And I thought showing an ID to vote was a good idea...

[OklahomaTuba]

Silly me.


A federal court has upheld an Indiana law requiring people to show a government-issued photo ID before voting, much to the disappointment of the Democratic Party, which says many of its constituents -- minorities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled -- will be adversely affected.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200604/POL20060418b.html

[Dio]

Why do federal courts hate dead people who vote?

[SoonerInKCMO]

How in the hell do they (Indiana Democratic Party) expect someone to accurately identify themselves if not with a state issued photo ID?? Asinine.

[OklahomaTuba]

Dead people are people too.

[Soonrboy]

I doubt I've ever had to show an ID when I go vote.

[crawfish]

This is really gonna crimp their "cigarettes for votes" program. :)

[1stTimeCaller]

Until I quit voting in my hometown I never got ID'd. Probably because Mr. Chamberlin lived two doors down from us and he was always a volunteer at the polling place. I had to show ID when I voted in Missouri and was happy to do so.

[SoonerInKCMO]

I doubt I've ever had to show an ID when I go vote.

:confused:
How do they know who you are? How do they know you didn't vote twice? Three times?

[yermom]

:confused:
How do they know who you are? How do they know you didn't vote twice? Three times?

no one talk to this guy, he's a racist

[TheHumanAlphabet]

How in the hell do they (Indiana Democratic Party) expect someone to accurately identify themselves if not with a state issued photo ID?? Asinine.

Ummm clue phone, its for you...;) They don't. They want illegals, dead people and "two-timers" to vote early and often...

[Soonrboy]

:confused:
How do they know who you are? How do they know you didn't vote twice? Three times?

I walk up, they ask me my name...look me up on the register and they ask me to verify my address, then I sign the register.

[49r]

Why don't we dip our fingers in ink here?

[yermom]

I walk up, they ask me my name...look me up on the register and they ask me to verify my address, then I sign the register.

not that i'm saying there is some huge conspiracy, but it's not that hard to get that info about someone

i don't see why it's harder for elderly or black people

they don't seem to have a problem driving... or cashing checks

[Soonrboy]

not that i'm saying there is some huge conspiracy, but it's not that hard to get that info about someone

i don't see why it's harder for elderly or black people

they don't seem to have a problem driving... or cashing checks
eggszachery

[Mjcpr]

they don't seem to have a problem driving... or cashing checks

What, no watermelon jokes?

:confused:

[OklahomaTuba]

Why don't we dip our fingers in ink here?

I actually thank thats a great idea. I am sure there would be lawsuits claiming discrimination by the fingerless though.

[yermom]

What, no watermelon jokes?

:confused:

old people like watermelon?

[Mjcpr]

old people like watermelon?

Like they like cashing checks.

[JohnnyMack]

I must admit that I committed voter fraud a few times. I moved and didn't change my registration right away. In the mean time I just strolled into my old polling place and did my usual write in voting for Lucifer.

[FaninAma]

Like they like cashing checks.

A little PC sensitive are we? I saw nothing wrong with yermom's statement.

[sooneron]

Weren't there a lot of dead reppublicans voitng recently, as well?

[FaninAma]

Weren't there a lot of dead reppublicans voitng recently, as well?

Link?

[yermom]

i'll admit i was being a little insensitive ;)

it's mostly in response to when i heard this crap from the southern dims in AL or MS i think specifically about blacks and how they don't like to carry photo ID's

that's almost as dumb as Muslim women wanting to not take off their burkas for photo ID's

[Dio]

I must admit that I committed voter fraud a few times. I moved and didn't change my registration right away. In the mean time I just strolled into my old polling place and did my usual write in voting for Lucifer.


I didn't think you were old enough to have voted for Clinton :confused:

[Hatfield]

2 things

i agree that saying ids aren't a good idea is a bit shortsighted. especially when you can receive a state id for free...there really is no excuse to not have one............other than the fact that you aren't required to have one...except i guess to vote.....just another way for the gov't to "tag" its citizens if you will (sorry had to throw out a veiled conspiracy theory in here somewhere)

and secondly, if you are dense enough to think only dead democrats vote well then you might as well pull the plug on what little life support you have going at this point.

[SoonerInKCMO]

I walk up, they ask me my name...look me up on the register and they ask me to verify my address, then I sign the register.

So, nothing to prevent anyone from pretending to be a dead person or someone else that the defrauder knows won't be voting.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I walk up, they ask me my name...look me up on the register and they ask me to verify my address, then I sign the register.

Still problems with that. Relies on you being honest...Two-timers and Tulsa mayors are not honest...

[SoonerInKCMO]

Ummm clue phone, its for you...;) They don't. They want illegals, dead people and "two-timers" to vote early and often...

Heh. I don't know why I worded my response the way I did... I'm really not that clueless. :D

[slickdawg]

old people like watermelon?

I'm not that old, and I love watermelon and fried chicken,
and I'm from Mississippi. :D


I think voterID is a great thing. It's died in the Mississippi Legislature
a few times because it represents "the man" holding people down.

There are unbelieveable numbers of dead people voting in Mississippi,
particulary in the Delta region (Northwest Mississippi), a highly
democratic area.

[Okla-homey]

In Alabama, there are no photo ID requirements. Reason given is poor people can't afford take the time to go the DMV and get a free photo ID (not a DL that costs money, just a free state issued card good for ID purposes only) -- therefore photo ID voting requirments are inherently discriminatory against the poor.

Instead, voters are allowed to bring something with their name and address printed on it like a light bill, cell phone bill, paystub or the envelope a check came in. If all else fails, you're allowed to have someone who has ID to vouch for the fact you are who you say you are.

seriously.

[Hatfield]

if a dead man can win an election why shouldn't dead people be able to vote?

:)

[sooneron]

Link?
Dude, there's this thing at the end of my post that is kind of squiggly and has a dot at the bottom of it. It means that I am asking a QUESTION. Too busy to look up stuff. and like Hatfield says, if you think only one side is going to do it, when it's plainly obvious that the other side was involved in shenanigans, yet they aren't going to vote using dead names, you're crazy.

