Indiana Secretary of State Ruled Ineligible

[StrangeSox]

If they can get to the voting places, why can't they get ID's? Do they vote now? Do they have ID's now? Hell I have more restrictions on my right to own a gun than most people have on voting. Would you favor banning ID's for that as well? I still think it is a lame excuse. Needing an ID does not discriminate against poor people.

Tex already explained this to you. Stop being lazy and do some research if you are legitimately curious as to what the arguments are.

[Rex Kickass]

And if the Democrats in Indiana cared so much about it, why didn't they give Lugar the same treatment?

 

If Lugar does not meet the residency requirements in Indiana, they absolutely should.

[EvilMonkey]

Tex already explained this to you. Stop being lazy and do some research if you are legitimately curious as to what the arguments are.

What did he explain? That he knows some poor families way out in the sticks. Didn't say if they vote NOW or not. Didn't say if they had IDs or not. All he said was a hypothetical that they had no public transportation to get an ID. Well, THAT would also lead one to believe that they didn't vote either, so what's the problem? They are disenfranchising themselves. The mainstream arguments all center around the mistaken assumption that since ID's cost money, poor people won't have them, which is pure bull. Poor people have every reason to have an ID that anyone else does. And most states will make them available for FREE to low income people, especially for voting purposes. There goes your 'poll tax'. And if making someone spend the TIME to get an ID is a poll tax, then so is making them spend the time to actually vote. Now you want to go spouting off about polling places in poorer neighborhoods shutting down early, or lack of voting machines, that is NOT related to needing an ID to vote. And I agree that those things are problems when they occur and should be fixed. Doesn't only happen in poor neighborhoods. On local levels, depending on who's in power, it happens in certain precincts as well. Geeze, only in America can 'poor' people feel victimized by having to get a free damn ID to prove who they are. These same poor people probably could not even get in to see their congressman without an ID. They couldn't cash a check without an ID. Hell, at the press conference Eric Holder had about not needing an ID, you needed an ID to GET IN!!!!!

 

 

[Balta1701]

They can't do all those things, and yet by most estimates >10% of the voting age population has no valid state issued ID.

[Texsox]

Again, if they are not voting now, even more reason to work towards eliminating those barriers. Both in registering and in voting. Doesn't matter if they are poor people in the sticks or soldiers away from home.

[EvilMonkey]

Again, if they are not voting now, even more reason to work towards eliminating those barriers. Both in registering and in voting. Doesn't matter if they are poor people in the sticks or soldiers away from home.

You want to eliminate them from being poor and out in the boonies so they can vote? Voting is a right, a right YOU need to exercise. That means YOU need to put forth some effort to know it, use it and keep it. If you have to be carried from your home to the voting booth to vote, screw you. With early voting, absentee voting and a full day of voting on the actual day, if you can't be bothered to find a way to vote, I do not care. There are no government imposed barriers to the poor people in your situation that you can remove.

[southsider2k5]

Again, if they are not voting now, even more reason to work towards eliminating those barriers. Both in registering and in voting. Doesn't matter if they are poor people in the sticks or soldiers away from home.

 

The last statewide election got about 20% turnout (which is a measure of only registered voters even) in the state of Indiana. The disenfranchisement argument is garbage in reality.

[Balta1701]

The last statewide election got about 20% turnout (which is a measure of only registered voters even) in the state of Indiana. The disenfranchisement argument is garbage in reality.

So, if 20% of the possible voters actually vote, every additional vote for the opposite party you can prevent through legal means is magnified hugely.

[southsider2k5]

So, if 20% of the possible voters actually vote, every additional vote for the opposite party you can prevent through legal means is magnified hugely.

 

It means that people don't want to vote and don't give a s***. It isn't some organized evil Republican plot that is stopping people from voting. It is lazy and disinterested people stopping themselves from voting. The rest is a figment of loony left-wing imagination.

[Texsox]

SS are you suggesting that a low voter turnout is evidence that people are not kept from voting? I am not following your argument. I would think that is evidence that there are barriers to voting that people are not willing to overcome. Wouldn't making it easier increase turnout?

[Texsox]

Alpha, you a certainly right that people need to out effort in. But there should not be a price. But we each have a different perspective on poverty in America.

