Fuckin voter id laws

[TexanStar]

Have you never voted? When you go to your polling place, your name is checked off as having voted. If you try to go to another polling place to vote that isn't your precinct, YOUR NAME WILL NOT BE THERE TO ALLOW YOU TO VOTE.

Sorta. He's still dumb, but it's a bit more complicated than this.

You're assigned a polling place based on your voting precinct and they do have your name as mentioned above etc.

If you go to a different polling place than the one you're assigned, or if your name doesn't appear on the list due to clerical error or whatever, you can vote, but you have to use a provisional ballot.

Provisional ballots are kept separate and only counted towards the totals after they've confirmed that you are indeed a registered voter and that you haven't voted at any other location.

All of that keeps someone from travelling from location to location, and anyone who's ever voted should be aware of all this, but just wanted to note that you can still vote if your name doesn't appear on their list (provided you're really a registered voter).

If you try to go from place to place voting you'd also get arrested like this lady so I'm not sure wtf would be the point (except to try and live out some imbecilic conservative fantasy about how easy it is to cheat).

 

[phonehome]

Well what the right winger assumption/accusation concerning this is that there are all these "illegals" who always always always only only only vote D rather than R that go around to polling locations and "pretend" to be someone who is on the list and vote in their place AKA "impersonation type voter fraud" and of course the must have cure all silver bullet solution to this is "voter ID"

Of course this "theory" has more holes in it that swiss cheese.

First they have apparently never heard of this thing that most college students are aware of called a "fake ID" and that if all those supposed "illegals" are so hell bent of voting and pretending to be someone else so they can then they are just going to get how ever many fake ID's so that they can. Of course they have to know ahead of time who they are going to pretend to be and all that persons info so they can get that ID made up ahead of time.

Second they run the risk that that person that they are going to pretend to be is not someone that that poll worker will NOT know by site and know that the person standing in front of them is not that person.

Third they run the risk that even though the poll worker does not know the person by site that the actual voter has already been there and voted

Fourth they run the risk that even if they get there and are able to vote before the actual person shows up that later in the day that person WILL show up only to be told he/she "has already voted"

Now you know GD well that any one of those four possibilities would "make the news" Fox news for sure. From Fox&Friends in the morning to Hannity at night to Rush and the other radio talkers and Alex and everyone else on the net they would be wall to wall 24/7 about this. It would be 'all the proof they need" to PROVE they were right all along about "voter fraud" and how "widespread' it is.

Well when in the last 20 or so years has this ever been the case?

I can not remember a single time.

Now when it comes to "provisional ballots" there is theory and practical reality and also the "rules/regulations/policies/laws" that govern how and when they are used or even ever counted vary from state to state.

It is not unheard of for a poll worker, one who would just as soon not have you vote to begin with, especially if you are black or brown or young or who ever else they think "won't vote the right way" to just flat out LIE and not tell you anything about provisional ballots, just "you are not on the list, so leave" Plenty of people who get their names "purged" by one of those overly broad "Kathrynn Harris type of purges get told just that.

Thousands of people in FL in 2000 were refused voting.

NONE were offered provisional ballots, they were just told to leave and that was that.

Even if the person does ask about provisional ballots they can still get refused for some bullshit reason and if the person "protests" they will see themselves "removed" by some "poll watcher"

Also there are some states that unless the election is within a certain number or % basically recount territory they do not even count the provisional ballots even if there are enough of them to sway if not change the outcome.

 

[BaddJack]

no ones vote has mattered until Trump's victory - time to drain the swamp

 

[keenobserver]

No of course no proof. It’s a personal observation. But if I did give you proof, you would just dismiss it as right wing propaganda. Just the same as I dismiss the leftist propaganda.

But I do have to give credit where credit is due. The democrat machine is very good at what it does. They get there base fired up, and they get to the polls to vote. The GOP needs to be taking lessons.

But back to the topic of ID. If you don’t use ID Who is going to stop someone from going to one poll to the next, voting multiple times.

History has shown over and over and still over again that elections are stolen in the counting, not in the presentation of people pretending to be someone else. It takes time and effort to move people from poll to poll enough times to affect an election. I've been voting since 1974 and never showed an ID or voter registration card. Ever. A poll worker asks my name, brings up my file and I answer a couple of questions and I vote. This is the same if I vote at my polling place of record or go to the country office building to early vote.

When Roy Moore, lost in Alabama the specter was raised of bus loads of Mexicans being bused from place to place to vote. Of course everyone forgot that Alabama is a strict ID state, so the allegations of voter fraud still linger. This of course obscures voter suppression, which ID states proudly engage in against minorities and elderly, two Democratic laden groups of voters. To answer your question, "Who is going to stop someone from voting multiple times?" - the answer is no one because there is no proof it has happened enough to even be a blip on a vote count. ID laws are a solution looking for a problem. Again, the problem lies in the co

 

[Chrysippus]

oh yeah, Trump’s voter fraud commission...it go byebye.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-dissolves-voter-fraud-commission-2018-1
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/presidential-election-commission/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission.html
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article192854444.html

 

[keenobserver]

oh yeah, Trump’s voter fraud commission...it go byebye.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-dissolves-voter-fraud-commission-2018-1
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/presidential-election-commission/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission.html
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article192854444.html

This may not be a good thing. It seems "voter fraud" - as opposed to ballot security - will be a Homeland Security issue now - that is not a good sign. Things may have going from bad to much worse.