I think the ID thing is a good idea FWIW.

[Vaevictis]

I'm of two minds on this issue.

First, we do need a way to make sure each person votes only once, and that each person who votes is eligible. Photo-IDs are currently probably the best way of doing this (other than ink finger).

On the other hand, I do not particularly want the government to know who I am while I'm voting. Secret ballots are critical to democracy, and an anonymous vote contributes to that goal.

Interesting question: How does this jive with the 14th amendment?


Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

So, here's a question: Does the population of Indiana, for purposes of determining electoral votes and House seats, get reduced by the number of 21-year old males who have no ID? :)

(If that's the case, if I were trying to challenge the law, I'd at *least* try and get the judge to make this clear; you just know that Indiana would be loathe to lose those seats, and would try to find a better way around it)

[JohnnyMack]

I didn't think you were old enough to have voted for Clinton :confused:

I voted against W. Twice.

[Dio]

and secondly, if you are dense enough to think only dead democrats vote well then you might as well pull the plug on what little life support you have going at this point.

I'm not saying they're the only ones, I'm just saying they're better at it.

:texan: LBJ :texan:

[sooneron]

I had to get a state ID card at one time and it was NOT free.

[Hatfield]

I had to get a state ID card at one time and it was NOT free.

heh.

[soonerscuba]

I'm not saying they're the only ones, I'm just saying they're better at it.

I think the 2000 election firmly established the Republicans as "better at it". And people seem to forget that southern Illinois is just as dirty as the Chicago, but they play for a different team, so apparently they don't count.

[slickdawg]

I voted against W. Twice in the same day.


Really?

[soonerscuba]

On the topic though, if you don't have an ID you shouldn't be allowed to vote, because you are retarded, and have no place in democracy.

[OklahomaTuba]

On the other hand, I do not particularly want the government to know who I am while I'm voting. Secret ballots are critical to democracy, and an anonymous vote contributes to that goal.

Thats not the issue.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I think the 2000 election firmly established the Republicans as "better at it". And people seem to forget that southern Illinois is just as dirty as the Chicago, but they play for a different team, so apparently they don't count.

Link? I don't know of any recorded complaint that repubs were systematically stuffing ballot boxes. Now we KNOW the dims do it often, hello Chicago, Detroit, Ohio and Florida (thanks to Tulsa mayor). If anything, the repubs have worked hard to get all votes counted, including absentee votes...

'Scuba, you mentioned Southern Ill. Haven't heard anything there. Tell us more. I thought Southern Ill was East St. Louis?

[sooneron]

Link? I don't know of any recorded complaint that repubs were systematically stuffing ballot boxes. Now we KNOW the dims do it often, hello Chicago, Detroit, Ohio and Florida (thanks to Tulsa mayor). If anything, the repubs have worked hard to get all votes counted, including absentee votes...
What's the name of that computer company that counts a ****load of ballots in the US?

Oh yeah, Diebold.

I can't remember how much they contributed to the Republican campaign...

[OklahomaTuba]

I think the 2000 election firmly established the Republicans as "better at it". And people seem to forget that southern Illinois is just as dirty as the Chicago, but they play for a different team, so apparently they don't count.

Dude, no one is better at election fraud than the dims. From the shakedowns by unions at polling places to all the crap that happened in places like Wisconsin and Washington in 2004.

East St. Louis was a great example of this

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/06/guilty-verdict-in-esl-voter-fraud.html

[OklahomaTuba]

Remember when Al Gore tried to throw out the votes of US servicemen serving overseas?

Good times!

[sooneron]

It's better if we all just admit that both sides have cheated and move on and try to remedy the problem.

[OklahomaTuba]

Also...

While Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. Instead, the evidence shows that Democrats waged aggressive intimidation and suppression campaigns against Republican voters and volunteers in 2004. Republicans have not been exempt from similar criticism in this area, as alleged voter intimidation and suppression activity by GOP operatives led the Republican National Committee to sign a consent decree repudiating such tactics in 1982. However, a careful review of the facts shows that in 2004, paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression efforts than their Republican counterparts. Examples include:

Paid Democrat operatives charged with slashing tires of 25 Republican get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee on the morning of Election Day.

Misleading telephone calls made by Democrat operatives targeting Republican voters in Ohio with the wrong date for the election and faulty polling place information.

Intimidating and deceiving mailings and telephone calls paid for by the DNC threatening Republican volunteers in Florida with legal action.

Union-coordinated intimidation and violence campaign targeting Republican campaign offices and volunteers resulting in a broken arm for a GOP volunteer in Florida.
Vote fraud and voter registration fraud were significant problems in at least a dozen states around the county. Vote fraud is a reality in America that occurred not only in large battleground states like Wisconsin but in places like Alabama and Kentucky. The record indicates that in 2004, voter registration fraud was mainly the work of so-called “nonpartisan” groups such as Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and NAACP National Voter Fund. Examples include:
Joint task force in Wisconsin found “clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee,” including more than 200 felon voters, more than 100 double voters and thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city.

NAACP National Voter Fund worker in Ohio paid crack cocaine in exchange for a large number of fraudulent voter registration cards in names of Dick Tracy, Mary Poppins and other fictional characters.

Former ACORN worker said there was “a lot of fraud committed” by group in Florida, as ACORN workers submitted thousands of fraudulent registrations in a dozen states across the country, resulting in a statewide investigation of the group in Florida and multiple indictments and convictions of ACORN/Project Vote workers for voter registration fraud in several states.
http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/executivesummary.html

[OklahomaTuba]

It's better if we all just admit that both sides have cheated and move on and try to remedy the problem.

Agreed.

Seems like Indiana was trying to do that.

[Hatfield]

Remember when Al Gore tried to throw out the votes of US servicemen serving overseas?

Good times!


you want to tell the rest of the story or are you fine misleading people?

[Vaevictis]

Thats not the issue.

It may not be the issue as advanced by the legal guys, but it's still an issue. Requiring state ID strips the anonymity of the process, thus potentially compromising the secrecy of the ballot. That is a problem to me.

