Poll: More Americans Are Concerned About Voting Access Than Fraud Prevention

[roguenuke]

lol. So now conditions have changed?

There are limits to the ability to 'fake' an ID. In my state, for example, the poll workers verify ID's using the magnetic stripe on the back. Someone couldn't just create a driver's license for a fake person, or even for a real person with just the street address - they would have to clone a real one. I'm sure someone could do that, but like any system, layers of security can help deter wrondoing.

Someone could simply steal someone's identity and get a whole new registration and state issued ID card using their newfound identification. You don't need to create a fake ID card. Just create a fake birth certificate with a bit of additional information. Why bother stealing someone's ballot, taking their place, when you could simply go somewhere else and pretend to be them where it won't be challenged?

But how much does what you describe happen? How do you know? Can you prove people steal other people's identity in a way that would be alleviated by an ID card just to vote? How often? And you think poll workers are seriously trained to identify fake IDs?

You basically are describing something that doesn't happen but if it did, the very mechanism to catch it is people voting. When that person who had someone wrongly claim to be them decides to vote, goes to vote, then it will be questioned. So how come that doesn't happen often at all? It isn't that common at all.

 

[dcsports]

really? there are people who don't drive in the US, and in Canada.
you KNOW all of this is a red herring, and I KNOW that you know, this is just an excuse to suppress votes.
We have ways here in Canada to confirm someone's identity, so does the States.
you aren't the least bit interested in fair elections, but are too dishonest to admit what your REAL grievance is.

sorry, the rest of us don't buy it, you and your small group of conspiracy theorists can howl from to the moon, TRUMP LOST, and lost fair and square.

ONLY IN THE U.S. is the behavior going on and you wonder why the rest of of the world views you as a 3rd world banana republic?

Even Trump's OWN justice dept, and Bill Barr have declared the election was free from widespread fraud.

Seriously, move on!! All this talk will do is spark another violent event like Jan. 6 and more conspiracy theorists making asses of themselves and getting jailed.

You are the one who brought it up. Now you are gaslighting and deflecting. Even mixing issues.

Note that you don't have to drive to get an ID.

 

[dcsports]

Someone could simply steal someone's identity and get a whole new registration and state issued ID card using their newfound identification. You don't need to create a fake ID card. Just create a fake birth certificate with a bit of additional information. Why bother stealing someone's ballot, taking their place, when you could simply go somewhere else and pretend to be them where it won't be challenged?

But how much does what you describe happen? How do you know? Can you prove people steal other people's identity in a way that would be alleviated by an ID card just to vote? How often? And you think poll workers are seriously trained to identify fake IDs?

You basically are describing something that doesn't happen but if it did, the very mechanism to catch it is people voting. When that person who had someone wrongly claim to be them decides to vote, goes to vote, then it will be questioned. So how come that doesn't happen often at all? It isn't that common at all.

What you describe as 'simply' isn't all that simple - it would require layers of forgery and leave a trail of evidence, including going to a driver's license office and submitting their real picture and fingerprints. Pretty unlikely for someone to do that.

I'll use my state as an example (Texas). They used to allow voting with a voter registration card. Submitting a voter registration requires filling out a form and mailing it in. Thousands of fake ones were caught each election cycle where counties looked for them. People registered at PO boxes, under different variants of names, dozens to empty lots or homeless shelters. In one case, the whole Dallas Cowoboy's football team was registered in Harris County. There's no telling how many got through without being caught. Once the card was in hand, it could be used. If you got a dead person's card, someone's out of a mailbox, etc. the registration would work. One county had more registered voters than people.

Voter ID put a stop to most of that behavior, and at least limits the ability of people to use fake registrations.

 

[roguenuke]

What you describe as 'simply' isn't all that simple - it would require layers of forgery and leave a trail of evidence, including going to a driver's license office and submitting their real picture and fingerprints. Pretty unlikely for someone to do that.

I'll use my state as an example (Texas). They used to allow voting with a voter registration card. Submitting a voter registration requires filling out a form and mailing it in. Thousands of fake ones were caught each election cycle where counties looked for them. People registered at PO boxes, under different variants of names, dozens to empty lots or homeless shelters. In one case, the whole Dallas Cowoboy's football team was registered in Harris County. There's no telling how many got through without being caught. Once the card was in hand, it could be used. If you got a dead person's card, someone's out of a mailbox, etc. the registration would work. One county had more registered voters than people.

