Republicans attempting to disenfranchise voters?

[DesertPirate]

So you admit that it's the Democrats who engage in vote fraud.

Thank you!

Remember Chicago where the dead voters have been known to outnumber the living.
and they always vote Democrat!

 

[sr71plt]

I haven't read this article--I've really seen too much partisan crap go by already today, but as an election official, I can say that if the voter is registered, the voter will be able to vote--in the county/city where they are registered, no matter where they now live. They may have to vote a provisional ballot at the registrar's office if the circumstances are really messy. But their provisional ballot will go through if it turns out they have voted within the district where they are registered (not just the precinct where it's decided they are actually currently domiciled).

The kicker is that they (A) have to be registered, which is their responsibility to do (and it's completely legitimate for parties to help them do it), (B) need to be able to get to the district where they are registered (again, fine for their party to help), and, if they aren't on the books where they show up to vote, (C) may have to agree to vote a provisional ballot and show up the next day at the adjudication of these ballots and not just walk off in a snit from the precinct where they aren't on the books and go straight somewhere to complain that they were denied their votes (which they weren't).

The problem with the Florida voters that I mentioned in my last posting is that you don't vote directly for president. You are voting for state electors who are the ones who vote in the presidential election, which are state specific. If you are registered in Florida, no you can't vote in person at a Virginia precinct for president (or anyone else on the Virginia ballot, for that matter).

The main problem I have where I supervise voting is that it's a university town. If you are a college student registered in Boston, that's where you have to vote--either in person on the day or by absentee ballot. You can't waltz into a Virginia precinct and vote on your Boston registration. That's not how our country is set up--or ever has been.

You can't be a sheep about your vote. It's your responsibility to register and either vote absentee or show up to the right place. If you're moving around a lot, you can easily go to your registrar's office and find out where your name is on the books--early enough to absentee vote, if you can't get to the polls. And of course if your name isn't on the books where you show up to vote, you shouldn't just get an "OK, no problem." I've had people trying to pretend they were their dead mother and showing up twice to get two votes. And I always have folks showing up to vote who didn't register. Sorry, but that's just tough. To be a voting citizen, you have to have a certain level of brain power--or someone watching out for you (other than election officials, for which that is against the law).

However, the fact that this is still confusing to some folks who have every right to vote is why we have the parties giving advice and transporting folks to the polls. There's nothing evil in that or in making sure that folks who support your candidate manage to exercise their full voting rights.

Which would work in this instance from what I gather is in the article--all they have to do is walk into a campaign HQ of the candidate they want to vote for, and they'll get all the help they need to get their vote cast correctly.

 

[cloudy]

Evening, beautiful.

hey, darlin'.

 

[only_more_so]

I didn't read the whole story as it was slanted to smear. I got what I needed to know out of the first two paragraphs...they just want to make sure you live were you say you live. Something they really don't do here is Chicago, as the dead keep voting every year. Although technically still residence of Chicago, the dead are not eligible to vote in any election in the nation.

If you haven't updated your voters registration address and you no longer live at the address listed then you aren't eligible to vote in that precinct/whatever.

So I see no one being disenfranchised by being required to update their voter records.

I read a bit more of the article and there were no facts except the ones that you mentioned. Although they did manage to throw around a few constitutional amendments and fail to explain how they apply and/or are being violated.

 

[R. Richard]

There is a lot more Democrat voter fraud than Republican voter fraud. The reason is very simple and has nothing to do with Republicans being more or less honest than Democrats.

Democrat strength has typically been in the cities. In a big city, where you may not even know your next door neighbor, voter fraud is easy. Republican strength has typically been in small towns and rural areas, where people know their neighbors and election fraud is very difficult.

When I lived in Staten Island, there was a cottage industry. A guy with a 10 passenger van would load his van up with 10 or more shiftless ass holes. The would vote, under assumed names, in the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn. When they tried it in Staten Island, they ran into a solid wall of grim faced Italian ladies who knew who actually lived at 123 Fourth Street. There were some threats against the Italian ladies and 'Large Louie' dispatched some of his paisans. There was no more trouble.

 

[DesertPirate]

I read a bit more of the article and there were no facts except the ones that you mentioned. Although they did manage to throw around a few constitutional amendments and fail to explain how they apply and/or are being violated.

It was a hack job, not a news article.
Huffington, Dailey Kos, MoveOn ... make the Enquirer look like high class journalism.

 

[cloudy]

It was a hack job, not a news article.
Huffington, Dailey Kos, MoveOn ... make the Enquirer look like high class journalism.

So how come Faux News is reporting the same story?

Pull your damn head out of the sand, just one fucking time, and pay attention to what the hell is going on in the world around you.

Just once.

 

[DesertPirate]

So how come Faux News is reporting the same story?

Pull your damn head out of the sand, just one fucking time, and pay attention to what the hell is going on in the world around you.

Just once.

Compared to what the Dems do in every election it's just a fart in a whirlwind.
Besides, going back to the basic premis of the so called story, it boils down to those who are now living at different adress than when they registered, not being able to vote. If they changed their registration, no problem.

 

[cloudy]

Compared to what the Dems do in every election it's just a fart in a whirlwind.

Sources? Proof?

You still haven't explained the "hack job" comment, but I suppose it's not a "hack job" now that your source of truthiness is reporting the same story.

 

[DeeZire]

Compared to what the Dems do in every election it's just a fart in a whirlwind.

Wasn't it in Ohio, where the republican head of the elections division pulled all but one voting machine out of the 'blue' district, causing 4 hour wait times for voters? In the rain?

