have a government issued ID with your current address on it, you can only vote absentee if you will be out of town [even if the polls are open during inconvenient hours], you must register to vote 17+ days before the election, and so forth.

Not happy with the way other folks are voting? You've got a few choices. In the short term, go convince 'em to vote based on reasons or issues which *you* think are important. In the longer term, fight for things like campaign finance reform, election reform, better journalism, and better education. All the while, have conversations about politics with friends, acquaintances, and foes alike; the more people talk about politics the more likely they'll pay closer attention to political facts, theory, and outcomes.

I vote the way talk radio tells me to (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684181)

In the short term, go convince 'em to vote based on reasons or issues which *you* think are important.

I vote based upon what the Talk Radio hosts and the talking heads on Fox News tell me to do. After all, those people who make tens of millions of dollars a year by spewing half truths and lies obviously have my, the common man, best interests at heart.

We need lower taxes on the job creators! It has been working. The Bush Tax Cuts kept unemployment below 10%! Corporate profits are at record levels!

This bullshit about how my real wages and my standard of living being stagnate for decades is just Liberal bias.

The fact that I'm unemployed means that I'm just not worthy to be employed. You see, I'm only physically capable of working 50+ hours a week which just doesn't cut it anymore - especially in IT. That's why I can't get a job; I'm a wimp.

I also need to pray to Jesus harder. My faith just isn't strong enough and therefore God punishes us who don't have enough faith with no money. Being rich means you're being more Godly than thy neighbor - it says so in the Bible somewhere - Joel Osteen and Rich Warren say so!

I'm a free man in the World's greatest country! I can own a gun! I don't worry about the fact that the government can eavesdrop on all my electronic communications, that I have to be electronically strip searched to just fly within the US, and that all my financial transactions are monitored by the government because of the War on Terror, Drugs, Child Porn, etc ..... (Google OFAC about buying a car....).

Yep I'm free.

Re:Lovely (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#40684155)

Not from the US.
Why do you need to register to vote anyway?
Isn't any adult automatically allowed to vote and doesn't government already have a list of every adult?

Re:Lovely (3, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year ago | (#40684235)

People keep migrating, so the states cannot keep track of the residents. Also lot of things makes you ineligible to vote. The registration gives the states time to verify eligibility. From what I understand, all countries register voters for this reason. Is it different in your country?

Re:Lovely (3, Interesting)

Bysshe (1330263) | about a year ago | (#40684509)

It is different in different countries. Here in Holland when you live/move to a city you are required by law to register with that city (else not be able to get health insurance, vote, or get social assistance). When you're registered they also automatically send you your voter card before elections. Then its up to you if you go to vote or not. Next elections here are September 12th.

Re:Lovely (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#40684901)

Here in Holland when you live/move to a city you are required by law to register with that city

Fortunately, (or not, depending on your perpsective), I don't have to register with the government to move in the USA.

Re:Lovely (1)

Bysshe (1330263) | about a year ago | (#40684943)

It does depend on your perspective. It still gives me the willies. But you take the bad with the good.

Re:Lovely (1)

avm (660) | about a year ago | (#40684973)

You wind up registering with enough different entities that it would almost be a relief to single source it. Change address with DMV, with employer (who in turn shares it with fed/state/local tax agencies), with public utilities, and the list goes on.

Most of these are required, either by federal, state or local law. At least in the northeast corner of the US, that is.

Re:Lovely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40685283)

Do you have a drivers license? In ILLINOIS you need to update your address after moving within 30 days. It might be the same for state ID.

Re:Lovely (1)

Spliffster (755587) | about a year ago | (#40685365)

Yes, my country knows that I am a citizen of this country, therefore i do not need to register for voting. Whenever it is time to vote, they send me an envelope with all the information available about the candidates, where to vote and when. It's not rocket science, really.

Re:Lovely (1)

Sarius64 (880298) | about a year ago | (#40684903)

Just because you think white guilt drives all politics does not a standard of legality become created.

Please name any other country in the world that has this standard.