Voter ID put a stop to most of that behavior, and at least limits the ability of people to use fake registrations.

Not really. People steal other people's identity every single day, probably every minute. They just need some information about the person, get a birth certificate and/or SS card sent to them, and then they can get an ID card.

Identity theft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you are able to get a single official card to use as your identity, then you are very likely to be able to get others.

Learn what documents you will need to get a Social Security Card | SSA

Learn what documents you will need to get a Social Security Card

www.ssa.gov

Untitled Document

So basically someone could get a copy of your birth certificate with some info like your full name, date of birth, parents' names, whether they were married, and where you were born (so info). Now you use that to get perhaps married to someone (because a marriage license can then also be use for identification). Use these to get a Social Security card. Then get your ID card. Data breaches can provide a lot of this information that would be needed to get that first one, then go from there. Plenty of IDs to use all by just having some information about a person.

 

[MrPeanut]

No one is trying to 'change everything.' Voter ID as a means to verify a person was an issue long before this election.

And I agree. We use ID for MANY aspects of our life already. No reason for Democrats to behave like the sky is falling.

I'm fine with voter ID as long as everybody can agree on what an ID is. Democrats aren't the ones believing in massive fraud with no evidence to the point of breaking into the capitol. It takes a complete lack of critical thinking to just trust some guy saying things and act on it in such a crazy violent way. Hence, my comparison to children.

 

[dcsports]

Not really. People steal other people's identity every single day, probably every minute. They just need some information about the person, get a birth certificate and/or SS card sent to them, and then they can get an ID card.

Identity theft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you are able to get a single official card to use as your identity, then you are very likely to be able to get others.

Learn what documents you will need to get a Social Security Card | SSA

Learn what documents you will need to get a Social Security Card

www.ssa.gov

Untitled Document

So basically someone could get a copy of your birth certificate with some info like your full name, date of birth, parents' names, whether they were married, and where you were born (so info). Now you use that to get perhaps married to someone (because a marriage license can then also be use for identification). Use these to get a Social Security card. Then get your ID card. Data breaches can provide a lot of this information that would be needed to get that first one, then go from there. Plenty of IDs to use all by just having some information about a person.

identity theft, yes. But more like getting information and cashing checks or using a credit card. What you are describing is next level - and again, would leave a trail of evidence. Do you really think people are going to spend weeks/months to get a fake birth certificate, fake social security number, line up at the DMV, submit a real address, have their picture taken, and submit their fingerprints? Then maintain that ID and address to register to vote? That's pretty unlikely. I'm sure it's happened, but is rare.

Again, nothing is foolproof, but requiring photo ID is a simple measure that doesn't impose any significant hardship for a lot of extra security at the ballot box.

 

[dcsports]

I'm fine with voter ID as long as everybody can agree on what an ID is. Democrats aren't the ones believing in massive fraud with no evidence to the point of breaking into the capitol. It takes a complete lack of critical thinking to just trust some guy saying things and act on it in such a crazy violent way. Hence, my comparison to children.

Well, you are trying to deflect to other issues and beating on a strawman.

Sure, there are loonies on the left and right. Those who say the whole election was 'stolen' and Trump should be reinstated are at one end and those who say 'there were no issues at all' at the other. Both are absolutely wrong. Critical thinking would put one at the position of saying - there were some issues - less button those up so we won't have them in the future.

 

[MrPeanut]

Well, you are trying to deflect to other issues and beating on a strawman.

Sure, there are loonies on the left and right. Those who say the whole election was 'stolen' and Trump should be reinstated are at one end and those who say 'there were no issues at all' at the other. Both are absolutely wrong. Critical thinking would put one at the position of saying - there were some issues - less button those up so we won't have them in the future.

I'm not deflecting to anything. This is what the thread is about. Give me some examples what we need to "button" up without referencing some bloated idiot just saying things and everyone falling in line behind him.

 

[dcsports]

I'm not deflecting to anything. This is what the thread is about. Give me some examples what we need to "button" up without referencing some bloated idiot just saying things and everyone falling in line behind him.