Is it a worse problem than actual voter fraud? Probably not. But it's still a problem.

[OklahomaTuba]

you want to tell the rest of the story or are you fine misleading people?

Nothing misleading about it. Its pretty damn simple actually.

Gore didn't want the ballots from overseas Military personnel counted. End of story.

[Hatfield]

i am not following vaevitis. The requirement to have id is merely to insure that you are the individual registered. It doesn't show who you voted for.

there are other issues in the id req. where i think i see your point but i don't see it effecting the anonymity of your vote.

[Hatfield]

Nothing misleading about it. Its pretty damn simple actually.

Gore didn't want the ballots from overseas Military personnel counted. End of story.

maybe in tuba land it is that simple.

[JohnnyMack]

Requiring state ID strips the anonymity of the process, thus potentially compromising the secrecy of the ballot. That is a problem to me.

How so?

[OklahomaTuba]

Requiring state ID strips the anonymity of the process, thus potentially compromising the secrecy of the ballot. That is a problem to me.
Hmm, ok.

That doesn't make a lick of sense, but ok.

[soonerscuba]

Link? I don't know of any recorded complaint that repubs were systematically stuffing ballot boxes. Now we KNOW the dims do it often, hello Chicago, Detroit, Ohio and Florida (thanks to Tulsa mayor). If anything, the repubs have worked hard to get all votes counted, including absentee votes...

'Scuba, you mentioned Southern Ill. Haven't heard anything there. Tell us more. I thought Southern Ill was East St. Louis?

Yes, East St. Louis is in Illinois, but the Southern part of the state is Republican, even to the point that they set up a now defunct Republican regime, one could argue that this was to leverage against Chicago.

I think many miss my point. Surely you find it just the tidbit odd that the Republicans wouldn't aggressively pursue such a blatant fraud in Chicago in 1960? The reason is that the Republicans are far from saintly when it comes to voter practices, Dems used to be brash about it though.

Republicans, being the masters of politics they are, don't stuff ballot boxes, they hire companies with obvious stated agendas to count the votes, i.e. Diebold or Omega. I can assure you that most Democrats would say Florida was the epicenter of Republican tricks.

Once again, my hat is off to Republicans on the election front, they are clearly better at campaign politics. I just refuse to accept the notion that they are the angels they make themselves out to be in terms of winning elections. I think that the Democrats are far from saintly as well.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What's the name of that computer company that counts a ****load of ballots in the US?

Oh yeah, Diebold.

I can't remember how much they contributed to the Republican campaign...

Where has Diebold been accused of fraud or miss counting ballots in favor of repubs? I think we would've heard that.

Now, if you are discussing checks and balances and security, you have a point, but it isn't germane to this thread...

[sooneron]

Where has Diebold been accused of fraud or miss counting ballots in favor of repubs? I think we would've heard that.

Now, if you are discussing checks and balances and security, you have a point, but it isn't germane to this thread...

Ok I don't have a point, whereas, all of the repubs on the thread were bashing democratic stuffing practices?? Uh, ok. It's the 21st century method to stuffing.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Yes, East St. Louis is in Illinois, but the Southern part of the state is Republican, even to the point that they set up a now defunct Republican regime, one could argue that this was to leverage against Chicago.

What you say may be true. However, I have not heard of a political machine in South Ill. that woulcounter Chicago. Most of S. Ill are farmers (except for the unionize miners and the east st. louis people) and some could argue that this why they are repubs there, versus elsewhere. The only fraud I have heard about is out of East St. Louis.

I am not naive enough to think that the repubs are angels when it comes to elections. But I have never seen machines like the dims have to "scare" up votes...

They have done a great job "getting out the vote" and using technology to pull people in. I don't know how, but I am on a Tom Delay email list...I never had my email associated with anything Republican to my knowledge.

I fail to see how showing a photo ID showing you who you are reduces the anonimity of your vote. You currently have to sign a registrar's list that has you name and address. They know you voted. The ID would ensure that the person in line matches his photo and name...Not unlike an acquaintence I knew (Engr. Physics major) took his roommates physics test (Engr. major - at the time). That was wrong and people two-timing and dead voting is wrong...

[Vaevictis]

i am not following vaevitis. The requirement to have id is merely to insure that you are the individual registered. It doesn't show who you voted for.

If they don't know who you are, then they can't know who you voted for.

I will admit that I am slightly paranoid on this issue, having seen the effects of politicians who did find out ways to track how individuals voted, but I want *every* barrier in place.

Here's what really worries me: You check in with your photo-ID. Time logged. You walk over to your brand new handy-dandy computer voting machine. You vote. Time logged. From there, it's pretty easy to correlate the two.

It's really just a matter of my not trusting the politicians on this matter; I want it to be as difficult as possible for them to correlate my identity with my vote.

[sooneron]

If they don't know who you are, then they can't know who you voted for.

I will admit that I am slightly paranoid on this issue, having seen the effects of politicians who did find out ways to track how individuals voted, but I want *every* barrier in place.

Here's what really worries me: You check in with your photo-ID. Time logged. You walk over to your brand new handy-dandy computer voting machine. You vote. Time logged. From there, it's pretty easy to correlate the two.

It's really just a matter of my not trusting the politicians on this matter; I want it to be as difficult as possible for them to correlate my identity with my vote.
Dude, there's a website in OK that can tell anyone with knowlege of your full name how many times you've voted and what your affiliation is .

Give the person at the desk your ID, they check you off the list, hand you a ballot, done.

[Vaevictis]

I fail to see how showing a photo ID showing you who you are reduces the anonimity of your vote. You currently have to sign a registrar's list that has you name and address. They know you voted.

I don't particularly like this, either. :)

[Vaevictis]

Dude, there's a website in OK that can tell anyone with knowlege of your full name how many times you've voted and what your affiliation is.

Just 'cause it happens don't mean it should.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Here's what really worries me: You check in with your photo-ID. Time logged. You walk over to your brand new handy-dandy computer voting machine. You vote. Time logged. From there, it's pretty easy to correlate the two.

