Poll: Voter ID? (1 Viewer)

[Lutherman2112]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Courts have consistently sided with students and their right to vote at college. These cases were decided in the 1970s and 1980s and I mentioned upthread two such cases. You can categorize it as politics, but your wrong.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I never understood why in some places there are party primaries where people outside the party can go vote for that party's nominee. On the one hand I can see why people not registered as Demo or Repub should be able to vote for more than just the final nominees; on the other I don't think people with no interest in the party should be able to go in and dilute the votes of actual party members.

One theory behind it is that the party will get a more electable nominee by having an open primary. I don't know if there is any evidence to back that theory up.

True, I understand it, but if you take your vote as sacrosanct you shouldn't have people from other parties (or districts or parishes or towns, etc.) coming in to screw with the results and your power to vote for your representatives.

 

[The Commish]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Courts have consistently sided with students and their right to vote at college. These cases were decided in the 1970s and 1980s and I mentioned upthread two such cases. You can categorize it as politics, but your wrong.

You seem to be proving my point for me....the courts have already ruled on this. Without the politics, this isn't an issue best I can see Again...politics run amuck or, if you prefer, politics mucking up the system.

 

[The Commish]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).

I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

For those situations make it where they spend 50% (or more) of their time Or, to avoid all those dumb hoops, register in the state where you're going to school and take a utility bill with you....most schools make you pay your own phone or cable bill. This really isn't that complicated.

I thought people were arguing that college students shouldn't be allowed to register where they go to school? Maybe I'm confused. The complication isn't about logistics, it's about who should be eligible to vote in a particular election.

It's probably me that's confused. I don't get it. Nationally, this doesn't seem to matter in the least. Perhaps it's a "concern" at the local level, but then, at the local level, the politicians should understand their environment and adjust accordingly.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).

I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

For those situations make it where they spend 50% (or more) of their time Or, to avoid all those dumb hoops, register in the state where you're going to school and take a utility bill with you....most schools make you pay your own phone or cable bill. This really isn't that complicated.

I thought people were arguing that college students shouldn't be allowed to register where they go to school? Maybe I'm confused. The complication isn't about logistics, it's about who should be eligible to vote in a particular election.

It's probably me that's confused. I don't get it. Nationally, this doesn't seem to matter in the least. Perhaps it's a "concern" at the local level, but then, at the local level, the politicians should understand their environment and adjust accordingly.

I agree with this.

However all registration is like this. Any registration rule makes it "harder" to vote. If the goal was to make it easy as possible to vote then there would be no registration at all.

And I still don't think there is any liberal or progressive who will actually say they want someone who should not be voting to be able vote.

They may say they are ok if some illegal aliens vote and some people vote twice in the interest of ensuring that all who can vote can and do; but ask them if they want Limbaugh listeners voting in Democratic primaries or if they want people from the rich Republican suburban parish/county next door voting against their Democratic big city mayor and see what they say.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=395859&hl=%2Boperation+%2Bchaos

 

[The Commish]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).

I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

For those situations make it where they spend 50% (or more) of their time Or, to avoid all those dumb hoops, register in the state where you're going to school and take a utility bill with you....most schools make you pay your own phone or cable bill. This really isn't that complicated.

I thought people were arguing that college students shouldn't be allowed to register where they go to school? Maybe I'm confused. The complication isn't about logistics, it's about who should be eligible to vote in a particular election.

It's probably me that's confused. I don't get it. Nationally, this doesn't seem to matter in the least. Perhaps it's a "concern" at the local level, but then, at the local level, the politicians should understand their environment and adjust accordingly.

I agree with this.

However all registration is like this. Any registration rule makes it "harder" to vote. If the goal was to make it easy as possible to vote then there would be no registration at all.

And I still don't think there is any liberal or progressive who will actually say they want someone who should not be voting to be able vote.