You are deflecting to "some bloated idiot" and a few people following him. It's really a strawman. He doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[roguenuke]

identity theft, yes. But more like getting information and cashing checks or using a credit card. What you are describing is next level - and again, would leave a trail of evidence. Do you really think people are going to spend weeks/months to get a fake birth certificate, fake social security number, line up at the DMV, submit a real address, have their picture taken, and submit their fingerprints? Then maintain that ID and address to register to vote? That's pretty unlikely. I'm sure it's happened, but is rare.

Again, nothing is foolproof, but requiring photo ID is a simple measure that doesn't impose any significant hardship for a lot of extra security at the ballot box.

Just because there is a "trail of evidence" doesn't mean that people are looking for that trail or that those leaving that trail care.

The thing is, there just isn't any real incentive to commit massive amounts of significant voter fraud in any way that would be stopped by requiring ID. You may be able to stop one or two votes, but that would be it, and at the expense of causing major hardship to people when it comes to voting.

 

[MrPeanut]

You are deflecting to "some bloated idiot" and a few people following him. It's really a strawman. He doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread.

A few people? You are talking about one of the most popular Republicans in the history of our country. He has everything to do with this thread because Republicans are using his random evidence free claims to slap on dozens of new voting restrictions. What evidence are you reviewing that makes you believe things need to be "buttoned" up? Is it the several rejected lawsuits alleging fraud or something else?

 

[dcsports]

Just because there is a "trail of evidence" doesn't mean that people are looking for that trail or that those leaving that trail care.

If someone does that to a live person - you bet they would complain, and the police would be happy to roll up that trail with the multiple felonies you describe. That's rare, and low risk with regards to voting. I really don't know why you keep bringing it up.

The thing is, there just isn't any real incentive to commit massive amounts of significant voter fraud in any way that would be stopped by requiring ID. You may be able to stop one or two votes, but that would be it, and at the expense of causing major hardship to people when it comes to voting.

LOL. Love your qualifiers here. It doesn't have to be 'massive' to be significant. And if you don't think there's an incentive to commit voter fraud, I have a bridge to sell you.

Voter ID is a simple step that can prevent voter fraud - and in many cases counters a significant weakness in our voting system. It doesn't cause a 'major hardship' - and that's an odd argument for you to make when you just claimed it was easy to get an ID.

 

[dcsports]

A few people? You are talking about one of the most popular Republicans in the history of our country. He has everything to do with this thread because Republicans are using his random evidence free claims to slap on dozens of new voting restrictions. What evidence are you reviewing that makes you believe things need to be "buttoned" up? Is it the several rejected lawsuits alleging fraud or something else?

Yes a few people. Most of the issues aren't even 'his evidence' (whatever that means). In most cases we're not even talking about significant changes, but rather, addressing weaknesses or changes during the last election cycle - where there were a lot of adjustments for the Pandemic. It's a good thing. Just like Florida tightened up it's processes after Bush v Gore - we should expect states like Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, etc. to get their houses in order.

 

[MrPeanut]

Yes a few people. Most of the issues aren't even 'his evidence' (whatever that means). In most cases we're not even talking about significant changes, but rather, addressing weaknesses or changes during the last election cycle - where there were a lot of adjustments for the Pandemic. It's a good thing. Just like Florida tightened up it's processes after Bush v Gore - we should expect states like Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, etc. to get their houses in order.

I'm sure you don't believe that the election was stolen because of massive voter fraud, but over half of the Republican party is definitely not just "a few people". Why is making adjustments to voting post pandemic a good thing? For the third time, what is your evidence of voter fraud that would necessitate legislation as a corrective action? Why add restrictions if it isn't in response to election security issues?

 

[upsideguy]

Polls are bullshit though. They ask 1000 ignorant people to comment on something they mostly know about from watching MSM or hearing late night jokes. And then the media says this represents everyone. What do you expect people to say when we hear a constant drumbeat from the President that this is Jim Crow on steroids? We know all the lies told about the election and laws related to the election to stop some of the things that happened during. Do these people? Do they know what ballot harvesting is? Do they know that in some states they sent ballots to every household regardless of eligibility to vote? Do they know about the dozens of criminal CONVICTIONS every year related to voter fraud? Of course not, because the MSM doesnt report it.

1) "dozens?" Really, that is a really, really insignificant amount compared to 155,000,000 people voting..... and the "voter fraud" is usually someone voting when they shouldn't, like signing their dead parents ballot. "Dozens" would not change the outcome an election..... "Dozens" suggests the elections are pretty secure. "Dozens" tells us there is no problem. "Dozens" is not a sufficiently compelling number to change anything about an election, much less rules that serve largely to restrict voter participation. Meanwhile, I actually quibble with the idea of "dozens"..... the Heritage Foundation database has 1,143 convictions.... and it goes back years. Look through it and tell us where the danger is. There is no evidence of systematic fraud within.

