If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   New curbs on voter registration could hurt President Obama, make sense   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 359
    More: Spiffy, President Obama, Republican George W. Bush, voter registration, League of Women Voters, New York University School of Law, Brian Darling, Djokovic, Rock the Vote  
•       •       •

3085 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2012 at 7:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



359 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-21 02:25:01 PM
As a true non-partisan, I don't see the giant conspiracy from either side. Having said this, voting and never being asked to show your identification has always seemed odd to me. In my county, you have to sign a book, but my signature from the last election is in the book right next to where I'm supposed to sign, so that would be easy to mimic on the spot.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to corrupt my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road, FARK Independent™ non-committal votes.
 
2012-04-21 02:44:11 PM

nvmac: As a true non-partisan, I don't see the giant conspiracy from either side. Having said this, voting and never being asked to show your identification has always seemed odd to me. In my county, you have to sign a book, but my signature from the last election is in the book right next to where I'm supposed to sign, so that would be easy to mimic on the spot.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to corrupt my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road, FARK Independent™ non-committal votes.


That's because you have one. Lots of seniors don't drive, and have no valid government ID. So do lots of poor black people. That ID costs money, something a lot of those demographics don't have much of.

I'm sorry, but it's a problem. These voter ID laws are pretty much explicitly designed to depress turnout among those demographics, which tend to vote democratic.

Show me a proven case of somebody actually committing this sort of voter fraud, and then we can weigh whether or not that's worth disenfranchising millions of voters.
 
2012-04-21 02:52:16 PM

cptjeff: nvmac: As a true non-partisan, I don't see the giant conspiracy from either side. Having said this, voting and never being asked to show your identification has always seemed odd to me. In my county, you have to sign a book, but my signature from the last election is in the book right next to where I'm supposed to sign, so that would be easy to mimic on the spot.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to corrupt my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road, FARK Independent™ non-committal votes.

That's because you have one. Lots of seniors don't drive, and have no valid government ID. So do lots of poor black people. That ID costs money, something a lot of those demographics don't have much of.

I'm sorry, but it's a problem. These voter ID laws are pretty much explicitly designed to depress turnout among those demographics, which tend to vote democratic.

Show me a proven case of somebody actually committing this sort of voter fraud, and then we can weigh whether or not that's worth disenfranchising millions of voters.


I suppose that IF everyone that was registered were to vote, then it would be difficult to commit this type of fraud (as long as you have to sign something to vote).

I have no strong opinion on this, since I've never heard of a case in my state either; only accusations.

/just thought it odd
 
2012-04-21 02:59:19 PM
On the surface, these new laws are attempts to solve a problem that does not exist. Below the surface, they are attempts to impose a poll tax to keep poor people from voting.

They are stupid laws that are intended to subvert the democratic process, and the people who promote them should be ashamed of themselves.
 
2012-04-21 03:32:20 PM

FloydA: On the surface, these new laws are attempts to solve a problem that does not exist. Below the surface, they are attempts to impose a poll tax to keep poor people from voting.

They are stupid laws that are intended to subvert the democratic process, and the people who promote them should be ashamed of themselves.


That implies they are capable of feeling shame.
 
2012-04-21 03:37:58 PM
thought voter id's were free. and don't they allow for all sorts of proof of id?
 
2012-04-21 03:46:35 PM
This is the equivalent of preventing 5 million people from going to the beach because there might be a shark attack.

We should make it as easy as possible to vote.
 
2012-04-21 03:47:01 PM

nvmac: As a true non-partisan, I don't see the giant conspiracy from either side. Having said this, voting and never being asked to show your identification has always seemed odd to me. In my county, you have to sign a book, but my signature from the last election is in the book right next to where I'm supposed to sign, so that would be easy to mimic on the spot.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to corrupt my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road, FARK Independent™ non-committal votes.


One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act. They were used then and they are being used now to restrict people they did not want voting. Then it was simply blacks. Today it is blacks, Latinos and college students, since all of those groups vote Democratic. As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection. It is also a poll tax, something else illegal.
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.
 
2012-04-21 03:49:32 PM

SpikeStrip: thought voter id's were free. and don't they allow for all sorts of proof of id?


