"First, same-day voter registration aims to increase voter turnout among young voters."

How do you verify someones back ground in a single day, we can't do that for gun registrations now? But, let's face it, the goal is votes and votes for Democrats - regardless of who they are or where they came from. With Global Warming, Water Shortages, The War on Terror - we need to register millions of new Democrats - let's do it fast and not ask alot of questions...

The seven states that allow people to register and vote on Election Day have seen, on average, youth voter turnout rates that are 14 percentage points higher than states without same-day voter registration. The Five Under 35 support the Same Day Registration Initiative, House Joint Resolution 43, refers same-day voter registration to Oregon voters.

True enough, and I support this measure as part of what we should be doing to widely enfranchise and involve everyone.

Now, if you 5 youngsters are reading this, there is one social-psychology problem with your plan. The 14% turn-out increase you cite undoubtedly has to do with the fact that younger folks are very motivated by the whole "being part of it" thing at the polling place on election day, where the attention of their whole state and the media is focused.

The main problem with our stump-stupid VBM system is that this is exactly what it is not about. The biggest reasons people give for liking VBM is that: 1) It fits the true ageless, Oregon-slacker mentality that they can vote whenever they feel like getting around to it, and 2) It allows them to be withdraw into consumerist isolation at home, and avoid the whole polling place/dealing with people thing on election-day. By design, VBM doesn't create the excitement of "today's election day", "I want to be part of it" atmosphere that contributes to a large part of that 14% increase in young voter turnout (two stupid wars that they may have to die for nothing in doesn't hurt the turnout numbers either) .

Do you really think that enough younger voters are going to make that trip down to the Courthouse by themselves --- sometime, when they get around to it --- as would be the case with VBM? Or can we also hope you 5-under-35 will step up to the plate and start an intelligent discussion about what a backward system VBM is and what we should do about?

I think that VBM increases voter turnout in all age brackets.

Stephanie, no responsible citizen should care what someone like you in your egotism thinks. What you think is ignorant to the facts: Turnout of citizens who are eligible to be voters has not measurably increased in Oregon (just like everywhere else). Turnout numbers have appeared to increase because of how VBM is used to scrub the voter registration rolls of irregular voters. And no one has shown that the fact that participation by citizens who are eligible to be voters hasn't dropped significantly in Oregon is due to VBM and not to other factors that actually were in evidence before VBM.

Jenni: Your anecdotal argument is irrelevant to what we know about youth turnout: Presidential elections are what get young people motivated to register and vote the first time, and they turn out to polling places on that first election day for them because they are motivated. You can spin rationalizations all day in that way lazy Oregonians who like VBM because it allows them to be lazy slackers do all you want, until you can state a hypothesis about VBM and produce the facts and stats to support the hypothesis your arguments are worth less than the time you spent making them.

Beyond that, I challenge both of you provide an argument why is it good to teach young people they shouldn't even have to take an hour out of their life once every two years to go to their polling place with everybody else to do their civic duty and cast a vote? By your half-wit arguments, we also shouldn't require anybody to do jury duty because it is an incovenience. Your self-centered arguments are part of the problem, and not part of the solution to the unraveling our civic fabric.

(And Stephanie, your story about what your supposed previous beliefs and strong feelings, and what you say you believe now about VBM doesn't pass the smell test. Particularly since you don't even cite anecdotal evidence about what kind of "Road to Damscus" revelation happened to you to change such heartfelt beliefs. Did you just "reason" yourself in your pea brain into changing your beliefs in the face of such strong feelings? Or did the lazy factor of VBM appeal to you so strongly that you set aside what maybe weren't such strong beliefs and feelings?)

Half the Story:

Actual voter turnout increases. Apparent voter turnout increases even more. But there is a significant increase in actual turnout.

The number of ballots cast in 1998 (the last election without universal VBM) was 1,160,400. The number cast in 2006 was 1,399,650. That's more than a 20% improvement. Finding the exact number of of eligible (not registered) voters added to the state is a little tricky. It's about 14%. So since 1998 (when M60 passed) growth in voter participation has outstripped growth in eligible voters by a whopping 42%.

And 1998 isn't even the most advantageous year to use as a baseline. 1998 was 80% vote-by-mail. The numbers are even more striking if you look back to when most voters went to the polls.

Also, to me, the most important part of an election is people choosing their government. Community interaction, aerobic exercise, etc. are really secondary. Anything that helps people cast a ballot is a good thing. But then, I'm partial to Democracy.