Re:Lovely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684267)

Am I the ONLY one who wonders if they forgot, that elections are supposed to be SECRET???
And Facebook is the OPPOSITE of that. Or do you think Zuck will not track the votes and sell it to everyone for a song, so that they can be harassed and called "terrorists" in the next round of Stalin-like russian blame roulette?

Re:Lovely (2)

Bysshe (1330263) | about a year ago | (#40684371)

Better yet, make it required with penalty of fine if you don't. If you have no opinion you vote blank. That way you get a more moderate and rational reflection of actual citizen opinion instead of just the extreme ends who are emotionally vested in the issues

Re:Lovely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684499)

Indeed. Soon we can't even take a shit without a Failbook account!

Re:Lovely (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#40684565)

Nah, no chance for vote fraud there.

Voter fraud is the distraction to the real issue - electoral fraud.

Voter fraud is low-reward, high risk. It makes no sense to stand in line more than once to vote, after standing in line for an hour each and travelling between towns to hide it. So say in an afternoon, you get to pull off 3 votes - 1 real vote, and 2 frauds. Woop de doo. You didn't affect an election much at all unless it's a squeaker. But you just committed two felonies, for which you can go to jail. Supposedly, if you listen to the talking heads decrying voter fraud, this is a rampant problem.

But anyone and everyone trying to measure voter fraud comes up with bupkis.

Compare and contrast with actual electoral fraud problems we've had over the recent years, with missing ballots, electronic vote flipping, etc. This doesn't get as much airplay, because the good ol' boys don't want you to know how your vote is being stolen by them. So they distract. They invent a fake controversy about voter fraud and represent that as to why your vote doesn't count like you think it should. The reality is that your vote is being flipped or disappeared if you are in a county or state with electronic voting machines with no paper records.

--
BMO

Re:Lovely (1)

Rei (128717) | about a year ago | (#40684683)

Voter fraud is basically a non-issue [truthaboutfraud.org]. It's usually somewhere in the range of a few tenths of a thousandth of one percent of votes cast. On the other hand, barring people who should *legitimately* be allowed to vote but are accidentally or maliciously prevented from doing so in the name of preventing voter fraud, is a far more common problem, and can affect, in extreme cases, as much as 10% of eligible voters [thegrio.com]

Re:Lovely (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#40684925)

Voter fraud is basically a non-issue [truthaboutfraud.org]. It's usually somewhere in the range of a few tenths of a thousandth of one percent of votes cast.

Hmm, wasn't the 2000 Presidential election won (or lost, depending on your perspective) on the basis of a few hundred votes out of a hundred million or so.

In general, vote fraud doesn't matter much on the national level. It's more of an issue on the local level, where a few dozen extra votes in the right place can make a difference.

But, occasionally, a few dozen votes can make a huge difference on the national level, IF they're in the right district....

Re:Lovely (1)

sycodon (149926) | about a year ago | (#40685389)

They never really look for voter fraud. Even if they did, you can only infer it unless someone actually tries to vote and can't because the log shows they already have. Or, you can infer fraud by looking at the number of people who voted using "provisional" ballots or just look at the vote totals that exceed registered voters. So, their assertions are meaningless.

Photo ID is the only way to have an impact.

But as BMO points out, the real problem is corrupted (*Cough*Chicago*) officials and determined organizations (*cough*Unions).

Re:Lovely (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year ago | (#40684751)

Your question may be rhetorical, but in case people don't know - it's purely an intent by one party to get more voters.

There is one political party in the US that gets an overwhelming majority of the uneducated* and unemployed voters and thus benefits almost exclusively from any expansion of the voting franchise (such as to felons, etc.). In fact, Mr Obama gained election by winning a dominant share of the under$30k income population (the candidates were exactly the same or within 1% among all higher income brackets).

*ironically, this same party gets a majority of the highest intelligentsia, people with high academic credentials. One might say this party is simultaneously one of people who know nothing, and people who think they know everything.