I fail to see how replacing 'check in with your photo-ID' with 'sign the register' changes the validity (or lack thereof) of the statement above.

[JohnnyMack]

So what's to keep someone from wandering around to polling place after polling place and casting vote after vote if you don't have to show ID? Wouldn't be all that hard.

[sooneron]

Just 'cause it happens don't mean it should.
I agree. Butwhatchoogonnado?

[Okla-homey]

So what's to keep someone from wandering around to polling place after polling place and casting vote after vote if you don't have to show ID? Wouldn't be all that hard.

You would at least need a name and address of one registered voter assigned to vote at each place you attempt and you would have to pray he/she hadn't already voted.

[SoonerInKCMO]

I agree. Butwhatchoogonnado?

When Hulkamania runs wild on you? :confused:

[SoonerInKCMO]

You would at least need a name and address of one registered voter assigned to vote at each place you attempt and you would have to pray he/she hadn't already voted.

With a little planning, foresight and access to recent obituaries, that wouldn't be all that difficult.

[JohnnyMack]

You would at least need a name and address of one registered voter assigned to vote at each place you attempt and you would have to pray he/she hadn't already voted.

Yeah but I would think scheming your way through that wouldn't bee THAT hard.

[yermom]

With a little planning, foresight and access to recent obituaries, that wouldn't be all that difficult.

that or some lazy friends

[Octavian]

....Butwhatchoogonnado?

when judgement comes for you?

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/8179/unclecharles4hq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[sooneron]

that or some lazy friends
and no job for the day...

[Octavian]

how bout this deal?

everyone must show an ID before voting...even poor or dead Democrats

and Republicans cant have their tax cut lovin corporate friends count the digital votes

[Vaevictis]

So what's to keep someone from wandering around to polling place after polling place and casting vote after vote if you don't have to show ID? Wouldn't be all that hard.

Like I said, I think that dealing with voter fraud is a bigger issue (right now) than the anonymity issue, and that checking ID is probably the best way (right now) to deal with with that issue.

In the long term, I think technology could provide a solution. It's possible to run data through a one-way hash; the result of the hash is unique, but the process is irreversable. So if you assign a voter (well in advance) a key, they could potentially run it through the hash and submit the hash (instead of the key), along with some other random data, as ID.

Because the result of the hash is unique, if the voter voted more than once, the hash would occur twice in the voter rolls, and you could toss those votes. But because the process is irreversable, there would be no way to find out who the voter is.

(Note that this is a way simplified off-the-cuff explanation, and has some glaring holes in it to accomodate the simplification and off-the-cuff-edness, but it *should* be possible to do it in a way that you can ensure that only someone assigned an ID can vote, but the ID should be irretrievable from the vote)

[SoonerInKCMO]

And they could store that key on a chip embedded in their skin.


:les: MARK OF THE BEAST!!



:D

[yermom]

and no job for the day...

i just mean friends that aren't voting, but will give you their names and addresses

[slickdawg]

And they could store that key on a chip embedded in their skin.


:les: MARK OF THE BEAST!!



:D


Dude, the gubbamint has been installing chips in us for years, we just
don't know it.

You really think those "alien abductions" involving "experiments" and "anal probes" were really aliens?

[yermom]

Like I said, I think that dealing with voter fraud is a bigger issue (right now) than the anonymity issue, and that checking ID is probably the best way (right now) to deal with with that issue.

In the long term, I think technology could provide a solution. It's possible to run data through a one-way hash; the result of the hash is unique, but the process is irreversable. So if you assign a voter (well in advance) a key, they could potentially run it through the hash and submit the hash (instead of the key), along with some other random data, as ID.

Because the result of the hash is unique, if the voter voted more than once, the hash would occur twice in the voter rolls, and you could toss those votes. But because the process is irreversable, there would be no way to find out who the voter is.

(Note that this is a way simplified off-the-cuff explanation, and has some glaring holes in it to accomodate the simplification and off-the-cuff-edness, but it *should* be possible to do it in a way that you can ensure that only someone assigned an ID can vote, but the ID should be irretrievable from the vote)


this becomes a little scary when the electronic voting machines aren't open source

they can tell you what the black box does all day, that doesn't mean they aren't lying

[sooneron]

i just mean friends that aren't voting, but will give you their names and addresses
No, I mean YOU would have nothing better to do (like a job) for the day\.
I figure two precincts for every three hours.

[Vaevictis]

I agree. Butwhatchoogonnado?

Why, the same thing every 20something red-blooded American does:

B*tch about it on an internet message board.

[yermom]

what, you don't think the dims pay well?

[SicEmBaylor]

Minnesota has same-day registration laws so in 2000 the Democratic Party of Minnesota went around rounding up homeless people and offering them packs of cigs and food if they'd go in and vote.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Minnesota has same-day registration laws so in 2000 the Democratic Party of Minnesota went around rounding up homeless people and offering them packs of cigs and food if they'd go in and vote.

Heh. The DFLers did a lot of that when I lived there. I wonder if it had any effect on The Body getting elected.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

how bout this deal?

everyone must show an ID before voting...even poor or dead Democrats

and Republicans cant have their tax cut lovin corporate friends count the digital votesDeal...but, who then should count the digital votes, tax-hike lovin' govt. workers?

[Ike]

Deal...but, who then should count the digital votes, tax-hike lovin' govt. workers?


Actually, there is an easy solution to that. Voting machines that use OPEN SOURCE CODE. This way, anybody who thinks there is funny business going on should be able to acquire a full dump of the code running on any particular voting machine on election day and examine it with their own eyes. republican, democrat, whoever. Full transparency.

[usmc-sooner]

Actually, there is an easy solution to that. Voting machines that use OPEN SOURCE CODE. This way, anybody who thinks there is funny business going on should be able to acquire a full dump of the code running on any particular voting machine on election day and examine it with their own eyes. republican, democrat, whoever. Full transparency.


that's how the Terminator started

[Okla-homey]

Could we just outsource the digital vote counting overseas? The Indians would be impartial because they don't have a dog in the fight.;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Deal...but, who then should count the digital votes, tax-hike lovin' govt. workers?