They may say they are ok if some illegal aliens vote and some people vote twice in the interest of ensuring that all who can vote can and do; but ask them if they want Limbaugh listeners voting in Democratic primaries or if they want people from the rich Republican suburban parish/county next door voting against their Democratic big city mayor and see what they say.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=395859&hl=%2Boperation+%2Bchaos

ding ding ding....thus my question a page or so ago

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).

I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

For those situations make it where they spend 50% (or more) of their time Or, to avoid all those dumb hoops, register in the state where you're going to school and take a utility bill with you....most schools make you pay your own phone or cable bill. This really isn't that complicated.

I thought people were arguing that college students shouldn't be allowed to register where they go to school? Maybe I'm confused. The complication isn't about logistics, it's about who should be eligible to vote in a particular election.

It's probably me that's confused. I don't get it. Nationally, this doesn't seem to matter in the least. Perhaps it's a "concern" at the local level, but then, at the local level, the politicians should understand their environment and adjust accordingly.

I agree with this.

However all registration is like this. Any registration rule makes it "harder" to vote. If the goal was to make it easy as possible to vote then there would be no registration at all.

And I still don't think there is any liberal or progressive who will actually say they want someone who should not be voting to be able vote.

They may say they are ok if some illegal aliens vote and some people vote twice in the interest of ensuring that all who can vote can and do; but ask them if they want Limbaugh listeners voting in Democratic primaries or if they want people from the rich Republican suburban parish/county next door voting against their Democratic big city mayor and see what they say.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=395859&hl=%2Boperation+%2Bchaos

Um, lots of registration rules make it easier to vote, such as same day registration. Republicans oppose them all.

 

[Koya]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

For those situations make it where they spend 50% (or more) of their time Or, to avoid all those dumb hoops, register in the state where you're going to school and take a utility bill with you....most schools make you pay your own phone or cable bill. This really isn't that complicated.

I thought people were arguing that college students shouldn't be allowed to register where they go to school? Maybe I'm confused. The complication isn't about logistics, it's about who should be eligible to vote in a particular election.

It's probably me that's confused. I don't get it. Nationally, this doesn't seem to matter in the least. Perhaps it's a "concern" at the local level, but then, at the local level, the politicians should understand their environment and adjust accordingly.

I agree with this.

However all registration is like this. Any registration rule makes it "harder" to vote. If the goal was to make it easy as possible to vote then there would be no registration at all.

And I still don't think there is any liberal or progressive who will actually say they want someone who should not be voting to be able vote.

They may say they are ok if some illegal aliens vote and some people vote twice in the interest of ensuring that all who can vote can and do; but ask them if they want Limbaugh listeners voting in Democratic primaries or if they want people from the rich Republican suburban parish/county next door voting against their Democratic big city mayor and see what they say.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=395859&hl=%2Boperation+%2Bchaos

ding ding ding....thus my question a page or so ago

Actually, the the Chairman of the New York Republican Party has lived in Manhattan for something like 30 years. While he spends almost no time in his birth town, he still votes there, as his vote is swallowed up in NYC.

For a state party leader it's pretty slimy.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I never understood why in some places there are party primaries where people outside the party can go vote for that party's nominee. On the one hand I can see why people not registered as Demo or Repub should be able to vote for more than just the final nominees; on the other I don't think people with no interest in the party should be able to go in and dilute the votes of actual party members.

One theory behind it is that the party will get a more electable nominee by having an open primary. I don't know if there is any evidence to back that theory up.

True, I understand it, but if you take your vote as sacrosanct you shouldn't have people from other parties (or districts or parishes or towns, etc.) coming in to screw with the results and your power to vote for your representatives.

Would it be OK if instead of college towns we change it such that it is a town built around a military base? Would those that are just fine with localities determining that college students who might live 8 or 9 months on campus but are really only "passing through" shouldn't be allowed to vote, should the same be true of military families? Heck at least the college student chose to be on the college campus instead of just going where they are told.