The Wisconsin bills banned all sorts of free and accessible IDs, such as union cards with pictures and college IDs. Again, the point is to block Democrats from voting, not to combat any actual voter fraud.

You know what was the last "major" voter fraud conviction? The Republican Indiana Secretary of State, who knowingly voted out of district for years. That's the worst that happened for years. All the made-up ACORN shiat? That was ACORN willingly admitting that they cannot deny acceptance of voter registration cards - that's illegal - but they believed these ones were fake. That is voter REGISTRATION fraud, and they caught it themselves.
 
2012-04-21 03:51:14 PM

SpikeStrip: thought voter id's were free. and don't they allow for all sorts of proof of id?


The problem is it disenfranchises the poorest and least mobile among us. If you are homeless or lack transportation getting to the place that issues voter ids could be an insurmountable obstacle. And what criteria are they using to issue the voter id? If you dont need any other form of id to get them whats the point? How is that better than showing up with no id at the polls?

I would argue that having an official voter id - with no other form of id required to get it - would allow for greater incidence of fraud and identity theft.
 
2012-04-21 03:52:43 PM

SpikeStrip: thought voter id's were free. and don't they allow for all sorts of proof of id?


If they want to make these laws acceptable, the IDs would have to be free- but not just "kind of free," absolutely free, including no postage to mail in a request, no bus or taxi ride across town or gas for your car to go pick it up, nothing.

The 24th Amendment is entirely unambiguous about that.

If they want to issue voter IDs with photographs (the only way that this type of law could prevent any sort of voting fraud), they'll have to send the photographers around to everyone's homes, and provide the IDs to everyone, completely free of charge.


The thing is, even if they did that, they wouldn't prevent any significant voter fraud, because falsely voting under someone else's name cannot be done in sufficient numbers to sway an election without getting caught. The only kind of voter fraud that can actually sway elections involves fraudulent vote counting, which voter IDs won't prevent.

So not only are these laws anti-democratic and massive wastes of taxpayer money, they won't actually solve any real problems. As usual, it's election year grandstanding designed solely to convince the rubes that "something is being done to stop the bad people." The tragedy is that the rubes will fall for it again.
 
2012-04-21 03:54:57 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: This is the equivalent of preventing 5 million people from going to the beach because there might be a shark attack. you don't want poor people and minorities stinkin' up your beach.

We should make it as easy as possible to vote.


FTFY

"Voter fraud" is the strawman. Not allowing "those people" to vote is the goal.
 
2012-04-21 03:56:50 PM

GAT_00: nvmac: As a true non-partisan, I don't see the giant conspiracy from either side. Having said this, voting and never being asked to show your identification has always seemed odd to me. In my county, you have to sign a book, but my signature from the last election is in the book right next to where I'm supposed to sign, so that would be easy to mimic on the spot.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to corrupt my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road, FARK Independent™ non-committal votes.

One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act. They were used then and they are being used now to restrict people they did not want voting. Then it was simply blacks. Today it is blacks, Latinos and college students, since all of those groups vote Democratic. As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection. It is also a poll tax, something else illegal.
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.


You're hedging your bet on non-ID having voters? You'd actually accept and encourage it if you believed the votes would go the other way? Horseshiat. Oh, and "Democratic" isn't the word you're looking for. If it's a non-issue, why the fark are you so riled by it?
 
2012-04-21 04:02:48 PM

Spad31: You're hedging your bet on non-ID having voters? You'd actually accept and encourage it if you believed the votes would go the other way? Horseshiat. Oh, and "Democratic" isn't the word you're looking for. If it's a non-issue, why the fark are you so riled by it?


And here's a guy who's just concern trolling and doesn't give a fark about the actual issues.
 
2012-04-21 04:04:32 PM
** looks at voter registration card **

Um, yeah there IS already a voter ID system in place. fark these asshats for wasting money and time on a problem that doesn't exist.
 
2012-04-21 04:05:50 PM

quickdraw: SpikeStrip: thought voter id's were free. and don't they allow for all sorts of proof of id?