Who belong to a state employees union that is beholden to the Democratic party.

[Hamhock]

More proof that the UN should be conducting our elections. :rolleyes:

[NormanPride]

I don't see why we can't just disassociate the ID from the vote. Keep a tally of who voted, but don't attach an ID to the vote. Heck, do we really need to keep track of when everyone voted? All that matters is that they did, right? And if you really want to track when people voted, keep it in the register, but don't time stamp the actual vote. Mm'kay?

[royalfan5]

Clearly elections are flawed beyond all repair, therefore we should switch to anarchy. It's much more efficent and fair.

[Vaevictis]

I don't see why we can't just disassociate the ID from the vote. Keep a tally of who voted, but don't attach an ID to the vote. Heck, do we really need to keep track of when everyone voted? All that matters is that they did, right? And if you really want to track when people voted, keep it in the register, but don't time stamp the actual vote. Mm'kay?

IMO, we shouldn't keep track that people voted at all, if we don't have to.

All it boils down to for me is that you need link two pieces of information -- the vote, and who it was that cast it. Right now, the focus is on preventing the link between the two -- I'd personally rather they not ever have the identity information at all. It makes it harder on them :)

(Yes, I'm somewhat paranoid on this issue.)

[SicEmBaylor]

IMO, we shouldn't keep track that people voted at all, if we don't have to.

All it boils down to for me is that you need link two pieces of information -- the vote, and who it was that cast it. Right now, the focus is on preventing the link between the two -- I'd personally rather they not ever have the identity information at all. It makes it harder on them :)

(Yes, I'm somewhat paranoid on this issue.)

That's insane. There'd be absolutely NO way to ensure that people only vote once thus violating the idea of one person one vote, there'd be no way to ensure that only American citizens are voting and in their proper state, district, and precinct, and it'd open the system up to widespread corruption (far far worse than it is now)

Bad bad bad idea.

[Ike]

That's insane. There'd be absolutely NO way to ensure that people only vote once thus violating the idea of one person one vote,

not entirely. the purple paint seemed to work well in Iraq.




there'd be no way to ensure that only American citizens are voting and in their proper state, district, and precinct, and it'd open the system up to widespread corruption (far far worse than it is now)

Bad bad bad idea.

thats still problematic, but in principle, I think its still possible to completely disconnect a persons identity from their vote. One possible way to do this is to give people voter ID cards when they register to vote. These cards should contain no identifying information, but should also be difficult to forge, and they should be granted well ahead of election day. The only information that should be contained on a voter ID card is the state, district and precinct in which the holder of such a card is registered to vote. Showing one of these should get you a vote.

this in conjunction with something like purple paint or some other mark that is difficult to remove from the skin for a day or so, would probably provide more vote security than our current patchwork systems.

[SicEmBaylor]

not entirely. the purple paint seemed to work well in Iraq.




thats still problematic, but in principle, I think its still possible to completely disconnect a persons identity from their vote. One possible way to do this is to give people voter ID cards when they register to vote. These cards should contain no identifying information, but should also be difficult to forge, and they should be granted well ahead of election day. The only information that should be contained on a voter ID card is the state, district and precinct in which the holder of such a card is registered to vote. Showing one of these should get you a vote.

this in conjunction with something like purple paint or some other mark that is difficult to remove from the skin for a day or so, would probably provide more vote security than our current patchwork systems.

Aye that is possible, but I think you're unlikely to EVER see such a system since both parties and individual political campaigns use voter registration information to identify voters and how well often they vote.

[Ike]

Aye that is possible, but I think you're unlikely to EVER see such a system since both parties and individual political campaigns use voter registration information to identify voters and how well often they vote.


sure, I agree, but I was just offering one possible solution towards making truly anonymous voting a reality in this country.

Still, the parties would not be at a total loss for campaigning. They would still have access to the identies of people that had registered to vote, and their numbers in each precinct. they would also have access to the number of people that voted in each particular precinct. Thus they can still target their ads/phone calls to certain districts and precincts, which is a still fairly narrow target, without having to have precise names of people that actually voted. Its not a complete loss for the parties. It would just force them to get a tiny bit more creative.

[NormanPride]

Why don't we just use the poll function on this site? That's accurate, right? :D

[royalfan5]

Why don't we just use the poll function on this site? That's accurate, right? :D
As long as it's not set on the public.

[MamaMia]

Here in town where I vote, we have had the same 3 older ladies working the polls for years. They mean business too. They ask for IDs before they mark off the names and hand over the ballots. I always keep my voting registration card handy.

[SicEmBaylor]

Here in town where I vote, we have had the same 3 older ladies working the polls for years. They mean business too. They ask for IDs before they mark off the names and hand over the ballots. I always keep my voting registration card handy.

Do they really? That's extremly rare. All three of those women should be commended for their work and dedication.

[MamaMia]

Do they really? That's extremly rare. All three of those women should be commended for their work and dedication. You betcha they do and when they come to work at that Senior Citizens building precinct, they come prepared for the long haul. They have a whole ice chest full of food and drinks that they share between the 3 of them and they come for the entire day. They thank us and we thank them and then they give us our 'I voted' stickers. :)

[soonerscuba]

Can't we all be happy people are voting, even if they are fake?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Can't we all be happy people are voting, even if they are fake?Ghaaaaag!!!

[SicEmBaylor]

Can't we all be happy people are voting, even if they are fake?

No, because I'm in favor of restricting the right to vote.
Why go out of our way to encourage any ignorant yahoo to vote?

[soonerscuba]

Wow, is my humor really that bad?

[NormanPride]

Wow, is my humor really that bad?

Yeah, man. I think I got less funny just reading it.

;)

[Okla-homey]

No, because I'm in favor of restricting the right to vote.
Why go out of our way to encourage any ignorant yahoo to vote?

Baylor, you are a scary d00d sometimes.