The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Map

The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Map is an interactive tool providing a sampling of proven instances of election fraud across the U.S. From @HeritageDataviz

www.heritage.org

2) Yes, Colorado sends ballots to everyone on the voter rolls, which typically have lots of errors in them (like if you move or die, they often lag). So what? Your vote doesn't count unless you are eligible. They check eligibility. If you knowingly vote when you are ineligible, you could end up on the Heritage Foundation database above. What is the upside in that?

3) "Ballot harvesting" is also not much of a problem.

It is almost impossible to alter the outcome of the election through illegal voting. Thinking this is a problem is nonsense. It is very, very possible, however, to alter the outcome of election by suppressing the vote: keeping legitimate voters away from the polls. Since the Republican platform does not have broad support AND they refuse to really market themselves to the voter, their only hope of continued political relevance is to be certain certain people don't vote, hence they are all about voter suppression. What is worse, a few dozen people voting when they should not; or thousands of people denied the vote when they are eligible? That seems like a no brainer to me.

In the Republican base there are two classes of people: The disingenuous that try to sell this notion of voter fraud and their useful idiots that believe it and parrot it. I assume you are not a useful idiot, so don't be disingenuous as it is a form of lying.

 

[dcsports]

I'm sure you don't believe that the election was stolen because of massive voter fraud, but over half of the Republican party is definitely not just "a few people".

Mixing issues and building a straw man again.

Why is making adjustments to voting post pandemic a good thing?

I'm repeating myself. Please look at previous posts. But in summary, there were a lot of adjustments made on the fly, experiments, changes in transparency, etc. Many either weren't covered by election law, fell in a gray area, or flat contradicted it. It also exposed a lot of issues with absentee ballots, where before, the volume was insignificant. Legislatures should go back, address issues, codify changes, and make adjustments. In the 'real world' that's a very normal part of a continuous improvement process. There were a lot of legitimate concerns. I would prefer to have these addressed so that we don't repeat these in the future.

Again - with the example of Bush v Gore - a lot of issues were exposed in florida (and really elsewhere). They worked very hard to fix these for future elections.

For the third time, what is your evidence of voter fraud that would necessitate legislation as a corrective action? Why add restrictions if it isn't in response to election security issues?

You aren't counting very well. But cleaning up processes doesn't require 'massive amounts of voting fraud'. There were a lot of very direct issues with election security and transparency that need 'fixed'.

I will give you one great example. Texas has a process where a person can vote from their car called 'curbside voting'. There are specific safeguards in place for this, including allowances for a very transparent process as well as a qualification to limit potential abuse. Already in the law. Harris County officials tried an experiment with 'voting from the car'. They ignored the existing law, and erected tents with an awning that could be driven under.

The argument was that each little tent was a 'structure' and listed as it's own polling station. People weren't voting from a car, but from a 'polling location/structure', that they happened to pull their car into. The issue is that there was no effective way to monitor/observe, or allow for a segregation of duties that would exist in a normal polling location. It's just the one worker and a car. They argued that the requirements for curbside voting didn't apply. They couldn't effectively reconcile 1 person : 1 vote. Cars would move through with multiple votes recorded. The county officials were sued, drug their heels, then abandoned it when early voting was over - getting a dismissal because they weren't doing it any more - and saying the votes should count because 'it wasn't the voter's fault'. Again - used in one county for one election in a few locations.

The Texas legislature, as a part of the new election law is clarifying that this practice isn't allowed.

 

[Ikari]

1) "dozens?" Really, that is a really, really insignificant amount compared to 155,000,000 people voting..... and the "voter fraud" is usually someone voting when they shouldn't, like signing their dead parents ballot. "Dozens" would not change the outcome an election..... "Dozens" suggests the elections are pretty secure. "Dozens" tells us there is no problem. "Dozens" is not a sufficiently compelling number to change anything about an election, much less rules that serve largely to restrict voter participation. Meanwhile, I actually quibble with the idea of "dozens"..... the Heritage Foundation database has 1,143 convictions.... and it goes back years. Look through it and tell us where the danger is. There is no evidence of systematic fraud within.