[southsider2k5]

SS are you suggesting that a low voter turnout is evidence that people are not kept from voting? I am not following your argument. I would think that is evidence that there are barriers to voting that people are not willing to overcome. Wouldn't making it easier increase turnout?

 

I am saying we have done everything under the sun to make voting easier. We had literally hundreds of hours of early voting time available to people, in addition to absentee balloting that only required a phone call and a stamp as a registered voter. We also have multiple ways to register to vote, including going to the DMV for anything, the courthouse, running into any candidate at all during election season, or again through mail. I have a hard time looking at all of this and taking charges of disenfranchisement seriously, when turnout ends up being around 20% for a general election. Short of putting it on facebook, it is about impossible to make it easier for people to vote than it is today.

[farmteam]

Short of putting it on facebook, it is about impossible to make it easier for people to vote than it is today.

 

That would be hilarious.

[Rex Kickass]

It means that people don't want to vote and don't give a s***. It isn't some organized evil Republican plot that is stopping people from voting. It is lazy and disinterested people stopping themselves from voting. The rest is a figment of loony left-wing imagination.

 

Just because a lot of people are lazy and don't want to vote, doesn't mean that Republicans don't have a recent history of trying to depress turnout in minority communities in close races (for obvious reasons).

[EvilMonkey]

Just because a lot of people are lazy and don't want to vote, doesn't mean that Republicans don't have a recent history of trying to depress turnout in minority communities in close races (for obvious reasons).

Just as Democrats try and depress the military vote from overseas in just about every Democrat-led state, with their 'waivers' and late mailing of ballots overseas.

[Rex Kickass]

Just as Democrats try and depress the military vote from overseas in just about every Democrat-led state, with their 'waivers' and late mailing of ballots overseas.

 

There are a lot of reasons for late mailing of ballots overseas. I would agree that there are lots of problems in many states with prompt absentee balloting and that's something that isn't unique to the military. And it is something that does need to be fixed. Nobody should be denied their right to vote. By the way, your article cites New York as if it is some sort of conspiracy that ballots couldn't be delivered on time - like its done on purpose.

 

Primary elections in New York were held 49 days prior to the general election (September 14). This gives the state of New York four days to certify primary elections, print ballots and fulfill all outstanding absentee ballot requests from the MOVE act. National Review may want to put a conspiracy spin on this, but the truth is that most of the states that requested the 2010 waiver had their primary in mid-September making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to honor the rules of the MOVE act - especially when the act may have passed after the election calendar was set for the state.

 

Minority voter suppression however is a bit more nefarious, and it really exists. I've seen it. For example, in my minority heavy district, I've seen polling moved to police stations rather than a fire station across the street. And sure enough two weeks before election day, mysterious flyers start circulating warning people that if they have outstanding speeding tickets or back child support, the police will be running warrant checks on every voter. Then there are the flyers that are circulated urging people to vote Democrat on the wrong election day, or listing the Republicans as Democrats etc.

 

I'm not saying that every Republican endorses or embraces these measures, but it is something that I do see, and see fairly systemically in urban, minority areas that tend to vote Democrat. And I see it every year I've worked in political elections.

[southsider2k5]

There are a lot of reasons for late mailing of ballots overseas. I would agree that there are lots of problems in many states with prompt absentee balloting and that's something that isn't unique to the military. And it is something that does need to be fixed. Nobody should be denied their right to vote. By the way, your article cites New York as if it is some sort of conspiracy that ballots couldn't be delivered on time - like its done on purpose.

 

Primary elections in New York were held 49 days prior to the general election (September 14). This gives the state of New York four days to certify primary elections, print ballots and fulfill all outstanding absentee ballot requests from the MOVE act. National Review may want to put a conspiracy spin on this, but the truth is that most of the states that requested the 2010 waiver had their primary in mid-September making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to honor the rules of the MOVE act - especially when the act may have passed after the election calendar was set for the state.

 

Minority voter suppression however is a bit more nefarious, and it really exists. I've seen it. For example, in my minority heavy district, I've seen polling moved to police stations rather than a fire station across the street. And sure enough two weeks before election day, mysterious flyers start circulating warning people that if they have outstanding speeding tickets or back child support, the police will be running warrant checks on every voter. Then there are the flyers that are circulated urging people to vote Democrat on the wrong election day, or listing the Republicans as Democrats etc.

 

I'm not saying that every Republican endorses or embraces these measures, but it is something that I do see, and see fairly systemically in urban, minority areas that tend to vote Democrat. And I see it every year I've worked in political elections.