(I assume this idea is offensive...)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Would it be OK if instead of college towns we change it such that it is a town built around a military base? Would those that are just fine with localities determining that college students who might live 8 or 9 months on campus but are really only "passing through" shouldn't be allowed to vote, should the same be true of military families? Heck at least the college student chose to be on the college campus instead of just going where they are told.

(I assume this idea is offensive...)

I think military families are more like regular residents than tourists, but I see nothing offensive about the question.

 

[Josie Maran]

You guys still solving nonexistent problems?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Would it be OK if instead of college towns we change it such that it is a town built around a military base? Would those that are just fine with localities determining that college students who might live 8 or 9 months on campus but are really only "passing through" shouldn't be allowed to vote, should the same be true of military families? Heck at least the college student chose to be on the college campus instead of just going where they are told.

(I assume this idea is offensive...)

I think military families are more like regular residents than tourists, but I see nothing offensive about the question.

I wasn't comparing them to tourists. I was comparing one set of mostly 18-22 year old potential voters with another.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Would it be OK if instead of college towns we change it such that it is a town built around a military base? Would those that are just fine with localities determining that college students who might live 8 or 9 months on campus but are really only "passing through" shouldn't be allowed to vote, should the same be true of military families? Heck at least the college student chose to be on the college campus instead of just going where they are told.

(I assume this idea is offensive...)

I think military families are more like regular residents than tourists, but I see nothing offensive about the question.

I wasn't comparing them to tourists. I was comparing one set of mostly 18-22 year old potential voters with another.

Me too. Wherever you rank college students on the "tourist-resident" continuum, it seems pretty clear to me that military families are closer to the "resident' point and further from the "tourist" point.

I agree though that this is an instructive exercise. Personally, I would definitely want to allow people on military bases to vote locally, while I'm mostly indifferent to whether college students vote locally. Identifying these sorts of examples helps me sort out where the grey area is, where the clear areas are, and why (in my mind at least) one differs from the other. Nothing offensive about that all. Studying problem cases is what makes these discussions rigorous as opposed to just throwing cliches around.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Would it be OK if instead of college towns we change it such that it is a town built around a military base? Would those that are just fine with localities determining that college students who might live 8 or 9 months on campus but are really only "passing through" shouldn't be allowed to vote, should the same be true of military families? Heck at least the college student chose to be on the college campus instead of just going where they are told.

(I assume this idea is offensive...)

I think military families are more like regular residents than tourists, but I see nothing offensive about the question.

I wasn't comparing them to tourists. I was comparing one set of mostly 18-22 year old potential voters with another.

Me too. Wherever you rank college students on the "tourist-resident" continuum, it seems pretty clear to me that military families are closer to the "resident' point and further from the "tourist" point.

I agree though that this is an instructive exercise. Personally, I would definitely want to allow people on military bases to vote locally, while I'm mostly indifferent to whether college students vote locally. Identifying these sorts of examples helps me sort out where the grey area is, where the clear areas are, and why (in my mind at least) one differs from the other. Nothing offensive about that all. Studying problem cases is what makes these discussions rigorous as opposed to just throwing cliches around.

So why would those assigned to a locality be more tied to that community than those that chose to go to a similar community?

 

[Yenrub]

Does one have to show ID to purchase a firearm?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Would it be OK if instead of college towns we change it such that it is a town built around a military base? Would those that are just fine with localities determining that college students who might live 8 or 9 months on campus but are really only "passing through" shouldn't be allowed to vote, should the same be true of military families? Heck at least the college student chose to be on the college campus instead of just going where they are told.

(I assume this idea is offensive...)

I think military families are more like regular residents than tourists, but I see nothing offensive about the question.

I wasn't comparing them to tourists. I was comparing one set of mostly 18-22 year old potential voters with another.

Me too. Wherever you rank college students on the "tourist-resident" continuum, it seems pretty clear to me that military families are closer to the "resident' point and further from the "tourist" point.