The problem is it disenfranchises the poorest and least mobile among us. If you are homeless or lack transportation getting to the place that issues voter ids could be an insurmountable obstacle.


i don't think it would be any more or less an encumbrance than getting to the actual polls. or are you speaking of absentee?
 
2012-04-21 04:10:38 PM

GAT_00: You know what was the last "major" voter fraud conviction? The Republican Indiana Secretary of State, who knowingly voted out of district for years. That's the worst that happened for years.


Minor correction, though your point still stands: Charlie White voted out of district before being elected SOS for one election and a primary(approximately 6months). He did this to maintain the illusion of his residency in a town so he wouldnt have to forfeit his town council position(and its annual salary) while running for SOS. Voter fraud wasnt his goal, it was an added charge that accompanied his felony theft charges. The voter fraud charges probably would have been dropped had he not been THE MAIN FARKING GUY in charge of enforcing voter registration laws. Anyway, the guy was a POS.
 
2012-04-21 04:14:17 PM
I have a hard time believing that voter ID laws would actually disenfranchise anyone who would care to take the time to vote. But solving a problem that doesn't really exist is not how I define small government.

I just voted on Tuesday and I had to be registered before hand and at the poll I had to show the registration card or an ID, or a couple utility bills or bank statements, election mail, vehicle registration / insurance, etc that have my name and address.
 
2012-04-21 04:16:41 PM

quickdraw: SpikeStrip: thought voter id's were free. and don't they allow for all sorts of proof of id?

The problem is it disenfranchises the poorest and least mobile among us. If you are homeless or lack transportation getting to the place that issues voter ids could be an insurmountable obstacle. And what criteria are they using to issue the voter id? If you dont need any other form of id to get them whats the point? How is that better than showing up with no id at the polls?

I would argue that having an official voter id - with no other form of id required to get it - would allow for greater incidence of fraud and identity theft.


It would invite fraud. There would be nothing to stop someone from registering on behalf of every apolitical person they knew. Voter turn out is pathetically low in this country especially for mid terms.

It's not unusual for election teams to cold call people and ask them if they plan to vote. If they say no add them to the list.

Terrible idea.

Most states have it right by giving you the opportunity to register when you get a drivers license. Then let voter registration drives help everyone else. It's pretty hard to register more than once or register for your neighbor that way.
 
2012-04-21 04:17:12 PM

GAT_00:
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.


You can't rule out something has happened by saying you haven't observed it. It's possible. It's easy. It can be done without detection.
 
2012-04-21 04:18:07 PM
In Michigan, they implemented a voter ID law, and at the same time started shutting down Secretary of State offices (what we call the DMV). Guess which SOS office got shut down in the city I lived in. Go on, guess.

That's right, they shut down the one in the poorest section of town. But I'm sure that was just coincidence.
 
2012-04-21 04:21:37 PM

foo monkey: GAT_00:
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.

You can't rule out something has happened by saying you haven't observed it. It's possible. It's easy. It can be done without detection.


Yes, it's everywhere and it's totally destroying our system despite all evidence to the contrary. It's like Jesus, but with a ballot.

violentsalvation: I have a hard time believing that voter ID laws would actually disenfranchise anyone who would care to take the time to vote.


That isn't the point. Also, Link
 
2012-04-21 04:27:21 PM

foo monkey: GAT_00:
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.

You can't rule out something has happened by saying you haven't observed it. It's possible. It's easy. It can be done without detection.


Voter IDs would do nothing to stop that type of fraud either.
 
2012-04-21 04:27:38 PM

GAT_00: foo monkey: GAT_00:
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.

You can't rule out something has happened by saying you haven't observed it. It's possible. It's easy. It can be done without detection.

Yes, it's everywhere and it's totally destroying our system despite all evidence to the contrary. It's like Jesus, but with a ballot.



I love you, but man, you'd make a terrible software engineer.
 
2012-04-21 04:29:53 PM
Step 1: Republicans pass laws to "reduce voter fraud".
Step 2: Registered Democrats still allowed to vote.

This is why I stopped voting for the Republicans. Unbelievable.
 