It is well settled law that voting is a fundamental right under the flippin' Constitution and the Supremes strictly scrutinize any limitation on voting rights. No poll taxes, no temporal residency req't unless absolutely req'd to administer the process, no means testing, no property tests, no literacy tests. Heck, you even gotta make it possible for people in jail awaiting trial and denied bail to vote. The only hosers who may be denied the vote are convicted felons and many states now allow them to vote too.

[SicEmBaylor]

Baylor, you are a scary d00d sometimes.

It is well settled law that voting is a fundamental right under the flippin' Constitution and the Supremes strictly scrutinize any limitation on voting rights. No poll taxes, no temporal residency req't unless absolutely req'd to administer the process, no means testing, no property tests, no literacy tests. Heck, you even gotta make it possible for people in jail awaiting trial and denied bail to vote. The only hosers who may be denied the vote are convicted felons and many states now allow them to vote too.

I know.

[MamaMia]

No, because I'm in favor of restricting the right to vote.
Why go out of our way to encourage any ignorant yahoo to vote?Prisoners cant vote and if they are convicted felons I think they have to wait awhile. Who else do you believe shouldnt be able to vote?

[Octavian]

Who else do you believe shouldnt be able to vote?

so it begins...

;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Baylor, you are a scary d00d sometimes.

It is well settled law that voting is a fundamental right under the flippin' Constitution and the Supremes strictly scrutinize any limitation on voting rights. No poll taxes, no temporal residency req't unless absolutely req'd to administer the process, no means testing, no property tests, no literacy tests. Heck, you even gotta make it possible for people in jail awaiting trial and denied bail to vote. The only hosers who may be denied the vote are convicted felons and many states now allow them to vote too.Mebbe he was referring to some of the dims' favorite constituencies, the post-mortems and the same-hemisphere residents.

[Octavian]

Mebbe he was referring to some of the dims' favorite constituencies, the post-mortems and the same-hemisphere residents.

or people who butcher the word "maybe"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

or people who butcher the word "maybe"I own up to dim constituent candidate status? How kcool!

[MamaMia]

Baylor, you are a scary d00d sometimes.

It is well settled law that voting is a fundamental right under the flippin' Constitution and the Supremes strictly scrutinize any limitation on voting rights. No poll taxes, no temporal residency req't unless absolutely req'd to administer the process, no means testing, no property tests, no literacy tests. Heck, you even gotta make it possible for people in jail awaiting trial and denied bail to vote. The only hosers who may be denied the vote are convicted felons and many states now allow them to vote too.
Since when do the law makers let the Constitution stand in their way when it comes to implementing their wants and desires? :P

[SicEmBaylor]

Prisoners cant vote and if they are convicted felons I think they have to wait awhile. Who else do you believe shouldnt be able to vote?

At the time of the founding universal suffrage was not considered a desirable goal or even ultimately good for the republic. The framers had plenty of distrust for the voting public which is partly why they divided power in the way they did.

In fact, the right to vote was largely restricted to those who owned property and who were white. Now race or any other physical characteristic which an individual has no control over is not a reasonable way to restrict the right to vote. And now property/land ownership is so common that it's no longer useful in restricting the right to vote to those individuals who have a vested interest in these United States.

I believe that part (although there are several other factors) of the reason the Federal government has become so bloated with social programs that go beyond its constitutional mandate is becuase when the right to vote was expanded politicans began pandering to the wishes of those voters to re-distribute wealth in the form of social programs.

Now, do I believe that the right to vote should be restricted based on income? Probably not. In fact, I haven't really figured out the best way to implement this restriction. I think a good start would be to require voters to pass a very basic citizenship/civcs test similar to the ones naturalized citizens are required to take before being awarded citizenship (and thus the right to vote).

The overall idea is that the right to vote shouldn't be automatic. It should be something that citizens should strive to gain by putting at least a minimal amount of effort into the process of gaining that right to vote. In this way, perhaps, the citizen becomes more informed on the process of government, the issues, and the candidates involved. When you have to WORK for something you appreciate it more than you would if it were automatic.

[Octavian]

At the time of the founding universal suffrage was not considered a desirable goal or even ultimately good for the republic. The framers had plenty of distrust for the voting public which is partly why they divided power in the way they did.

<shakes fist>

then why won't you agree w/ me on the necessity of federal judicial oversight?!!

;)

[SicEmBaylor]

<shakes fist>

then why won't you agree w/ me on the necessity of federal judicial oversight?!!

;)

Because oversight on the issue that you want me to agree with you on wasn't oversight that was intended to be put into the hands of the federal judicary. I agree on the concept of oversight, our disagreement is where that oversight comes from. ;-)

[Octavian]

I agree on the concept of oversight, our disagreement is where that oversight comes from. ;-)

cant argue there :D

[SicEmBaylor]

cant argue there :D

I'm starting to think these views may not be popular among the masses. :D

[usmc-sooner]

Can't we all be happy people are voting, even if they are fake?


most Democrats are:D

[Okla-homey]

Strictly in the interest of being fair and balanced...


At the time of the founding universal suffrage was not considered a desirable goal or even ultimately good for the republic. The framers had plenty of distrust for the voting public which is partly why they divided power in the way they did.<but don't forget there was also serious concern about establishing a system in which the wealthy and powerful would have too much influence, thus the US House of Representatives>

In fact, the right to vote was largely restricted to those who owned property and who were white. Now race or any other physical characteristic which an individual has no control over is not a reasonable way to restrict the right to vote. And now property/land ownership is so common that it's no longer useful in restricting the right to vote to those individuals who have a vested interest in these United States. <"These" United States?, heh. What percentage of Americans own their homes today? Only 69.4% as of June 2004 per the White House. That means under some previous franchise schemes, 1 in 3 Americans wouldn't be able to vote -- substantially more if "ownership" discounted people who are living in homes the bank actually owns due to mortgages.>

I believe that part (although there are several other factors) of the reason the Federal government has become so bloated with social programs that go beyond its constitutional mandate <debatable> is becuase when the right to vote was expanded politicans began pandering to the wishes of those voters to re-distribute wealth in the form of social programs. <So you honestly believe it would be better for the nation if only the people who don't want or need anything potentially expensive from their government were allowed the franchise? That's a very slippery slope my friend.>