The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Map

The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Map is an interactive tool providing a sampling of proven instances of election fraud across the U.S. From @HeritageDataviz

www.heritage.org

2) Yes, Colorado sends ballots to everyone on the voter rolls, which typically have lots of errors in them (like if you move or die, they often lag). So what? Your vote doesn't count unless you are eligible. They check eligibility. If you knowingly vote when you are ineligible, you could end up on the Heritage Foundation database above. What is the upside in that?

3) "Ballot harvesting" is also not much of a problem.

It is almost impossible to alter the outcome of the election through illegal voting. Thinking this is a problem is nonsense. It is very, very possible, however, to alter the outcome of election by suppressing the vote: keeping legitimate voters away from the polls. Since the Republican platform does not have broad support AND they refuse to really market themselves to the voter, their only hope of continued political relevance is to be certain certain people don't vote, hence they are all about voter suppression. What is worse, a few dozen people voting when they should not; or thousands of people denied the vote when they are eligible? That seems like a no brainer to me.

In the Republican base there are two classes of people: The disingenuous that try to sell this notion of voter fraud and their useful idiots that believe it and parrot it. I assume you are not a useful idiot, so don't be disingenuous as it is a form of lying.

Yeah, the whole "fraud" thing is arguing over zero, there is not enough going on to make any difference. Colorado does have a voter ID law, and we've set our databases up well with plenty of communication and review. But it's not a roadblock to voting here. CO has set up pretty much the best voting system in the Republic currently.

 

[upsideguy]

Yeah, the whole "fraud" thing is arguing over zero, there is not enough going on to make any difference. Colorado does have a voter ID law, and we've set our databases up well with plenty of communication and review. But it's not a roadblock to voting here. CO has set up pretty much the best voting system in the Republic currently.

I agree. The entire country should follow the Colorado model. It is very efficient.

Although we do have voter ID, its a broad application. Your electric bill will suffice as identification. You pretty much just have to show you live in the in district where you cast you vote. Most most voter ID laws are not about ensuring eligible vote; they are designed to suppress the vote. For example, many states do not let you use a student ID with a picture, because they don't want students voting.

Yes, when it comes to voting, the Republicans are all in favor of needless government regulation.

 

[dcsports]

I agree. The entire country should follow the Colorado model. It is very efficient.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of Colorado, but it does appear to leave the door wide open for ballot harvesting.

Although we do have voter ID, its a broad application. Your electric bill will suffice as identification. You pretty much just have to show you live in the in district where you cast you vote.

If electric bill will suffice as identification, it's not a real ID requirement. Better than nothing.

Most most voter ID laws are not about ensuring eligible vote; they are designed to suppress the vote. For example, many states do not let you use a student ID with a picture, because they don't want students voting.

Yes, when it comes to voting, the Republicans are all in favor of needless government regulation.

False statement. Voter ID is about ensuring that you are the person you are casting the vote for. No suppression. That's a tired talking point. Student ID's generally aren't allowed because they are not official identification - most will even say, not for ID. They are for internal use by the school - not more than that. They don't have the same verification requirements, and in most cases, there's no way to verify if it's even valid. Students can obtain a driver's license or state ID easily.

 

[roguenuke]

If someone does that to a live person - you bet they would complain, and the police would be happy to roll up that trail with the multiple felonies you describe. That's rare, and low risk with regards to voting. I really don't know why you keep bringing it up.



LOL. Love your qualifiers here. It doesn't have to be 'massive' to be significant. And if you don't think there's an incentive to commit voter fraud, I have a bridge to sell you.

Voter ID is a simple step that can prevent voter fraud - and in many cases counters a significant weakness in our voting system. It doesn't cause a 'major hardship' - and that's an odd argument for you to make when you just claimed it was easy to get an ID.

They likely wouldn't find out for a while. And if they are dead, likely longer.

What is high risk, little reward is voter fraud. The most likely people to do this are relatives of dead voters. And that is extremely small, we are talking one person basically voting 2x in the election, and it generally gets caught.

Yes, it has to be able to change election results to be significant. No, there is not real incentive to commit voter fraud that would truly change an election.