2012-04-21 04:31:06 PM
Voter fraud is a problem like alien abductions are a problem.
 
2012-04-21 04:32:21 PM

FloydA: On the surface, these new laws are attempts to solve a problem that does not exist. Below the surface, they are attempts to impose a poll tax to keep poor people from voting.

They are stupid laws that are intended to subvert the democratic process, and the people who promote them should be ashamed of themselves.


this this and more this

THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD.

There HAS been vote tampering. where people behind the scenes have farked with the votes and the counting. But actual voter fraud is close to zero.
But go ahead and disenfranchise voters. That will end well.
 
2012-04-21 04:36:07 PM

GAT_00: One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act.... As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection


Except not.

/state's rights
 
2012-04-21 04:38:49 PM

foo monkey: GAT_00: foo monkey: GAT_00:
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.

You can't rule out something has happened by saying you haven't observed it. It's possible. It's easy. It can be done without detection.

Yes, it's everywhere and it's totally destroying our system despite all evidence to the contrary. It's like Jesus, but with a ballot.



I love you, but man, you'd make a terrible software engineer.


All right then. Take it like this:

You have a program that's working fine. Someone comes by and tells you that there's a systemic error in it that you can't see and doesn't trip any warnings, but he insists to you it's there and you have to fix it. Also, he can't prove there error is there either.

What are you going to do?
 
2012-04-21 04:40:18 PM

Richard Saunders: GAT_00: One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act.... As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection

Except not.

/state's rights


Yeah, that argument isn't worth anything when the VRA has stood up for 40 years. Federal government has the right to regulate nationwide.
 
2012-04-21 04:41:00 PM
Free RFID chips for all citizens will solve the voter fraud problem!

/not really serious
 
2012-04-21 04:41:22 PM

Richard Saunders: GAT_00: One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act.... As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection

Except not.

/state's rights


States do not have the right to disenfranchise voters, esp not in federal elections. Funny how there are still states controlled by the feds under the voting rights act. Would be funnier to watch addition states added to the list.

/why do tards continue to think that states' rights implies that states can break the US constitution?? LOL
 
2012-04-21 04:43:23 PM

FloydA: So not only are these laws anti-democratic and massive wastes of taxpayer money, they won't actually solve any real problems. As usual, it's election year grandstanding designed solely to convince the rubes that "something is being done to stop the bad people." The tragedy is that the rubes will fall for it again.


i'll go further.

the constitution does not demand 100% accuracy in voting results of the people -- just electorates. the rest is left to the individual states.

States handle recounts in different manners:

RECOUNT TRIGGERS
Close election: 16 states conduct recounts automatically if the margin of victory between candidates is within a certain threshold - usually not exceeding 1 percent. Automatic recounts: Four states - California , Kentucky, NewYork and West Virginia - recount a small percentage of ballots from randomly-chosen precincts.
No recount provisions: Hawaii and Mississippi have no provisions in state law for recounts, leaving the process to the legal system.


basically, states don't insist on being 100% accurate and this is a reasonable thing.

and, as we can see from Florida 2000, the true numbers can be much further off than 1% even
if the initial count falls outside of the 1% margin.

My point:

all the points you state plus: the states don't care about miscounts/fraud -- and probably miscounts/fraud around 5% (that is a guess) are acceptable -- 1% is certainly not an issue and anything on a fraud scale could not reach 1%
 
2012-04-21 04:43:36 PM
Republicans are the ones that are getting convicted of voting fraud. They probably shouldn't be tightening laws that will get even more of them in trouble
 
2012-04-21 04:44:05 PM

Via Infinito: Free RFID chips for all citizens will solve the voter fraud problem!

/not really serious


LOL
how about doing all voting by mail?
1) would make a paper trail
2) using encryption, you could check that your ballot was received and tabulated.
3) would end the bull shiat which currently happens with ballot box stuffing and not enough polling booths and farked up hours and not enough election judges.
4) would make recounts a shiat ton fairer and cheaper
5) would standardize ballots
6) would be resisted by both parties
 
2012-04-21 04:49:52 PM

keithgabryelski: FloydA: So not only are these laws anti-democratic and massive wastes of taxpayer money, they won't actually solve any real problems. As usual, it's election year grandstanding designed solely to convince the rubes that "something is being done to stop the bad people." The tragedy is that the rubes will fall for it again.

i'll go further.

the constitution does not demand 100% accuracy in voting results of the people -- just electorates. the rest is left to the individual states.

