NoVaO Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 And my point is bringing it up is that both sides use laws to benefit themselves when it comes to elections. It's so easy for me to vote twice it's ridiculous. I could show up when the poles open, say I'm my neighbor and vote. Then show up in the evening and vote under my name. I wouldn't do it. But someone else might. But it never happens. Ever. Investigation after investigation has shown this to be true. Investigations initiated by Republicans who would have an incentive to prove voter fraud existed. But it doesn't. Of the isolated cases of voter fraud that do exist, you have felons who didn't know they couldn't vote, or somebody votes twice, once by absentee and once in person. But voter ID doesn't actually prevent either of those cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 This question is already answered, earlier in this very thread. Are you talking about your no burden post? Isn't registering to vote a burden? Making me fill out a form to track me is a burden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 SS, what do you think about the law here in Texas that specifically excludes college IDs as acceptable to vote (even state school IDs that are created and issues by the state) but will accept a concealed hand gun license?That to me seems to be directly targeting "certain segments of the population." I understand the inability to use the school ID exclusiveley because they are easily faked, but coupling it with another form of ID should be acceptable in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 You're completely ignoring the other side of this, which is that Democrats initiated those things (early voting, third party registration) because they BENFITTED Democrats. Both sides are only interested in improving their election chances. The difference is that one was aimed at including more eligible voters and the other is aimed at excluding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 The difference is that one was aimed at including more eligible voters and the other is aimed at excluding.There have always been voting rules. And the fact that there are rules will exclude those who cannot follow them. This is true in all walks of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 It just shows that Republicans need less people to vote. The more people that vote, the worse they tend to do. At least Democrats are pushing ideas that encourage more people to vote. The Republicans have presented only ideas that suppress votes. Win elections by persuading people your ideas are right for the country, not by looking for ways to dilute voter turnout. Why is it beneficial for larger amounts of uninformed people to vote? I agree with your point, the GOP definitely doesnt want more uninformed people voting. The Dems absolutely would like it if every uninformed citizen voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Are you talking about your no burden post? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Why is it beneficial for larger amounts of uninformed people to vote? I'm 100% with you, but once we let women and minorities vote, the horse had left the barn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Why is it beneficial for larger amounts of uninformed people to vote?I agree with your point, the GOP definitely doesnt want more uninformed people voting. The Dems absolutely would like it if every uninformed citizen voted. you are assuming "uniformed" and it strikes me as a GOP code word for poor people or minorities no reason to believe more people voting means the more people voting are more or less informed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 you are assuming "uniformed" and it strikes me as a GOP code word for poor people or minoritiesno reason to believe more people voting means the more people voting are more or less informed It's no greater a leap than claiming that requiring id's somehow disenfranchises one side more than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 There have always been voting rules. And the fact that there are rules will exclude those who cannot follow them. This is true in all walks of life. That argument generally supports (ambiguous) 'rules', and on that I agree. There should be rules, of course. But that doesn't justify opposition to poling locations opening early so that hourly wagers can vote before going to work "because it helps democrats". That's just absurd, even if it *does* help democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 That argument generally supports (ambiguous) 'rules', and on that I agree. There should be rules, of course. But that doesn't justify opposition to poling locations opening early so that hourly wagers can vote before going to work "because it helps democrats". That's just absurd, even if it *does* help democrats.Your example is certainly one that should fall within logical rules. But giving the same people a week to vote does not. My question is why do Democrats feel that their voters need so much extra help to stay within the boundaries that Republicans do not seem to have any trouble with (according to the Democrats)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 It's no greater a leap than claiming that requiring id's somehow disenfranchises one side more than the other. your support for this is that democrats promote more voters when have dems asked for restrictions on voting? If the answer is they don't then that means your argument can't possibly be right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Democrats try to restrict or limit voter affectiveness through redistricting all the time. Further, it was Democrats who tried to have military ballots thrown out in FLA 2000. Both sides have the same goal. Maximise their own voter base, while minimizing their opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I just don't see having an ID as restricting a person's right to vote. You have to have ID in Maryland as an adult. If you don't, you can be charged with vagrancy. If you need an ID to walk down the street, I see no reason why it's that much of a stretch to require simply flashing the card to exercise your right to vote. It won't be that hard. Driver's license or Age of Majority card. They require it here to be an adult citizen of the state. Community organizers or other grass roots political organizations can drive around with a van doing the photos and issuing cards. I don't see how requiring an ID check to be any more advantageous to one side or another. Likewise I think trying to convince me that blue collar workers are more likely to be Dems isn't going to fly, but I have no problem with early voting and trying to give everyone access to the polls. Some people do work ridiculous hours. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Not to sound stupid but is there a way someone can identify themselves as an eligible voter without an ID? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Not to sound stupid but is there a way someone can identify themselves as an eligible voter without an ID? Yeah, give your name and sign on the rolls at your designated polling station. That is all that is required here. ---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 11:56 AM ---------- You have to have ID in Maryland as an adult. If you don't, you can be charged with vagrancy. If you need an ID to walk down the street, I see no reason why it's that much of a stretch to require simply flashing the card to exercise your right to vote. Can you post the law requirement? I haven't been able to find it - only info about the Real ID act and MD's effort to meet it (which, isn't a mandatory ID for all adults, btw). Here is the info from the MD DMV. Why Get an ID Card?If you do not own a Maryland driver license―or any license from any state―you might mull over applying for an ID card. While this will not enable you to operate a vehicle on the roads, it will come in handy for just about everything else that requires proof of who you are and how old you are. This can include getting on to an airplane, checking out all the trendy clubs in town, buying a bottle of wine, and more important things like opening a checking account. It sounds like an ID isn't a requirement from that language on their own DMV. Also, it's odd that even some of the Ron Paul supporters on this site are ok with this. Paul is one of the biggest opponents of the Real ID act (and I suspect, efforts like this too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Yeah, give your name and sign on the rolls at your designated polling station. That is all that is required here. I, for one, support Californias right as a state to set their own voting laws. If that is all they feel is necessary, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I, for one, support Californias right as a state to set their own voting laws. If that is all they feel is necessary, so be it. Do you support the State of Utah if they required a proof of membership to the Mormon Church as a pre-requisite to voting? :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Do you support the State of Utah if they required a proof of membership to the Mormon Church as a pre-requisite to voting?:evilg: I thought that already was a prereq in Utah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Democrats try to restrict or limit voter affectiveness through redistricting all the time. Further, it was Democrats who tried to have military ballots thrown out in FLA 2000.Both sides have the same goal. Maximise their own voter base, while minimizing their opponents. oh ok so your last post was just hot air, got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 oh ok so your last post was just hot air, got it sure. If that makes you feel better. Go with it. Just be sure to keep your head in the sand. The hot air is the feigned anger over the tactics of the GOP. Dems dont give a **** about registering more voters because of some idealistic view. They care because the GOP rolling back previous Dem voting tactics hurts their electoral chances. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 sure. If that makes you feel better. Go with it. Just be sure to keep your head in the sand. I'd feel better if you stopped making **** up all the time think you can handle that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I'd feel better if you stopped making **** up all the timethink you can handle that? Exposing your bias and deliberate selective outlook is now "making **** up"? Then no. I dont plan on stopping pointing out the obvious left wing hypocrisy and bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Also, it's odd that even some of the Ron Paul supporters on this site are ok with this. Paul is one of the biggest opponents of the Real ID act (and I suspect, efforts like this too). I couldn't name a single politician who's ideas I agree with 100%. Can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.