Isn't Diebold run by a bigwig friend of the R's?

Get your story strait, DP.

 

[sr71plt]

I've now scanned the article. It's just a lot of dross. The issue isn't voting at all; it's registering to vote. Voting is like marriage. It's not the ceremony that signifies, it's the registration/license. There might be some wrangling in getting registered (pinning down where you resided when you registered so your name can go on a specific precinct book), but once registered and with your name on the books, no challenge at the polls is going to prevent you from voting--a provisional ballot that will be upheld, if nothing else. You don't have to own a residence to vote. The homeless can vote if they register.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I see nothing wrong with trying to prevent voting fraud. People are supposed to be registered where they live and if they aren't, why not? As has been pointed out, they can cast provisional ballots and if they check out okay, those votes will be counted. If they don't live where they claim to, that is voter fraud, and should be eliminated.

I think everybody knows it is not necessary to own property to be eligible to vote, and hasn't been for all of our lifetimes.

 

[Misty_Morning]

Total bullshit!


Or didn't the continuous "the republicans say" bs tip you off?

EVERY US CITIZEN can vote...regardless of IF they own a house or live in a certain place.

Get a fucking grip.


If this were the case....then ALOT folks in Florida couldn't vote here AND in New York. LOL



Seriously...do you REALLY believe this Bull Shit?

 

[cantdog]

If the Huffington Post told me i was going to be a bright, sunny day tomorrow, I would be sure to have my raincoat and umbrella handy.

Dude, if the HPost reports a particular poll result, you can always check the poll result.

It's the fact that matters, not the source. But I notice you do distrust any source which has been known to tell you, honestly, what is happening. You prefer comforting half truths that almost jibe with your preconceptions to jarring truths which don't. That only means you're human.

 

[cantdog]

I see nothing wrong with trying to prevent voting fraud. People are supposed to be registered where they live and if they aren't, why not? As has been pointed out, they can cast provisional ballots and if they check out okay, those votes will be counted. If they don't live where they claim to, that is voter fraud, and should be eliminated.

I think everybody knows it is not necessary to own property to be eligible to vote, and hasn't been for all of our lifetimes.

Yeah. If you become homeless, you lose residency. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Yeah. If you become homeless, you lose residency. Nothing wrong with that.

There's certainly something wrong with being homeless but there's nothing wrong with trying to prevent election fraud. Even if people are homeless, they can still vote but they probably have to list their addresses as general delivery or some social center.

 

[only_more_so]

You still haven't explained the "hack job" comment, but I suppose it's not a "hack job" now that your source of truthiness is reporting the same story.

Just read the article objectively, as a Jounalism professor might. There is a strong premise, but no substantiation. That article would get a D in most classes.

 

[cloudy]

Just read the article objectively, as a Jounalism professor might. There is a strong premise, but no substantiation. That article would get a D in most classes.

"no substantiation"?

Yeah, that's why there's a lawsuit over it right now. No substantiation.

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK we have a real problem with postal voting and voter verification.

The loopholes have been used by mavericks in all parties to distort voting in swing districts. The government are well aware of the problems but apparently intend to do nothing about them because it seems that their voters are more likely to use postal votes.

Our elections are now as suspect as those in the Communist USSR were.

Og

 

[Selena_Kitt]

"no substantiation"?

Yeah, that's why there's a lawsuit over it right now. No substantiation.

Thank you so much, Cloudy, for the other source I asked for. I know Huffington is biased, and was looking last night, but a migraine was a-comin' and I ran outta time.

The thing about this - it's perfectly legal and legitimate, and I get the reasoning. It's not like it hasn't happened before, people trying to cheat the system. On both sides. (Florida recount anyone? *ahem*)

We had a foreclosure and are registered at a new address, so I don't have to worry. But what bothers me is that if someone hears this story somewhere locally and doesn't quite understand it - they might just assume, "Oh, I had a foreclosure, I guess I can't vote," and stay away from the voting booth altogether.

And that would suck.

We all know that there are folks that just hear the ads, the news, in passing, and make lots of assumptions without doing any research. Joe Schmo, living in downtown Detroit and having a hard time making it to work in his Pinto with gas at $4.20 a gallon anyway, is much less likely to drive to the polls and stand in line for an hour after work with the thought in the back of his head that he's probably going to be disenfrancised ANYWAY...

So while it may be legal, I'm not sure how "fair" it really is, especially in a state like Michigan, where things are SO bad... and people are already drowning and afraid and feel ashamed by their own failure to pay their mortgages in the face of the collapsing MI economy... as if it's their fault that jobs are disappearing like Casper around here.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I really hope you all know that there is no right to vote in federal elections guaranteed in the constitution.

 

[rgraham666]

So if the people in power decide to disenfranchise people, Zeb, it's okay then? Since it's not mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That's not what I said. I just said there is no right for citizens to vote in federal elections guaranteed by the constitution. It is left up to the states as to whom will be able to vote so long and they don't violate the provisions of race, religion, creed, or sex in limiting that vote.

The states have the power to expand or contract the voter pool within their state. Not the republican or the democrat parties.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SELENA

FYI Florida abolished re-counts in future elections. No more counting cards. You get ONE machine re-run, and thats it.

 

[Powertone]

Box, no offense, but you formulated your opinions some thirty years and haven't changed a thought since.

like really,man...Arianna Huffington is the news source.
she also does the best Zsa Zsa Gabor impersonation on earth!