I particularly like the pseudo-intellectual touch of <ifinding the="" exact="" number="" of="" of="" eligible="" (not="" registered)="" voters="" added="" to="" the="" state="" is="" a="" little="" tricky<="" i="">. Sorry Ben, but playing the game of just making a big number (42%) out of two numbers (1,399,650-1,160,400 = 239,500 and 14% increase in people who could vote) is not meaningful.

First, you need to cite exactly how you came up with the raw numbers that you hand wave about to get to 14%. The base number on which the number of eligible voters increased matters. If it was say, 100million, 14% would be 14million. That would dwarf an increase in 239,500 votes. Tell us your base numbers so we have something to compare to 239,500. Or you're just comparing apples and oranges.

Second, coming up with a "whopping 42%" by computing (20%-14%)/14% is meaningless. I've already pointed out the problem that not knowing the base number for the 14%. The trick of comparing statistics is a standard one in the huckster's handbook because the magnitude of a ratioed result like this depends on the size of the denominator: If the numbers were 1% and 2% it would give us a breathtaking 100% and 2% is low enough that it would prove VBM is a failure at making any difference. No responsible demographer of statistician throws out ratioed stats like that for any purpose but trying to deceive people.

Third, this at most is a correlation (and as I've pointed out, a misleading one at that). Did you not read this: And no one has shown that the fact that participation by citizens who are eligible to be voters hasn't dropped significantly in Oregon is due to VBM and not to other factors that actually were in evidence before VBM.? It is at least as good a hypothesis that a governor's race, the anti-war-translated-to-anti-Republican mood of the country motivating people to want to do something electorally, and the chance to do express that desire in Oregon in the state House/Senate races and Federal House races, explain any excess increase in voting than VBM.

By the way, if you look further back as you attempt to suggest, the numbers are even more deceiving because of aggressive purges of the voter roles in the transition to VBM, and a population shift due to an economic downturn (which itself can be partially explanatory for increased voting.)

So you are either stupid or deceitful in coming up with your number and argument. From you second comment

Also, to me, the most important part of an election is people choosing their government. Community interaction, aerobic exercise, etc. are really secondary. Anything that helps people cast a ballot is a good thing. But then, I'm partial to Democracy.

the jury might be leaning to stupid. Since it is not proven that VBM actually increases participation, you have no basis for that statement except that you want to believe it. There are other arguments not even broached here how VBM could negatively impact wide participation that no one has even investigated. Furthermore, the purpose of voting is to give us good governance in the form of representative government, and ritual plays an important bonding role in cooperative human activity --- such as choosing leaders that deliver good governance.

I further suspect your education is shoddy when it comes to the facts of how the founders thought about this when they set up representative government. They could have given us VBM when they specified direct election of the members of the House of representatives since they also set up a postal service in the Constitution. They did leave it to the states how to conduct elections, but by 1845 the Congress recognized it was important to set up a single common date certain for Federal elections (House members and Presidential electors) when the "first Tuesday after the First Monday in November" was made law.

You are a typical clown of a VBM supporter that just pulls things out of your backside to rationalize your personal preferences, regardless of what it actually means or whether it has anything to do with the facts.

Exactly. Elections are not about teaching young people discipline and good values. They are about creating our government. If government is to be of, by, and for the people, then the more people involved, the better.

Leaving aside the debate of whether you are right about your claim about the purpose of elections (and I think there is ample evidence in our history that you are wrong), there is a huge difference between your intellectually deceitful framing of a previous argument about elections as "teaching discipline and good values" and involving people in a common ritual.

Are you too dense to grasp that difference, or like Bert just being deceitful in framing a red herring argument to rationalize your selfish preferences? Those are the only two real possiblities here. Particularly since this dumb argument by clowns like you fails if you cannot prove VBM encourages and increases the widest participation, which Bert came nowhere close to doing.

You can believe whatever you want, all you want. Sometimes that just makes you look stupid.

By the way Stephanie, if you really believed this:

If government is to be of, by, and for the people, then the more people involved, the better.

Why would you support the system, VBM, puts the most structural restrictions and inconveniences in place to control access to a ballot, starting with requiring you to be at a known location, or that you present yourself to an inconvenient central location, as opposed to going to a convenient polling place of your choosing, on a known day, to vote? (Read Jesse Cornett's accurate comments two threads up why same day registration is incompatible with VBM as currently constructed precisely because of those structural restrictions.)