States handle recounts in different manners:

RECOUNT TRIGGERS
Close election: 16 states conduct recounts automatically if the margin of victory between candidates is within a certain threshold - usually not exceeding 1 percent. Automatic recounts: Four states - California , Kentucky, NewYork and West Virginia - recount a small percentage of ballots from randomly-chosen precincts.
No recount provisions: Hawaii and Mississippi have no provisions in state law for recounts, leaving the process to the legal system.

basically, states don't insist on being 100% accurate and this is a reasonable thing.

and, as we can see from Florida 2000, the true numbers can be much further off than 1% even
if the initial count falls outside of the 1% margin.

My point:

all the points you state plus: the states don't care about miscounts/fraud -- and probably miscounts/fraud around 5% (that is a guess) are acceptable -- 1% is certainly not an issue and anything on a fraud scale could not reach 1%


this this and more this
the likelyhood of voter fraud actually swinging an election is so close to zero that it isnt worth talking about.

while things like this ohio 2004 are virtually completely ignored.
 
2012-04-21 04:52:39 PM

namatad: 3) would end the bull shiat which currently happens with ballot box stuffing and not enough polling booths and farked up hours and not enough election judges.


Three ballots are mailed to a house. How do you know that one person doesn't fill them all out? How do you prevent somebody from going around and swiping them out of people's mailboxes?

Having a shiatload of ballots, many of which, due to lack of voter interest, will be unused, floating around is a recipe for disaster.
 
2012-04-21 04:53:22 PM
Oh, and I almost forgot. Subby you are either a f*cking dildo or an excellent troll.

/+2 for the tag and +3 for the headline for a 5/10 score!
//if you weren't trolling, then may FSM have mercy on your soul
 
2012-04-21 04:54:20 PM

namatad: while things like this ohio 2004 are virtually completely ignored.


And we come back to this having nothing to do with secure elections and everything to do with suppressing democratic voters.
 
2012-04-21 05:03:27 PM

cptjeff: namatad: while things like this ohio 2004 are virtually completely ignored.

And we come back to this having nothing to do with secure elections and everything to do with suppressing democratic voters.


security in this country's presidential elections does not seem to be an issue.

voter suppression has been a significant issue and seems to still be -- we even have more than one constitutional amendment targeting the problem.
 
2012-04-21 05:29:27 PM

GAT_00: Spad31: You're hedging your bet on non-ID having voters? You'd actually accept and encourage it if you believed the votes would go the other way? Horseshiat. Oh, and "Democratic" isn't the word you're looking for. If it's a non-issue, why the fark are you so riled by it?

And here's a guy who's just concern trolling and doesn't give a fark about the actual issues.


Really? Concern troll? Your best? You flatter yourself. Answer the questions, you complete farktard.
 
2012-04-21 05:40:58 PM

GAT_00: violentsalvation: I have a hard time believing that voter ID laws would actually disenfranchise anyone who would care to take the time to vote.

That isn't the point. Also, Link



I know it isn't the point. The republicans are trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist and the democrats are saying that that creates a problem I don't really believe it will create. And that guy wasn't disenfranchised, he chose not to vote because he didn't get to use the ID he wanted. And although I agree with his gripes, he really didn't prove anything.

These strict new ID laws should be scrapped and any gov't issued ID or a couple of bank statements, bills, whatever should be fine.
 
2012-04-21 05:45:41 PM
Voter fraud is a non issue being made into an issue by a political party that is afraid
that it is being outnumbered. Yet there has been little to no voter fraud. Where there have
been cases of voter fraud 90 plus percent have been caused by members of the Republican
party. The very same party who is trying to impose ID requirements and closing offices of
Secretaries of state offices in areas where where most minority voter registration. These areas
are of course populated with people highly disposed to vote for Democratic party candidates.

