Which, ironically, Democrats are pretty much trying to do after crying about disenfranchisement, they are going to do exactly that to the majority of the state of Indiana if they have their way. But now its OK.

Restricting voting access isn't the same thing as removing a politician who committed voting or election fraud from office. Was it "disenfranchisement" to remove blago?

To be fair this doesn't seem like a really eggregious case of fraud, but the irony is still pretty fantastic.

Which, ironically, Democrats are pretty much trying to do after crying about disenfranchisement, they are going to do exactly that to the majority of the state of Indiana if they have their way. But now its OK.

Well, it's nice to see you come out and strongly endorse having zero Republicans on the ballot in the state of indiana on a silly technicality. But I guess them's the apples.

Restricting voting access isn't the same thing as removing a politician who committed voting or election fraud from office. Was it "disenfranchisement" to remove blago?

 

You are pretty much restricting access to an entire party for the whole state if the Democrats get their way. That is the difference here. I'd call that "disenfranchisement" on a level way past making someone show an ID.

Well, it's nice to see you come out and strongly endorse having zero Republicans on the ballot in the state of indiana on a silly technicality. But I guess them's the apples.

 

Its nice to see you endorsing some sort of controls for voter fraud.

Its nice to see you endorsing some sort of controls for voter fraud.

 

Not to mention the irony that the reason he is being prosecuted, is because there is the paper trail that democrats do not want to create in the other cases.

Not to mention the irony that the reason he is being prosecuted, is because there is the paper trail that democrats do not want to create in the other cases.

We don't want people to have to register to vote?

And for all the Dems complaining about making it easy to vote, they sure shut the hell up when it comes to getting the votes from soldiers overseas in time.

 

If this had been something the Democratic Party actually did, George Bush would not have been elected President in 2000.

Not to mention the irony that the reason he is being prosecuted, is because there is the paper trail that democrats do not want to create in the other cases.

 

There are voter rolls in every precinct that you sign into when you vote. There always has been. Paper trails are not an issue.

You are pretty much restricting access to an entire party for the whole state if the Democrats get their way. That is the difference here. I'd call that "disenfranchisement" on a level way past making someone show an ID.

 

Well, the Republican party should have known that they were placing an ineligible candidate on the ballot - and worked to stop that. They didn't. If you aren't happy with Indiana electoral law, maybe you should lobby your lawmaker to change Indiana law to not have every bit of your party's standing to base itself entirely on the Secretary of State election.

You are pretty much restricting access to an entire party for the whole state if the Democrats get their way. That is the difference here. I'd call that "disenfranchisement" on a level way past making someone show an ID.

I already said that was pretty ridiculous unintended consequences, but they are consequences of the law, not "what democrats want." Democrats didn't push for the legal structure for this chain events as an attempt to restrict ballot access to political opponents, so it isn't very analogous to voter disenfranchisement.

 

I wouldn't have a problem if a judge found a creative way to allow republicans still on the ballot.

Edited December 24, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

There are voter rolls in every precinct that you sign into when you vote. There always has been. Paper trails are not an issue.

You mean current laws are adequate, and draconian laws that "just happen" to disproportionately restrict voting access for the poor aren't necessary to stop a very tiny amount of voter fraud?!

They shut down id-issuing facilities and make it more difficult for the poor to get id's. It also amounts to a poll tax.

Again, shutting of facilities is a different issue. And I believe that most, if not all, the ID to vote requirements allow for a waiver of any fees for poor people. if the ID is FREE, there is no tax. Making someone have to prove who they are is not a tax, no mater how you may want to stretch it. So AGAIN, how is having to show an ID to vote a bad thing for poor people?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/27171...s-von-spakovsky

 

Some exerpts...

 

...Most of the states did a good job counting the ballots they actually got back — the overall acceptance rate was more than 94 percent. However, there was one glaring and shameful exception: The state of New York rejected nearly one-third of all absentee ballots from military voters.

 

...One troubling aspect of the MOVE Act was a provision that allowed states to apply for a one-time waiver from the 45-day deadline. Ten states and the District of Columbia applied for a waiver, most of them submitting their applications less than 50 days before the deadline

 

...The report also details other errors and egregious mistakes made by the Justice Department, which is charged with enforcing compliance with these federal requirements. This included telling states like Maryland that they could avoid the need for a waiver by sending a ballot that contained only federal races at least 45 days before the election, even though that meant depriving the military voters of their right to vote in state races.