The fact is frauds like you and Bert only know what you want for you (and who voice opinions that unavoidably imply a presumption that people should be just like you), and then pull talking points out of your backside to defend what you want, regardless of whether it means anything, and regardless of who you actually disadvantage for your benefit.

Half the Story:

First of all, I don't have to do anything you command. If you want me to do a complete analysis of changes in voting patterns with a defined methodology, etc. then you'll have to pay me.

I charge $1500.00 as a retainer. The actual cost of the study will depend on what you and I negotiate. I expect it will cost between 5 and 10 thousand dollars. It depends on what your needs are.

So, either do your own legwork or send me an email and we'll talk terms. You're kind of a jerk, so I'll probably bump the price up a little to compensate for anticipated irritation.

Second, 20 is 42% higher than 14 -- well 42.85, to be more precise. That's not pseudo-intellectual, it's math. And it's kind of useful for this sort of analysis.

Third, Dude, pay attention. I'm comparing eligible voters to voter turnout. Purging voter rolls has no effect on the number of eligible voters. So going back pre-1998 DOES yield worthwhile data. I agree that registered voters dropped significantly once the counties started agressively purging voters, but that has no (none, zero, zip) effect on eligible voters.

Jenni:

Yes, the Bus Project is still working on this issue. I think they'd appreciate a troll donation.

After Bert Lowry's rather crazed display of numerology, I suppose we can say now that at least we know why 42 is to "the Great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything".

But like I said earlier, nothing's going to convince you. You just want to tear down everything those with a different opinion post and it'll never be good enough. So this is my last response to you.

Jenni - What you have offered in defense of VBM has not even been nothing but a rationalizations to cover up the only real reasons VBM supporters have: "Because I want it". You need to quite being such a whiner, grow up and learn that in the adult world, just because you have an opinion doesn't entitle you to anything except to have that opinion challenged, and pointed out a being dumb when it is.

I hope people in other states are reading this. You can see why you don't want to adopt VBM, and can confine the nuttiness to the NW for now, until some very important unanswered questions are answered about how it affects voting patterns and enfranchisement.

Obviously:

Jenni - What you have offered in defense of VBM has not even been nothing but a rationalizations to cover up the only real reasons VBM supporters have: "Because I want it".

was partially edited, and should have read:

Jenni - What you have offered in defense of VBM has been nothing but rationalizations to cover up the only real reason VBM supporters have: "Because I want it".

I've seen its benefits. I've seen how we were able to turn out almost 40% of our voters, while at the same time my home state turned out less than 10%.

This started out point out with the factually true statement that there is absolutely no data, or even studies, that even remotely prove VBM is responsible for this. In addition, there are sound hypothesis, based on the structure of VBM, that the numbers could be even better with polling place elections, particularly in terms of wider participation amongst voters preferentially disadvantaged by VBM because of it's structure. There are other problems with VBM and it's potential negative impact on our state.

Since the reason you give for supporting VBM is simply unproven at best, and reason exists to believe it is false, there are only two alternatives left to why you support VBM: You close your mind to the facts and are responding to ungrounded beliefs (which is your right, your beliefs simply are not supported by reality, a paltry 17 years of experience notwithstanding), or you simply just like it. I really don't care which, I just object to people like you misleading the public that progressives don't stand for doing the best thing for our state.

Seventeen years is hardly paltry. It's a lot more than many of our political leaders in this country have. It also happens to be more than one-half of my life.

Young lady, from my perspective, that is a short time. And there are people I know who find what I find to be a long time to be a short time. In time, you'll look back and get a chuckle from your comments, believe me.

Like a lot of the folks here who are so cocksure of themselves, regardless of age, you don't intentionally close your mind. You just don't know what you don't know. The fallacy in your argument above is that the variables you list are not the only variables, or even the relevant ones, that determine how a voting system performs.

paul has made some comments on the other thread that hint at this.

Just as Fox News and Air America have help divide our country, so has VBM. I cast no judgment on the rise of specialized media, but it has eliminated the opportunity to hear the view one doesn't espouse. VBM has eliminated the one day where I used to see everyone in my neighborhood, young, old, middle age, white, black, disabled, etc. It was a day where we saw everyone was equal, as we all had to wait in a line and show out identification. It eliminated a way for us to see "the other."

<h2>We now only see, hear, and relate to people who are just like us. (Most blogs are this way)</h2>