Re:Lovely (0)

P-niiice (1703362) | about a year ago | (#40685065)

The people who want to make voting hard KNOW who it will be hardest on - generally people who won't vote for them.

A bright shining example of this is the good ol' stata of Georgia, where you are required to have a driver's license or Voters ID card to vote. They allowed that rule to stand for a year and have now removed the option to renew your current license online. You know have to stand in line for 6+ hours, and bring an ORIGINAL birth certificate, SS card and two bills to prove residency. Red states are doing this kind of thing nation-wide.

Re:Lovely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40685429)

You mean like a poll tax?

Getting people out to vote in the US is a good... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year ago | (#40683857)

thing because voter turnout tends to hover at around only 50% :(

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40683915)

thing because voter turnout tends to hover at around only 50% :(

And why is that bad?

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (2)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year ago | (#40683935)

because it's usually associated with disenchantment, indifference or contentment. None of which is good. Also, a high turnout is generally perceived (globally) as an estimate legitimacy of the current voting system ... unless it's mandatory of course.

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684015)

because it's usually associated with disenchantment, indifference or contentment. None of which is good. Also, a high turnout is generally perceived (globally) as an estimate legitimacy of the current voting system ... unless it's mandatory of course.

And making it easy to vote just means you get disenchanted and indifferent people casting votes, votes based on nothing of substance.

Why would that be good?

If voter disenchantment and indifference are problems, figuring ways to inflate voter turnout just to get a pretty number doesn't address the problems.

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (3, Informative)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year ago | (#40684117)

What is this, the 1600s again, every citizen (within reason) has a RIGHT to vote, it's not a PRIVILEGE reserved for those not disenchanted/disenfranchised. People have the RIGHT to vote based on nothing of substance. Personally, I think every citizen has a RESPONSIBILITY to vote.

Voting gives people a chance to feel that they have the power to make a difference in who makes decisions ... and that makes all the difference because it holds the elected accountable. Low voter turnout suggests to the elected that they need only cater to a smaller portion of their constituents to be re-elected. Low voter turnout, and having an outdated two-party system with a similarly outdated electoral college, has caused a lot of problems with the policy of the US government. For example, having a few Pirate Party members in Senate/House would prevent a lot of the "copyright-based" complaints on ./

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (1, Informative)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#40684259)

I think every citizen has a RESPONSIBILITY to vote.

I don't think forcing people at gunpoint to throw a dart and select a random crook is the goal you were aiming for. Also voter intimidation for no candidate is only slightly less reprehensible than voter intimidation for a specific candidate.

Voting gives people a chance to feel that they have the power to make a difference in who makes decisions

Key word is "feel". No REAL impact. The aristocracy will select two of its own princes, as a prole you get to "feel" you can "make a difference" by selecting one crook or another. Maybe that'll "feeling" will stop you from rioting. If so its done its job of being the opiate of the masses.

You can probably learn a lot about your opposition by going to google and searching for "why I do not vote". A typical example and some tasty quotes, not the best, by far not the worst:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff224.html [lewrockwell.com]

"The Constitution has no legitimate authority over me. I have never signed off on it."
"I do not wish to endorse a system that has produced and continues to produce what I think are evil results"
"I get no psychological satisfaction from identifying myself with a party or candidate."

Now watch the haters descend with idiotic sophistry. I wonder how many logical fallacies we can find to oppose my/this viewpoint. "he sucks" "you suck" "everyone should have to follow my irrational belief because I say so even if at the point of a gun", etc. A real logical argument would be nice but I'm not expecting very much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies [wikipedia.org]

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (2, Insightful)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year ago | (#40684383)

IMHO, every citizen has the responsibility to become educated about the choices and vote. I apologize as that's what I should have said at the beginning. It ensures that the you're doing your (minimal) part to keep the process running correctly.

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (0)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#40684619)

IMHO, every citizen has the responsibility to become educated about the choices and vote.