 

Yet the suppression by the canceling out of legitimate votes by Democrats who are actively making it impossible to follow any sort of a trail by requiring identification for registration or voting to prove who people actually are, that doesn't disenfranchise anyone because the Democrats have made it impossible to actually prove anything.

[Rex Kickass]

Yet the suppression by the canceling out of legitimate votes by Democrats who are actively making it impossible to follow any sort of a trail by requiring identification for registration or voting to prove who people actually are, that doesn't disenfranchise anyone because the Democrats have made it impossible to actually prove anything.

I'll be honest, I don't even really understand what you just said here.

[cabiness42]

Should he be punished and removed from office? Yes. Should the power shift in Indiana at the level it may? No.

 

I agree with this. What this guy did was wrong and he should not be allowed to hold office, but I don't agree with the party being punished. Of course, you could argue that the party should have seen this coming and should have forced him off the ballot before the election. I thought it was pretty obvious that this is how it was going to end up.

[Texsox]

I am saying we have done everything under the sun to make voting easier. We had literally hundreds of hours of early voting time available to people, in addition to absentee balloting that only required a phone call and a stamp as a registered voter. We also have multiple ways to register to vote, including going to the DMV for anything, the courthouse, running into any candidate at all during election season, or again through mail. I have a hard time looking at all of this and taking charges of disenfranchisement seriously, when turnout ends up being around 20% for a general election. Short of putting it on facebook, it is about impossible to make it easier for people to vote than it is today.

 

We haven't done everything under the sun, but I agree in principle with all you wrote. While you jest regarding putting it on Facebook, why not on-line? It won't necessarily help the poor voters, but it would help some groups. And the fact you can't take this seriously is one of the complaints that Dems have traditionally addressed while Reps seem to dismiss it. Poor people are complaining and one party doesn't take them seriously. Isn't listening and serving part of government?

[southsider2k5]

We haven't done everything under the sun, but I agree in principle with all you wrote. While you jest regarding putting it on Facebook, why not on-line? It won't necessarily help the poor voters, but it would help some groups. And the fact you can't take this seriously is one of the complaints that Dems have traditionally addressed while Reps seem to dismiss it. Poor people are complaining and one party doesn't take them seriously. Isn't listening and serving part of government?

 

My main worry on-line was security, but seeing as we have no security in the voting process, I supposed that on-line balloting really wouldn't be any less secure than what we have now.

[StrangeSox]

My main worry on-line was security, but seeing as we have no security in the voting process, I supposed that on-line balloting really wouldn't be any less secure than what we have now.

 

It'd be a lot easier for one person or a small group to impact any and every election from a single location than what would be required now.

[StrangeSox]

I am saying we have done everything under the sun to make voting easier. We had literally hundreds of hours of early voting time available to people, in addition to absentee balloting that only required a phone call and a stamp as a registered voter. We also have multiple ways to register to vote, including going to the DMV for anything, the courthouse, running into any candidate at all during election season, or again through mail. I have a hard time looking at all of this and taking charges of disenfranchisement seriously, when turnout ends up being around 20% for a general election. Short of putting it on facebook, it is about impossible to make it easier for people to vote than it is today.

 

Please note that Republicans are actively trying to role back many aspects of early voting because it was a big part of Obama's victory in 2008, and that illustrating that currently there's little to no disenfranchisement (not true anyway, but granted for sake of argument) does not excuse or justify new rules that do result in disenfranchisement.

[Texsox]

My main worry on-line was security, but seeing as we have no security in the voting process, I supposed that on-line balloting really wouldn't be any less secure than what we have now.

 

That should be everyone's worry. I don't see much difference between the potential fraud in absentee mail in ballots and some on-line plan. The biggest issue I see now is that because mail ins are such a small number, they are only a factor in very close races. I believe on-line voting would attract so many people that potential fraud would be magnified and an election could be stolen.

[Balta1701]

That should be everyone's worry. I don't see much difference between the potential fraud in absentee mail in ballots and some on-line plan. The biggest issue I see now is that because mail ins are such a small number, they are only a factor in very close races. I believe on-line voting would attract so many people that potential fraud would be magnified and an election could be stolen.

The solution to that problem, just like the absentee ballot fraud problem, is stronger voter ID laws.