Now, do I believe that the right to vote should be restricted based on income? Probably not.<probably not?> In fact, I haven't really figured out the best way to implement this restriction. I think a good start would be to require voters to pass a very basic citizenship/civcs test similar to the ones naturalized citizens are required to take before being awarded citizenship (and thus the right to vote). <the very notion of a "right" means it is something a person doesn't have to "earn" by doing or being anything other than a law-abiding citizen. It took until 1920 and the XIX Amendment for us to get there as a nation, but to deny people the right to vote based on some newly developed criteria would lead to creation of "classes" of citizenship and that is simply unacceptable in a democracy >

The overall idea is that the right to vote shouldn't be automatic. It should be something that citizens should strive to gain by putting at least a minimal amount of effort into the process of gaining that right to vote. In this way, perhaps, the citizen becomes more informed on the process of government, the issues, and the candidates involved. When you have to WORK for something you appreciate it more than you would if it were automatic.<yes, by all means, lets have a system in which only some native born folks are citizens embued with the right to vote. In that way, we'll be sure to ensure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.>

[yermom]

strangely enough, i agree with Sicem on this one :eek:

i think voters should have the following properties:

breathing
US citizen
ability to read
some understanding of the process, not voting on who looks the coolest on TV

[Okla-homey]

strangely enough, i agree with Sicem on this one :eek:

i think voters should have the following properties:

breathing
US citizen
ability to read
some understanding of the process, not voting on who looks the coolest on TV

Mike Greco, the current pres of the ABA was here yesterday. He reported that the ABA has recently completed a very comprehensive study of American's "civics" knowledge. According to their study, approximately half of us can't name and very generally describe the branches of government and only a third of us know what the phrase "checks and balances" means.

That's a lot of people who wouldn't be able to vote under your worldview above.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Prisoners cant vote and if they are convicted felons I think they have to wait awhile. Who else do you believe shouldnt be able to vote?

Dims are working hard to allow prisoners to vote and to give the vote to felons...

They need to increase their base at any cost...

Pretty soon, the dims will be handing out ballots to Europeans and contintental Africans and continental Chinese for U.S. elections...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Mike Grecco, the current pres of the ABA was here yesterday. He reported that the ABA has recently completed a very comprehensive study of American's "civics" knowledge. According to their study, approximately half of us can't name and very generally describe the branches of government and only a third of us know what the phrase "checks and balances" means.

We can thank public edumacation for dropping Civis as a requirements and adding things like world geography and social studies and stuff like that...

[OUinFLA]

Weren't there a lot of dead reppublicans voitng recently, as well?


commonplace down here in Florida.

lots of dead republicans living here.

[usmc-sooner]

commonplace down here in Florida.

lots of dead republicans living here.

I was watching a show where a guy was explaining the pros of the the electoral college and he said that it helps cut down on the voter fraud in large areas (I'm not quoting him quote for quote just off the top of my head)
he went on to say that about 80% of voter fraud came from the Democrats in the last 2 elections.
He showed videos of people during the Bush/Kerry election who were boasting on TV of voting for Kerry more than once. One guy said he voted for Kerry 27 times. Also showed the same for Bush/Gore.

This guy made it clear that he was not biased and that both sides were guilty but he was using the last 2 elections as they illustrated his point really well because landslide elections wouldn't really factor in.

He also pointed out the high amount of voter fraud of Democrats during the JFK/Johnson administration. You JFK's dad bragging that he bought the election, and some of the counties in Texas (LBJ) had more votes for the Democrats than the number of people that actually lived in the county.

[yermom]

Mike Greco, the current pres of the ABA was here yesterday. He reported that the ABA has recently completed a very comprehensive study of American's "civics" knowledge. According to their study, approximately half of us can't name and very generally describe the branches of government and only a third of us know what the phrase "checks and balances" means.

That's a lot of people who wouldn't be able to vote under your worldview above.

you are you agreeing or disagreeing with me here?

[Okla-homey]

you are you agreeing or disagreeing with me here?

My position on all this:

I think photo ID's before voting are fine and in fact that should be the law.

I also think convicted felons should lose their right to vote and it should not be restored until the end of a felony conviction-free period of at least 5 years beginning when their period of imprisonment and parole has ended.

Other than that, I oppose any condition other than US citizenship being placed on a person's right to vote in federal elections.

In local and state elections, the only additional voting condition I favor is bona-fide proof of residency in the state, municipality or district in which the election is held.

As an aside, I favor repeal of the 26th amendment which gave 18 y/o's the vote. I hold this opinion based on the fact Congress has decided it can't trust anyone under 21 to drink responsibly, therefore I believe it should not trust them with a ballot either. That, and I'm an embittered, crotchety old bastage.

FWIW, the old argument that draft eligibility = voting rights doesn't wash anymore for two principle reasons. 1) we no longer draft anyone and I can't realistically envision a scenario in which we would resume conscription barring the need to fight off a wholesale invasion or catastrophic loss of access to world oil supplies. 2) Women aren't legally draft eligible, yet they got to vote at 18 too.

[yermom]

well, i disagree on both counts there

at 18 you may not be drafted, but you sure can join the military

if you can't be trusted to vote or to drink then why can you be trusted with guns/bombs, etc...at this magic number of 18? maybe a test should be given here too ;)


as for the ignorant masses voting you get people pandering to popularity contests and people making decisions on hot button "issues" and having no idea what is actually going on. why have people vote when they don't understand how anything works?

why should someone vote for a senator or president that doesn't even know what they do?

[royalfan5]

well, i disagree on both counts there

at 18 you may not be drafted, but you sure can join the military

if you can't be trusted to vote or to drink then why can you be trusted with guns/bombs, etc...at this magic number of 18? maybe a test should be given here too ;)


as for the ignorant masses voting you get people pandering to popularity contests and people making decisions on hot button "issues" and having no idea what is actually going on. why have people vote when they don't understand how anything works?

why should someone vote for a senator or president that doesn't even know what they do?
Of course if you add some requirements as pre-requitstes all you are going to do create new voter fraud, in seeing which side is better at getting their opponents disqualified, rather than getting dead people to vote.