That in my mind is voter fraud on a massive level. A state and national level and
it is all being perpetrated by the Republican party.
 
2012-04-21 05:47:39 PM

sparkeyjames: The very same party who is trying to impose ID requirements and closing offices of Secretaries of state offices
in areas where where most minority voter registration occurs.



FTFM
 
2012-04-21 05:50:20 PM
Can't spell worth a hoot. Check. Crappy at grammatically correct sentences. Check.

Works in the printing/graphic arts/communications field. Catches customers mistakes all
day long and cannot catch my own. check.
 
2012-04-21 06:00:08 PM

GAT_00: One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act. They were used then and they are being used now to restrict people they did not want voting. Then it was simply blacks. Today it is blacks, Latinos and college students, since all of those groups vote Democratic. As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection. It is also a poll tax, something else illegal.
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.


What about that Ninth Circuit case (Gonzalez v. State of Arizona) that came out last week where the court held that an Arizona law requiring voters to show ID at the polls is not a poll tax and does not violate equal protection?
 
2012-04-21 06:02:19 PM

SpikeStrip: i don't think it would be any more or less an encumbrance than getting to the actual polls. or are you speaking of absentee?


violentsalvation: I have a hard time believing that voter ID laws would actually disenfranchise anyone who would care to take the time to vote.


It really depends on the actual implementation themselves.

Take Wisconsin, for example, which recently passed a fairly strict voter ID requirement. Governor Scott Walker, in conjunction with the passage of the voter ID law there, also proposed closing 16 DMV offices, nearly all of which were in areas which tend to vote Democratic historically. (He was forced to back down on that proposal after a major backlash.)

Had he not be forced to back down, his proposed plan would've made it substantially more difficult for residents, especially poor or mobility-limited residents, to obtain the necessary documentation necessary for voting.
 
2012-04-21 06:02:21 PM
There is no constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Having a standard for voting is not violating anyone's "rights", because there is no "right." There are rules that strike out reasons for not allowing someone to vote (being black, being a woman etc.) but there are no laws, constitutional or otherwise, guaranteeing everyone a right to vote in a federal election.

How are these folks able to register to vote and get to the polls, but unable to obtain a free ID? Not sure that I see the difference in the burden. Why not let people vote by phone and discontinue voter registration? I'm sure that registering to vote and getting to the polls has inconvenienced someone before. And we wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone in selecting the most powerful man/woman in the world. Certainly not to any greater degree than we inconvenience them in getting a library card. I think it's perfectly reasonable that we have a higher standard for obtaining a library card than we do for voting for the president, don't you?
 
2012-04-21 06:02:37 PM

cptjeff: namatad: 3) would end the bull shiat which currently happens with ballot box stuffing and not enough polling booths and farked up hours and not enough election judges.

Three ballots are mailed to a house. How do you know that one person doesn't fill them all out? How do you prevent somebody from going around and swiping them out of people's mailboxes?

Having a shiatload of ballots, many of which, due to lack of voter interest, will be unused, floating around is a recipe for disaster.


They have this covered already in Washington with a two-envelope system and a signature. Doesn't seem too hard to extend this to other states.
 
2012-04-21 06:08:14 PM

violentsalvation: and the democrats are saying that that creates a problem I don't really believe it will create.


Well, let me put it this way. Let's assume you're right, that this affects people who would not be inclined to vote anyway through various issues. But some of them will. I think that you would agree has to be true.

And the amount of disenfranchisement is above and beyond the amount of voter fraud, do you also agree with that? In other words, this will prevent more people from voting than it will stop fraudulent votes. This is because, as I'm sure you know as well, voter fraud is largely non-existent and the types that plague us today are not the types that will be stopped by ID cards - see voter machine hacking.

Also, the groups who are most likely to be stopped by this vote Democratic more often than they vote Republican. I believe you will agree this is also true.

So, to sum up. We have a mechanism designed to prevent Democrats from voting that supposedly addresses a non-existent issue. What it actually is is Republicans trying to block a Democratic process and claiming that they are actually protecting democracy. Very 1984 of them, but they always are anymore.

Do you disagree with any of the above?
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report