Congratulations, you've just brought treatment of mentally disabled back to roughly 1800. A system that throws my ancient great uncle into prison because he has Alzheimers therefore can't become educated and frankly probably can't physically vote is morally and ethically reprehensible... the civilization level of a culture can be defined by looking at how it treats its weakest members, and this "responsibility" would seem to be an immense step backwards in our civilization.

I ask again, what will you do to enforce your new found "responsibility"? Deport? Imprison? Drone strikes? Yes that's all extreme to provoke a reaction. But if we're no longer a free society, what will be the price charged to buy freedom from voting? Supposedly the propaganda is its horrifically immoral to make someone buy a $15 certified birth cert at the courthouse and a free ID card at the DMV in order to vote... I would guess that on the opposing side failure to vote "should" result in a similar $15 fine? Why do you hate the poor? In the same line of reasoning, should failure to vote be a felony? But where I live felons can't vote... So your "storyboard" is something like "x could have voted but didn't" "X marked as felon for life and fined $15" "X never able to vote again"? Should failure to vote in a federal election be a felony and a municipal election be a municipal citation, or ...

Responsibility without reward is otherwise known as slavery. What reward is being given in exchange to make it not-slavery? I argue its all a sham as a political statement and refuse to participate in slavery as a form of political speech. So which has higher priority when it inevitably goes to court, your weird enslavement or my political free speech "statement"?

Also its a traditional wedge issue. Why can't this small minority, just this one time, be forced at the barrel of a gun, to go along with the majority, who we think are doing the right thing anyway, is a philosophy that leads not just to mandatory voting but human rights abuses of all kinds. Sometimes there's a reason to do the wrong thing and go down the wrong road and tempt fate, if its worth it, if it really has to be done, maybe for national or personal survival. But for something as irrelevant with as little impact as voting?

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#40685007)

IMHO, every citizen has the responsibility to become educated about the choices and vote.

I agree that I have the responsibility to become educated about the choices.

I do NOT agree that I have the responsibility to vote.

If no candidate is acceptable, then not voting is the correct thing to do.

And that's pretty much been true for the last four or five federal election cycles....

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684313)

What is this, the 1600s again, every citizen (within reason) has a RIGHT to vote, it's not a PRIVILEGE reserved for those not disenchanted/disenfranchised. People have the RIGHT to vote based on nothing of substance. Personally, I think every citizen has a RESPONSIBILITY to vote.

Voting gives people a chance to feel that they have the power to make a difference in who makes decisions ... and that makes all the difference because it holds the elected accountable. Low voter turnout suggests to the elected that they need only cater to a smaller portion of their constituents to be re-elected. Low voter turnout, and having an outdated two-party system with a similarly outdated electoral college, has caused a lot of problems with the policy of the US government. For example, having a few Pirate Party members in Senate/House would prevent a lot of the "copyright-based" complaints on ./

So, when asked to explain WHY you believe one of your assumptions, you get combative, start SHOUTING, and start throwing up straw men?

Which means what? You don't know why you believe what you do?

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year ago | (#40684319)

that's how I treat people who don't stand behind their comments (i.e. AC)

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year ago | (#40684339)

for one, I can't tell if all comments are the same AC ... if you want to establish a discoruse, sign-in.

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684653)

for one, I can't tell if all comments are the same AC ... if you want to establish a discoruse, sign-in.

So, you now add ad hominem to your logical failures?

Got it.

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year ago | (#40684335)

Ok, so you say that having a few Pirate Party members would be a good thing for the US, how do you expect them to get elected? Look at the Libertarian Party, which has ~1% of the vote in a good portion of every election and is pretty much the largest third party in the US. Now with 1% of the vote, you'd expect 1 seat out of every 100 in a legislative body to have at least one Libertarian, but there isn't. The only legislative body in the US with a Libertarian is the RI house of representatives meaning the Libertarian party has 1 seat of 7916 available. At least that is better than the Green Party who is another contender to be the major third party (it has more registered voters but generally does poorer in elections) with 0 seats out of 7916.