 

[Bullseye]

Poll: More Americans Are Concerned About Voting Access Than Fraud Prevention

Fifty-six percent are more worried that those who want to vote can, but the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll also found that most agree that voters should have to present photo ID at the polls.

www.npr.org

An interesting article, and I think it is pretty well spot on. Voter ID, depending on what will be accepted as the ID, isn't bad. Colorado has a voter ID law even though we're a mail-in State. But we have quite a list of acceptable IDs. I think that so long as the list of accepted IDs isn't wretchedly restricted, it's fine.

But more than anything, the poll shows that Americans overall are more concerned with access to polls than fraud itself. This is likely due to fraud never really being anything close to an impact on the overall voting system. So as some States move to restrict voting access, it's interesting to see that Americans want the opposite.

As I've stated many times, Colorado's system is the best in terms of safety and security as well as access. And all States without a mail-in system already in place should be moving towards our system, not the limitation of voting. And it would see that the majority of Americans would agree.

How, exactly does the mail-in ballot work? Do you have to request it, or is just automatically mailed to all registered voters - if so how are the voter rolls kept current and accurate?

 

[upsideguy]

I'm not familiar with the specifics of Colorado, but it does appear to leave the door wide open for ballot harvesting.



If electric bill will suffice as identification, it's not a real ID requirement. Better than nothing.




False statement. Voter ID is about ensuring that you are the person you are casting the vote for. No suppression. That's a tired talking point. Student ID's generally aren't allowed because they are not official identification - most will even say, not for ID. They are for internal use by the school - not more than that. They don't have the same verification requirements, and in most cases, there's no way to verify if it's even valid. Students can obtain a driver's license or state ID easily.

No, it is your statement that lacks any degree of understanding. Yes, they sell voter ID as some type of protection. But from what? There is no known problem.

Voter ID is about reducing the number of undesirables voting.

Voter ID Laws: A Way to Suppress the Vote - The Berkeley School

by Mackenzie P. What are voter ID laws? Voter ID laws require people who are old enough to vote to bring their ID or a photo ID to the polls when they vote. These laws are only in effect in some states. The states run the elections, not the federal government. The first voter ID

www.theberkeleyschool.org

University of Chicago Press Journals: Cookie absent

Why Minority Voters Have a Lower Voter Turnout: An Analysis of Current Restrictions

With ethnic and racial minority populations in the United States rising, there is a growing population of voices that remain unaccounted for. Though current legislation has been implemented to ensure fair and impartial voting access, there is too much leeway given to state governments in the...

www.americanbar.org

Curiously, one study shows voter ID laws have very real little impact on protection or turnout. Hence, Voter ID is fundamentally a needless regulation.

A new study finds voter ID laws don’t reduce voter fraud — or voter turnout

The laws don’t seem to do what critics fear or proponents hope.

www.vox.com

Again there are two types of advocates for voter ID: the party leaders that understand that Republicans can not win if everyone votes AND their useful idiots that champion voter ID as protecting us for something (it ain't voter fraud, as it doesn't exist --- 1300 cases in 40 years, per the Heritage Foundation. That is not a problem). Voter ID is a solution for no known problem. (other than Republicans can't win elections on their merits)

The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Map

The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Map is an interactive tool providing a sampling of proven instances of election fraud across the U.S. From @HeritageDataviz

www.heritage.org

Despite Trump claims, voter fraud is extremely rare. Here is how U.S. states keep it that way

President Donald Trump and some Republican allies have repeatedly asserted, without evidence, that a surge in mail-in voting amid the coronavirus pandemic will lead to massive fraud in November's election.

www.reuters.com

 

[Ikari]

How, exactly does the mail-in ballot work? Do you have to request it, or is just automatically mailed to all registered voters - if so how are the voter rolls kept current and accurate?

CO maintains a database of eligible voters, those voters are mailed out ballots for all elections.

While in practice, there's a lot to it, at the base it's really just that simple.

 

[Tahuyaman]

I'd be concerned about both.
As for voter ID, why not a National ID card similar to the Belgian eID card?
Once I've voted, is there any way for me to confirm who my votes were cast for?

For some unknown reason voter ID requirements are considered racist in nature.

 

[Bullseye]

CO maintains a database of eligible voters, those voters are mailed out ballots for all elections.

While in practice, there's a lot to it, at the base it's really just that simple.

As long as the database is kept current, it sounds like a reasonable system. My question then becomes HOW do they do that. It seems every time someone proposes "cleaning up voter rolls" a massive chorus of "voter suppression" arises from the left.