 

[KennF]

I think term limits would also help.

Term limits = Loss of institutional knowledge.

It may sound great in theory to "kick the bums out", but if you've never actually seen the process of making law from start to finish, then you have no grasp on what it takes (time-wise) to get a new law in place.

Worse, it also creates a zero accountability problem.

Their defense for this is to gerrymander and limit the ability of voters kicking them out.

 

[flynn]

Term limits = Loss of institutional knowledge.

It may sound great in theory to "kick the bums out", but if you've never actually seen the process of making law from start to finish, then you have no grasp on what it takes (time-wise) to get a new law in place.

Worse, it also creates a zero accountability problem.

Their defense for this is to gerrymander and limit the ability of voters kicking them out.

The founders put in place a system to curb government. That system has been greatly eroded since the beginning of the 20th Century. Politicians were never ment to have permanent jobs as so many do. A constant turnover would slow government down and that's a good thing.

 

[Industrialsize]

The founders put in place a system to curb government. That system has been greatly eroded since the beginning of the 20th Century. Politicians were never ment to have permanent jobs as so many do. A constant turnover would slow government down and that's a good thing.

Term limits are available at every election. If you don't like the candidate, don't vote for them.

 

[flynn]

You keep saying that but it rarely happens. The entrenched politician has a money structure that is difficult to break through. Are you opposed to term limits for the president also?

 

[KennF]

Are you opposed to term limits for the president also?

A member of Congress and the President are not morally, politically, or realistically equivalent issues for term limits. Your question presents a false choice.

The President wields practically 100% of the Executive, and 33.33% of the Federal Gov't's power.
Each Congressperson wields appx. ¼% of the power of the House, 0.115% of the Legis., or, 0.038% of the Federal Gov't.
Each Senator wields 1% of the power of the Senate, 0.500% of the Legis., or, 0.167% of the Federal Gov't.
Our founders wanted a diffuse power structure and a power struggle. They argued that the fighting for power would be best to try and keep the people safer from tyranny.

As for people removing incumbents... people don't because their incumbents represent their position, in general. That's a reflection of the packing and cracking techniques (gerrymandering). Term limiting members of Congress weakens Congress through institutional knowledge and memory drain, cedes power to the Executive Branch, and loses accountability to the people.

Term limits do nothing about the problems of gerrymandering, the Reapportionment Act, and voter suppression that limits accountability.

Forcing term limits is usually another way of saying you don't like the other 434 members elected by others and trying to force them to change their mind. If people make better choices (starting in their primaries), or get more involved and actually vote, then they would get a better government.

 

[flynn]

Keep in mind term the president was only term limited with the XXII amendment ratified shortly after World War II. Prior to that he could run for more than two terms.

 

[keenobserver]

Keep in mind term the president was only term limited with the XXII amendment ratified shortly after World War II. Prior to that he could run for more than two terms.

Well, yeah, The GOP didn't care that the founding fathers did not see a need for it, they just were worried another FDR would come along and try to help the people instead of the moneyed interests. They talk seriously of repealing the limit when Reagan was president.

 

[Industrialsize]

You keep saying that but it rarely happens. The entrenched politician has a money structure that is difficult to break through. Are you opposed to term limits for the president also?

The constitution provides that a President may serve for two, four year terms.

 

[flynn]

The constitution provides that a President may serve for two, four year terms.

I know that. The twenty second amendment, which was ratified in 1951, codified that. I was asking if you opposed the term limit for the president. It can be changed by another amendment.

 

[Industrialsize]

I know that. The twenty second amendment, which was ratified in 1951, codified that. I was asking if you opposed the term limit for the president. It can be changed by another amendment.

I am in favor of the constitutionally provided term limits for the head of the exeutive branch of government. I am not in favor of amending the constitution to provide for term limits of the legislative branch of government.

 

[flynn]

Well, yeah, The GOP didn't care that the founding fathers did not see a need for it, they just were worried another FDR would come along and try to help the people instead of the moneyed interests. They talk seriously of repealing the limit when Reagan was president.

Actually term limits for the president was discussed many times over the course of the last two hundred plus years. It takes three quarters of the states to ratify an amendment so it wasn't just Republicans who were worried about another Roosevelt.

 

[flynn]

I am in favor of the constitutionally provided term limits for the head of the exeutive branch of government. I am not in favor of amending the constitution to provide for term limits of the legislative branch of government.

Ok