Yes, I vote and I generally vote with a protest vote, its unlikely that most of my candidate choices (except in local elections) will ever get in. There are several times where I write in "None of the Above" (especially in local elections). But does voting change anything? No. It hasn't historically changed anything in the US and won't change anything in the future, its only benefit is you can pat yourself on the back when another Republocrat screws up the nation and say, well, I didn't vote for him...

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year ago | (#40684571)

Local elections are where you should be voting third-party. Why the apathy? Without local support, why would you expect anything to happen at the national level?

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (1)

QuantumPion (805098) | about a year ago | (#40684949)

Just because you have the right to vote does not mean the government is obliged to drive you to the polls or provide absentee ballots. Just like how you have the right to free speech but that doesn't mean the government has the obligation to provide you with a microphone and an audience.

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year ago | (#40684183)

Every vote matters. Votes from lazy ones, indifferent ones, sadistic ones, anarchists, autistic ones, geeks, high IQ ones, low IQ ones, everything matters.

Re:Getting people out to vote in the US is a good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684379)

Every vote matters. Votes from lazy ones, indifferent ones, sadistic ones, anarchists, autistic ones, geeks, high IQ ones, low IQ ones, everything matters.

Nice tautology.

Doesn't even try to explain WHY having high voter turnout is good, though.

What could possibly go wrong? (5, Insightful)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#40683885)

This seems like an incredibly bad idea, for several reasons:

1. People use bad passwords on Facebook
2. People get their Facebook accounts compromised all the time
3. Giving Facebook (the company) access to this kind of information scares the shit out of me.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (2)

mister2au (1707664) | about a year ago | (#40683919)

Giving what information scares you?

It just pre-populates the existing voter application with your facebook info (like name and date of birth) ... end of story - you don't vote online and still have all the other registration steps outside of facebook

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#40684599)

Except that your voting registration is also tied to such identifying information such as your social security number, which we all know aren't used for identity theft on the Internet.

Also, when you register to vote, you register for a specific party. This gives Facebook quite the database of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in the State of Washington to target with advertisements for political candidates, "No on proposition X" ads, etc.

What's wrong with getting a form from your state government's website, filling it out, and using a stamp? Or spending 5 minutes at a post office?

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#40685049)

Also, when you register to vote, you register for a specific party.

Not in any State I've ever registered to vote in.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

mister2au (1707664) | about a year ago | (#40685155)

Really ... you register for a party? That seems insane ...

the USA does a lot of things right but your electoral (and healthcare) system clearly isn't one of them !!

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (2)

OhPlz (168413) | about a year ago | (#40685331)

The party you register under determines which ballot you get during the primary election. It makes sense since you're voting for the party's nominee. Once that's settled, then it's free for all in the general election. In my state, you can register without specifying a party and choose which ballot you'd like at the primary. That automatically enrolls you, but they also let us switch back to having no party before leaving the polling station.

The state had argued over whether those without a party should be allowed to vote in the primary. At the time, I was thinking yes because independents should be able to vote for the best candidate so their favorite has a chance at being a nominee. The downside is that if you have an incumbent or an obvious win for one party, independents-in-name-only can snipe the other party's ballot. They'll vote for the most-like-my-party's candidate.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684087)

Not to mention that it is a discrimination.

I want to use my Prodigy or CompuServe account.
At least we paid for those and they got our real financial data.
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

The sock-puppet party (2)

deniable (76198) | about a year ago | (#40683893)

They support Farmville aid and voting by like button.

Re:The sock-puppet party (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40683977)

They support Farmville aid and voting by like button.

So, what would change?

Like! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40683923)

Dump voting machines! Dump Diebold! Create facebook apps and make elections by number of likes each candidate will get!

[shaking head] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40683959)

[rolling eyes]

too stupid to be allowed to vote (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about a year ago | (#40684005)

I thought California had a lot of aerobic encephalitis cases, but the Supreme Court should simply void all elections in Washington if they're really stupid enough to involve FaceBook in the voter registration process. There's less chance of valid registrations there than when Daley's precinct wardens would gather names at the cemeteries.

