News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

National Election predictions

Started by RecycleMichael, October 18, 2010, 10:23:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

nathanm

It's actually not a requirement. You just have to show up and sign the book, according to the laws on the books. (before today, anyway)

It amazes me that as other states are doing enlightened things like same day registration and the like, we and the southerners are regressing. Yes, in several states (I was just reading about Iowa) you can just show up with a photo ID and proof of address (if your photo ID doesn't have it) and get registered on the spot. If you don't have those things, you do have to register in advance, though. No stupid closed registration period like we have here in Oklahoma, though.

BTW, in Oklahoma it's perfectly legal to vote at your old precinct for one election after you move. It's what you're supposed to do if you forget to update your registration. You have to show up with your registration card, declare that you've moved, sign a change of address form, and vote. There have been a couple of OK Supreme Court cases hinging on that fact, actually.

The question voted on last night does nothing to change that.
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln

Red Arrow

Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 11:32:50 AM
Which is likely why the law will be challenged in the courts and probably overturned, if it encourages racial profiling or is found to have that effect.

I think the law does not encourage profiling, just stupid paraniod people.

Yes, I know that just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.  
 

RecycleMichael

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 03, 2010, 11:36:44 AM
I think the law does not encourage profiling, just stupid paraniod people.

Yes, I know that just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.  

Say that out loud. Speak clearly into the stapler.
Power is nothing till you use it.

we vs us

The judge in California that overturned Prop 8 had an interesting core defense of her action that I'm surprised doesn't get used more by conservatives to judge the value of some of these state questions. 

The core argument was simply that, based on the existing evidence, the state has no compelling interest in further restricting the existing environment (in this case, further restricting the rights of Gays to marry).

I think it's instructive here, too.  Is there evidence that voter fraud is distorting local voting?  Unless it can be proven that there's a compelling reason to further regulate the existing environment, why bother adding more? Imagined or negligent threats don't count.  It should be provable, measurable and we should act accordingly.

I don't think there's ever been any proof that another law -- or somehow reiterating current law with a second law -- will improve the quality of our voting process.  I actually don't think there's any proof that the system is being abused as it's currently run.  Is it?

Cats Cats Cats

As long as they have free, easily accessible state photo ID's.  I don't mind showing it at the polls.

nathanm

Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 12:30:58 PM
As long as they have free, easily accessible state photo ID's.  I don't mind showing it at the polls.
Just hope you don't lose it or get mugged on the way to the polls.
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln

dbacks fan

#81
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 11:29:00 AM
That won't work.  You could claim you'd been eating Cheetos therefore giving you to chance to vote again.


;D

Or a guest on Jersey Shore. ;)

Conan71

Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 12:43:37 PM
Just hope you don't lose it or get mugged on the way to the polls.

I hear people en-route to the polls in Oklahoma are mugged all the time.  Especially when exiting the subway station to the polling place.

Yet one good reason for there to be a fee for a state ID or driver's license.  It helps the irresponsible keep tabs on their wallet so they aren't shelling out $20 every month for a replacement.  Voting should require some responsibility.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

dbacks fan

Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 02:24:12 PM
I hear people en-route to the polls in Oklahoma are mugged all the time.  Especially when exiting the subway station to the polling place.

Yet one good reason for there to be a fee for a state ID or driver's license.  It helps the irresponsible keep tabs on their wallet so they aren't shelling out $20 every month for a replacement.  Voting should require some responsibility.

It doesn't bother me if they ask for ID when I vote. Actually I usually have it ready if they do since they tend to check here in AZ. The other reason is after all of the hoops I had to go through after having my identity stolen I don't mind proving that I am who I say I am.

Cats Cats Cats

#84
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 02:24:12 PM
I hear people en-route to the polls in Oklahoma are mugged all the time.  Especially when exiting the subway station to the polling place.

Yet one good reason for there to be a fee for a state ID or driver's license.  It helps the irresponsible keep tabs on their wallet so they aren't shelling out $20 every month for a replacement.  Voting should require some responsibility.

Then it is against the 24th Amendment to me if that is the only option.

*correction, didn't notice the voter ID card exemption, although I think voter ID cards would be the single simplest thing to counterfeit if you wanted to*

nathanm

Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 02:24:12 PM
Voting should require some responsibility.

Put that in the Federal constitution and you can bring back the poll tax.
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln

Conan71

Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 02:41:22 PM
Then it is against the 24th Amendment to me if that is the only option.

*correction, didn't notice the voter ID card exemption, although I think voter ID cards would be the single simplest thing to counterfeit if you wanted to*

If someone wanted to counterfeit one, it would be quite simple.  It would make fraud more difficult as you need to know precinct, addresses, poll number, etc.  The idea is keeping people from voting who have no right to, like non-citizens, people voting out of precinct, or serial voting from one poll to the next.  If it weren't illegal, I'd do a serial voting spree and video it just to see how many times I could vote in a day as I described earlier, it would not be difficult to do that 20 times at a minimum, based on the lax ID process I've observed.

Granted, Oklahoma is such a red state there's very little incentive for voter fraud here.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

guido911

Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 02:41:22 PM
Then it is against the 24th Amendment to me if that is the only option.

*correction, didn't notice the voter ID card exemption, although I think voter ID cards would be the single simplest thing to counterfeit if you wanted to*

The Supremes have already held that voter id laws are not per se unconstitutional.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-28/politics/scotus.voter.id_1_voter-impersonation-voter-id-laws-voter-fraud?_s=PM:POLITICS
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

Cats Cats Cats

Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 03:45:20 PM
The Supremes have already held that voter id laws are not per se unconstitutional.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-28/politics/scotus.voter.id_1_voter-impersonation-voter-id-laws-voter-fraud?_s=PM:POLITICS

Which is why I said it wasn't unconstiutional because they do allow for free identification cards.  It wasn't clear but that was what my correction was trying to say.

From the article
"state provides a free voter ID card, issued through the Bureau of Motor Vehicles"

Conan71

What if the state requires a state-issued ID for anyone over the age of 18 who does not possess a valid driver's license?
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan