FARK.com: (7063362) New curbs on voter registration could hurt President Obama, make sense

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.

		New curbs on voter registration could hurt President Obama, make sense (news.yahoo.com)		17
		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

• • •

3083 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2012 at 7:15 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7063362

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

Voting Results (Funniest)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh voting results (Smartest or Funniest) or Return to comments

Archived thread

Mike_LowELL		2012-04-21 04:29:53 PM

3 votes:

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.

FlashHarry		2012-04-22 12:27:25 AM

2 votes:

they should simply pass a law that in order to vote, you have to swear an oath to affirm that you believe that the president is a us-born american citizen.

that should even things up a bit.

quatchi		2012-04-23 01:45:30 AM

1 votes:

Is the Bogeymon still pretending furiously that significant voter fraud exists and it's a viable rationale for voter ID which have nothing to do with disenfranchising traditional Dem voting blocks?

*reads thread*

LOL. He's not very bright but he *is* pretty stubborn.

Kittypie070		2012-04-22 10:43:17 PM

1 votes:

You are NOT taking my damn vote away from me, SillyJebus.

One of my gods has a hammer.

QU!RK1019		2012-04-21 11:12:17 PM

1 votes:

To put it another way, if you believe that citizens should prove an understanding our democracy in order to vote, I don't believe you would pass that test.

Silly Jesus		2012-04-21 10:35:21 PM

1 votes:

FloydA: Silly Jesus:

1. Not right wing.
2. I fail to see how proposing that intelligence play a role in who gets to make important decisions is an extreme viewpoint to be chastised.
3. You're not as clever as you are patting yourself on the back for being.

OK, I forgot option (D) "pretend it never happened and change the subject."

You should sue your elementary school civics teacher for malpractice.

This has become boring. Good night.

I thought you had something extremely clever in the works that was going to impress everyone? Are you really going to build up all of that anticipation and then just leave? I haz a sad.

FloydA		2012-04-21 10:26:13 PM

1 votes:

Silly Jesus: FloydA: Silly Jesus: FloydA: Silly Jesus:

I think that there should be some standard. Up thread I proposed the U.S. Citizenship exam as a standard.

Would one of the questions on that exam cover the 24th Amendment?

Sure, why not?

OK. If someone answered that question wrong, should they be denied the right to vote?

I think that the same standard as that for becoming a citizen would be fair.

So, you think that the 24th Amendment to the Constitution should be repealed?

VictoryCabal		2012-04-21 10:20:54 PM

1 votes:

redmid17: Great, now you're proposing we have to show our disaster tents to vote?

Now is the winter of our disaster tents.

FloydA		2012-04-21 10:15:00 PM

1 votes:

Silly Jesus: FloydA: Silly Jesus:

I think that there should be some standard. Up thread I proposed the U.S. Citizenship exam as a standard.

Would one of the questions on that exam cover the 24th Amendment?

Sure, why not?

OK. If someone answered that question wrong, should they be denied the right to vote?

redmid17		2012-04-21 10:13:37 PM

1 votes:

VictoryCabal: theknuckler_33: This is the crux of conservatives vs. liberals in many respects.

Conservative: I would rather millions of American citizens not be able to vote in order to prevent a single fraudulent vote from being cast.
Liberal: I would rather a small fraction (*) of fraudulent votes be cast than prevent millions of American citizens from being denied the right to vote.

(*) unless anyone provides evidence of widespread VOTE fraud, then it can only be assumed that any such fraud must be insignificant.

Conservative: I would rather some innocent people be wrongly convicted than allow a single guilty person go free.
Liberal: I would rather some guilty people go free than have a single innocent person wrongly convicted.

Conservative: I would rather needlessly harass legal residents than allow a single illegal alien to exist within US borders.
Liberal: I would rather deal with illegal aliens than blatantly discriminate against people based on the way they look/talk.

I remember once in school (7th grade maybe) a classroom discussion about the response after some disaster. The government was passing out supplies like tents, food, water, etc to the victims. However, there was some low level of fraud consisting of people who weren't homeless because of the disaster getting supplier because hey, free tent.

Some of the kids in class (and I was part of this group) thought those people sucked, but recognized that there were a lot of people suffering and felt it was important to get supplies out as fast as possible. Some of amount of fraud was just cost of doing business.

Another group of kids was furious with the idea that some people were getting something they didn't deserve. They proposed all sorts of complicated procedures where disaster victims would have to prove that they truly were victims, just so a few jackasses wouldn't get a free tent and some canned water.

I wish I had kept a list, because I would wager money that there would be a very strong correlatio ...

Great, now you're proposing we have to show our disaster tents to vote?

FloydA		2012-04-21 10:00:35 PM

1 votes:

Silly Jesus:

I think that there should be some standard. Up thread I proposed the U.S. Citizenship exam as a standard.

Would one of the questions on that exam cover the 24th Amendment?

bulldg4life		2012-04-21 09:15:19 PM

1 votes:

Silly Jesus: If neither one is in reality a big deal then the arguments for both sides of the issue are b.s.

So, if that is the case, we should just go ahead and spend the millions of dollars, possibly disenfranchising millions, to possibly solve a probably non-existent problem?

Sounds brilliant.

FloydA		2012-04-21 09:12:03 PM

1 votes:

Spad31: 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.

Wait a second...

You're not just trolling? You really do want to make it harder for Americans to vote?

Dude, that's f**ked up. Seriously. You should sue your elementary school civics teachers for malpractice.

Dusk-You-n-Me		2012-04-21 08:52:54 PM

1 votes:

Silly Jesus: This was right at the beginning in the summary section (emphasis mine)... "These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to
cast ballots in 2012."

It also noted that they are taking into consideration not only voter ID requirements but changes in early voting and changes in restrictions from voting for criminals. So the theoretical 5 million number is actually composed of at least three different things. I haven't yet found how it's weighted. It could be that 4.95 million of it is due to the changes in voting for criminals, for example. I'm not saying that this weighting is realistic, but just pointing out that not knowing that fact could make this already theoretical paper completely meaningless as far as voter ID's are concerned.

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that you are skeptical of the results.

SilentStrider		2012-04-21 06:17:56 PM

1 votes:

Silly Jesus: There is no constitutional right to vote in a federal election.

15th, 19th, and 24th, amendments, you dolt.

Dusk-You-n-Me		2012-04-21 03:46:35 PM

1 votes:

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.

Zombie Jesus		2012-04-21 03:32:20 PM

1 votes:

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.

Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.