 

...New York also got a waiver — and then violated the terms of the waiver, sending out its ballots even later than the date agreed to by DOD and DOJ in a settlement agreement.

 

...New York also got a waiver — and then violated the terms of the waiver, sending out its ballots even later than the date agreed to by DOD and DOJ in a settlement agreement.

alpha, there is an expense to get to a facility for the id. In many places there is no public transportation to get to the facility. Also, the hours are an issue for the working poor who do not have the benefits of taking off to go get the id. It is a barrier that is more of an issue for the poor than anyone else. So it may be a stretch, but a small one, to call it a "tax". It is an expense that is more of a burden on the poor and unemployed than anyone else.

alpha, there is an expense to get to a facility for the id. In many places there is no public transportation to get to the facility. Also, the hours are an issue for the working poor who do not have the benefits of taking off to go get the id. It is a barrier that is more of an issue for the poor than anyone else. So it may be a stretch, but a small one, to call it a "tax". It is an expense that is more of a burden on the poor and unemployed than anyone else.

There is an expense to get to the voting place as well, why don't we just go door to door and take everyones vote then? That is a very weak and lame excuse Tex. Very weak and lame.

There is an expense to get to the voting place as well, why don't we just go door to door and take everyones vote then? That is a very weak and lame excuse Tex. Very weak and lame.

Unless they vote absentee.

 

But then again, if we really cared about voter fraud, that's the one thing we'd ban.

Actually campaigns, Churches, and other groups do offer transportation to the polls on election day. You believe it is lame, I've volunteered in some very poor areas of this county. People who barely survive. Living in colonias with no running water or electricity. Are they really going to spend even $1 in trying to vote? That $1 is a week's worth of tortillas or a couple pounds of beans.

 

You may believe that it doesn't matter if they can vote or not. I believe every citizen should be allowed to vote and we should work to eliminate any barriers to that basic and fundamental right. You spoke of those soldiers. Several of our wars have been to being democracy to other countries. We are willing to invest time, treasure, and talent for people in other countries to vote, why seek to prevent citizens here from voting?

Well, the Republican party should have known that they were placing an ineligible candidate on the ballot - and worked to stop that. They didn't. If you aren't happy with Indiana electoral law, maybe you should lobby your lawmaker to change Indiana law to not have every bit of your party's standing to base itself entirely on the Secretary of State election.

 

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

I already said that was pretty ridiculous unintended consequences, but they are consequences of the law, not "what democrats want." Democrats didn't push for the legal structure for this chain events as an attempt to restrict ballot access to political opponents, so it isn't very analogous to voter disenfranchisement.

 

I wouldn't have a problem if a judge found a creative way to allow republicans still on the ballot.

 

They aren't trying to get Republicans kicked off of the ballots in Indiana?

alpha, there is an expense to get to a facility for the id. In many places there is no public transportation to get to the facility. Also, the hours are an issue for the working poor who do not have the benefits of taking off to go get the id. It is a barrier that is more of an issue for the poor than anyone else. So it may be a stretch, but a small one, to call it a "tax". It is an expense that is more of a burden on the poor and unemployed than anyone else.

 

Indiana has weeks worth of absentee balloting.

So do we sink to the lowest standard? They did it first? When will it end? Can it end before it is too late?

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

 

Edit. Evan Bayh

Actually campaigns, Churches, and other groups do offer transportation to the polls on election day. You believe it is lame, I've volunteered in some very poor areas of this county. People who barely survive. Living in colonias with no running water or electricity. Are they really going to spend even $1 in trying to vote? That $1 is a week's worth of tortillas or a couple pounds of beans.

 

You may believe that it doesn't matter if they can vote or not. I believe every citizen should be allowed to vote and we should work to eliminate any barriers to that basic and fundamental right. You spoke of those soldiers. Several of our wars have been to being democracy to other countries. We are willing to invest time, treasure, and talent for people in other countries to vote, why seek to prevent citizens here from voting?

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.

They aren't trying to get Republicans kicked off of the ballots in Indiana?

They didn't structure the current situation to keep republicans off the ballot. If I had to guess, both d and r agreed to this setup to keep 3rd parties out because they would have to run an sos candidate.