Re:too stupid to be allowed to vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684151)

It doesn't matter anyways how the vote goes. as a washington resident, I never have expectations from either party in any position in this state. I still vote, just never gets me excited.

On the larger scale, of course they want to make voting easier for the masses. Someone finally realized that if you get the vote out of the hands of the educated few, it becomes entirely about advertising and not about facts.
" 'im canadate X and I'm for america!' (2 million users like this)"

Re:too stupid to be allowed to vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684613)

Democracy is the idea that everything should be run by as large a committee as possible.

Captcha: kludges

Re:too stupid to be allowed to vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40685197)

Ah, in that case it's good that we're not a Democracy.

That's awesome. (1)

superwiz (655733) | about a year ago | (#40684019)

I tried it.... it worked! I like it so much, I tried it again and again and again. This is more fun than sex! And you don't even have to pick a different name every time like you do in sex.

Why both registration and voter id laws? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#40684021)

Many states are pushing hard on voter id laws. Well, if states require voter-id with the current address on them, why require registration too? People with valid id should be able to register and vote on the same day, right?

Re:Why both registration and voter id laws? (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#40684393)

Well, if states require voter-id with the current address on them, why require registration too?

Its not a bad idea. The problem is we Americans love to disenfranchise people, which is a $5 word for "stop citizens from voting". Depends on state, etc. Speaking very generically, felons often get a lifetime ban on voting (also usually firearms "right" is taken away, sometimes restricted to live in certain areas, etc).

The overly bureaucratic belief is only 100% accuracy is permissible so you can't just half ass this and get it 99.9% right. So you'd need all ID to contain/display a legally verifiable proof of prior felony conviction status. And this is complicated as heck because some states ban you for life, some until a certain number of years or until you petition the court and convince a judge assuming the wanna be voter cares that much. Then there's state line issues. Finally you've got the "scarlett A" issue where "normal ID" can't really contain felony status... too many places require ID but legally are not allowed to know felony status.

You could work around that Venn diagram problem by creating a two part voter ID... like you'd get your drivers license, then if you're allowed to vote you'd get another second ID card or more likely they'd just put you on a list... Oh wait we call that voter registration. Guess its gonna be awful hard to avoid voter registration.

Add the race card to the mix where certain races are about 100 times more likely, all things being equal other than criminal records, to be disenfranchised, and you've got a huge political football.

Finally a great way to get an extra felony conviction is to illegally vote, there's such a tasty and verified paper trail, so to protect the criminals, you want to make it "hard" to register and vote. Otherwise anyone who knows a felon can get them sent back to jail by merely registering in their name and voting for them (even optionally blowing the whistle on the victim). Trivializing the process of voter registration is intensely anti-(insert ethnic group with high felony conviction rates), another political football.

Another way to look at it, is the deluded hard core "everyone must vote, even if it means we must punish the disbelievers" types don't seem to understand that if voting were a effective agent of change 1) it would be made illegal 2) even if it were incredibly difficult people would INHERENTLY be hypermotivated to do it, positive feedback loop and all that. So being unable to vote because of inability to jump over the worlds shortest hurdle frankly doesn't matter.

Re:Why both registration and voter id laws? (0)

Sarius64 (880298) | about a year ago | (#40684961)

Yet, which is more probable?

This bullshit you're pulling out your proverbial ass from 1952 or Democrats busing people from State to State to fraudulently vote with the sanction of the Executive branch currently in power?

Criminal background check (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#40684421)

People with valid id should be able to register and vote on the same day, right?

As I understand it, the waiting period after registering to vote serves the same purpose as the waiting period for buying certain kinds of deadly weapon: a criminal background check.

Re:Criminal background check (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#40684923)

As I understand it, the waiting period after registering to vote serves the same purpose as the waiting period for buying certain kinds of deadly weapon: a criminal background check.

Could be true, I am not disputing that. But it is funny all the Republicans show determination to make it easier to get a gun, but somehow they show equal amount of fervor in reducing voter turn out.