[yermom]

i'd say if you want to vote, then you should have the responsibility to learn something about the process.

[Okla-homey]

well, i disagree on both counts there

at 18 you may not be drafted, but you sure can join the military

if you can't be trusted to vote or to drink then why can you be trusted with guns/bombs, etc...at this magic number of 18? maybe a test should be given here too ;)

You don't have to be a citizen to join the military either but we don't let serving members of the armed forces who aren't citizens vote. Also, with parental permission you can join the military at 17 but we don't let 17 y/os vote.

as for the ignorant masses voting you get people pandering to popularity contests and people making decisions on hot button "issues" and having no idea what is actually going on. why have people vote when they don't understand how anything works?

why should someone vote for a senator or president that doesn't even know what they do?

But who develops the test? Try to get pols to agree on its composition. Further, people would just teach the test.

[yermom]

i'm not a big fan of arbitrary ages for things anyway... if you can demonstrate competency, that should be more important...but allowing 17 y/os enter the military sounds a bit unethical to me... i won't get into my thoughts on recruiting, etc... ;)

anyway, i'm not sure about who would develop the content of the test, but i don't think people teaching the test would be all that bad... it's not like that doesn't happen with everything else at least it's something

[OUinFLA]

why should someone vote for a senator or president that doesn't even know what they do?


some of them do nothing at all.
which makes like-minded voters, qualified.

:D

[Ike]

But who develops the test? Try to get pols to agree on its composition. Further, people would just teach the test.

ya know, I *could* support a test for voting rights, if and only if the voting age requirement gets thrown out completely. and to sove the argument of who develops it, how about we not develop a new one at all and use the test that immigrants have to take to become citizens.

do a google search for sample citizenship test and you'll find that passing it is probably a very good indication of whether someone is at least minimally competent enough to vote in this country.

[Vaevictis]

As an aside, I favor repeal of the 26th amendment which gave 18 y/o's the vote. (snip) FWIW, the old argument that draft eligibility = voting rights doesn't wash anymore for two principle reasons (snip)

Fair enough, but it's simple enough to modify the argument -- if you're old enough to have the faculties to join the military, you're old enough to have the faculties to vote on the people who will control the military.

IMO, the age at which you can be inducted into the military should also be the age at which you can vote. (similarly with the age at which you can drink -- I mean, really. If you can trust a kid to hold his fire in a riot in some God-forsaken third world country, you can bloody well trust him with a beer).

Personally, I think all of these things should be certainly no greater than 18.

[OUinFLA]

Fair enough, but it's simple enough to modify the argument -- if you're old enough to have the faculties to join the military, you're old enough to have the faculties to vote on the people who will control the military.

IMO, the age at which you can be inducted into the military should also be the age at which you can vote. (similarly with the age at which you can drink -- I mean, really. If you can trust a kid to hold his fire in a riot in some God-forsaken third world country, you can bloody well trust him with a beer).

Personally, I think all of these things should be certainly no greater than 18.


and as some states are learning, it's not a bad age to start driving a car either.

[sooneron]

How about this? You need a valid state/gubment issued ID or a birth certificate and a bill at the current address where the person is registered.

I'm sure the poor have some sort of bill laying around.

If you're an alien that is legal to vote/ naturalized, you need whatever id or paperwork that you have for that proof.

[Okla-homey]

ya know, I *could* support a test for voting rights, if and only if the voting age requirement gets thrown out completely. and to sove the argument of who develops it, how about we not develop a new one at all and use the test that immigrants have to take to become citizens.

do a google search for sample citizenship test and you'll find that passing it is probably a very good indication of whether someone is at least minimally competent enough to vote in this country.

What if the person can't read? What if they can't read well? Do they get an oral test? You would need that provision in order to comply with federal law. Additionally, the person administering the oral test would have to be completely objective in deciding if the answer given was acceptable or you would have the basis for an equal protection lawsuit.

The language deal wouldn't be much of an issue because aliens seeking naturalization have to demonstrate English competency during the citizenship testing process.

Anyway, none of this is ever going to happen because it would require a constitutional amendment and I don't see the ability to garner 3/4's of both houses to even send it to the states -- primarily because the dems and liberal-to-moderate repubs like me would scream bloody murder.

[SicEmBaylor]

But who develops the test? Try to get pols to agree on its composition. Further, people would just teach the test.

Who develops the test now for naturalized citizens? Apparently someone agreed on the composition of the test. The difficulty and impossibility of the issue is getting people to agree there needs to be a test, but after that at some point we can reach agreement on the composition of the test.

Presumably such a test would only cover the very basics.

[SicEmBaylor]

What if the person can't read? What if they can't read well? Do they get an oral test? You would need that provision in order to comply with federal law. Additionally, the person administering the oral test would have to be completely objective in deciding if the answer given was acceptable or you would have the basis for an equal protection lawsuit.

The language deal wouldn't be much of an issue because aliens seeking naturalization have to demonstrate English competency during the citizenship testing process.

Anyway, none of this is ever going to happen because it would require a constitutional amendment and I don't see the ability to garner 3/4's of both houses to even send it to the states -- primarily because the dems and liberal-to-moderate repubs like me would scream bloody murder.

If a person can't read that's exactly the type of person the test is suppose to rule out for voting rights! If you want to vote that badly then take some initiative and sign up for an adult literacy class that is probably federally funded! This is the entire point about making voting something that people should strive to attain in order to appreciate more.

My God, can't we agree that you should at least have the capacity to read a damned ballot? :sigh: Of course, according to the Supreme Court we can not.

Obviously Homey you are totally correct in the legal barriers the Supreme Court has put into place that makes all of this academic and quite impossible. It's even more impossible politically than it is to expect the Supreme Court to reverse current legal standards.

However, as should be obvious by now I"m not looking for a legal solution. I'm simply suggesting nearly impossible ideas that I believe would be benefital to the Republic. ;-)

And I'm just happy to see you admitting liberal-moderate tendencies instead of claiming to be a conservative. ;-)