Re:Criminal background check (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#40685137)

As I understand it, the waiting period after registering to vote serves the same purpose as the waiting period for buying certain kinds of deadly weapon: a criminal background check.

You understand incorrectly. The waiting period is pretty much a matter of bureaucratic inertia - once upon a time, after you registered, the registration had to be entered on a big sheet of paper, which then had to be copied by hand to other sheets of paper, which then had to be distributed to the various precincts.

Alas, the government hasn't quite gotten as far in the computer age as providing for voter registration checks via computer at the various voting places...which could be done basically real-time, as opposed to handing out voter-registration print-outs to each precinct...

See? Facebook is a National ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684033)

http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia

Reject datamining.
Reject Facebook.
Reject State survelliance.

Bold Statement of the Month (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#40684049)

Hamlin says Facebook won't collect any of the personal information with which it interacts

Riiiight

Re:Bold Statement of the Month (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684879)

The actual registration will happen on a state web site, so FB doesn't get anything there. The FB app gets your name and birth date from FB and passes it on to the state web site. So FB already has that. This assumes you gave FB your real name and B-day, and it doesn't sound like it will work if you didn't. What this gives FB is a list of users that are either first time voters or voters new to a particular area. I see several ways (for Mark) to make money on that.

That said, are people really too f-ing lazy to do a web search on "Washington State voter registration" to get the state site directly? It's the first hit on Google. If the only reason you're registering is because you found a registration link on FB, then I doubt you'll actually go to the polls anyway.

Wilma!!!!!!! (5, Funny)

setrops (101212) | about a year ago | (#40684091)

Facebook?

Really?

Are you fucking nuts?

I feel like watching a bad episode of the Flintstones where Fred gets one of his stupid ideas.

Doh!!!!! (2)

lymang (207777) | about a year ago | (#40684251)

I was thinking the Simpsons, personally, since Homer's ideas are WAY worse than Fred's ever were. But we're on the same page, I think.

Do you really think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684207)

it's a good idea to let people on Facebook vote? These are the same people that think that pushing the Like button will help cure cancer or feed starving kids in Africa.

Re:Do you really think... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year ago | (#40684463)

And do you really think that X candidate will really be better than Y candidate when both candidates have a chance of being elected? Sure Z and A candidates might be better but won't have a chance of being elected.

Voting for change is just as stupid as clicking "like" to cure cancer.

Reminds me of Good Omens... (1)

bythescruff (522831) | about a year ago | (#40684275)

"Facebook won't collect any of the personal information with which it interacts."

"Whoo-ee," said Crowley. "Where have you been?"

There is not even a small voter fraud problem... (1)

sharkette66 (256044) | about a year ago | (#40684397)

It is infinitesimally small. And whatever infinitesimal amount there is won't be solved by tougher voter ID requirements.

Pundits will ask how the "John" vote will swing (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#40684497)

John Bigboote, John Careful Walker, John Chief Crier, John Coyote, John Fish, John Fledgling, John Guardian, John Icicle Boy, John Jones, John Kim Chi, John Littlejohn, John Many Jars, John Mud Head, John Nephew, John O'Connor, John Omar, John Parrot, John Rajeesh, John Ready to Fly, John Repeat Dance, John Smallberries, John Take Cover, John Thorny Stick, John Two Horns, John Whorfin, John Ya Ya . . .

Facebook won't have access to the State's database (2)

dcsmith (137996) | about a year ago | (#40684913)

Facebook won't have access to the State's database, and Hamlin says Facebook won't collect any of the personal information with which it interacts

Wa ha ha ha ho ho hee hee hee, ahhh, [wipes tears of laughter from corner of eyes]

Wait... What? That was supposed to be a serious statement? Oh, crap.... Sorry.

Re:Facebook won't have access to the State's datab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#40684977)

State sets itself up for lawsuit. News at 11!

fall of society (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about a year ago | (#40685121)

Did anyone else just have the gut wrenching feeling of a wasteland Earth after they read this? OR what has our world come too? OR WTF Mate^^?!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...