I agree though that this is an instructive exercise. Personally, I would definitely want to allow people on military bases to vote locally, while I'm mostly indifferent to whether college students vote locally. Identifying these sorts of examples helps me sort out where the grey area is, where the clear areas are, and why (in my mind at least) one differs from the other. Nothing offensive about that all. Studying problem cases is what makes these discussions rigorous as opposed to just throwing cliches around.

So why would those assigned to a locality be more tied to that community than those that chose to go to a similar community?

Because they live there full time and quasi-permanently. Students (usually) don't live in their school's district full time and (usually) leave after four years.

I don't care very strongly either way though. If you want to argue that soldiers assigned to a military base should be voting elsewhere, no problem. I disagree, but what we're debating is the fairly dry and technical issue of how to set residency requirements. Reasonable people can have different approaches to this without one of them being evil.

Edit: Military families also differ from college students in another important way. If military families can't vote in the district of their base, what alternative district would take them? They don't have an "permanent address" like college students do.

 

[jon_mx]

The thing about military or colleges, eventhough they are probably not long-term residents, they represent the views of the population of people who will be there. So even if that particular student or soldier is not there, there likely will be someone else there with similar issues, needs, and concerns which should be represented in local government in that area. So yes, they should be able to vote there.

 

[Rich Conway]

The thing about military or colleges, eventhough they are probably not long-term residents, they represent the views of the population of people who will be there. So even if that particular student or soldier is not there, there likely will be someone else there with similar issues, needs, and concerns which should be represented in local government in that area. So yes, they should be able to vote there.

Sorry, I'm a little confused by this one. College students represent the views of local residents? Some college towns perhaps, but I doubt this is true in the majority of college towns.

Edit: Personally, I'd suggest that whether or not the students have anything in common with the full-time residents should have zero bearing on whether they can vote in the college town versus at home. I just found the comment odd.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The thing about military or colleges, eventhough they are probably not long-term residents, they represent the views of the population of people who will be there. So even if that particular student or soldier is not there, there likely will be someone else there with similar issues, needs, and concerns which should be represented in local government in that area. So yes, they should be able to vote there.

Sorry, I'm a little confused by this one. College students represent the views of local residents? Some college towns perhaps, but I doubt this is true in the majority of college towns.

Edit: Personally, I'd suggest that whether or not the students have anything in common with the full-time residents should have zero bearing on whether they can vote in the college town versus at home. I just found the comment odd.

You find it odd that the generic college student would have an interest in being represented in the politics of a college town? That the vote of a student that has since moved on doesn't at least approximate the interests of the new student that took their place?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).

I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

For those situations make it where they spend 50% (or more) of their time Or, to avoid all those dumb hoops, register in the state where you're going to school and take a utility bill with you....most schools make you pay your own phone or cable bill. This really isn't that complicated.

I thought people were arguing that college students shouldn't be allowed to register where they go to school? Maybe I'm confused. The complication isn't about logistics, it's about who should be eligible to vote in a particular election.

It's probably me that's confused. I don't get it. Nationally, this doesn't seem to matter in the least. Perhaps it's a "concern" at the local level, but then, at the local level, the politicians should understand their environment and adjust accordingly.

I agree with this.

However all registration is like this. Any registration rule makes it "harder" to vote. If the goal was to make it easy as possible to vote then there would be no registration at all.

And I still don't think there is any liberal or progressive who will actually say they want someone who should not be voting to be able vote.

They may say they are ok if some illegal aliens vote and some people vote twice in the interest of ensuring that all who can vote can and do; but ask them if they want Limbaugh listeners voting in Democratic primaries or if they want people from the rich Republican suburban parish/county next door voting against their Democratic big city mayor and see what they say.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=395859&hl=%2Boperation+%2Bchaos

Um, lots of registration rules make it easier to vote, such as same day registration. Republicans oppose them all.

I think that's more to the heart of it.

If you look at the Sievers example, the problem was 1. a 20 year old was able to run for treasurer (the county/town's fault) and 2. Sievers ran a Facebook campaign and apparently a good deal of Dartmouth showed up on a whim to vote her in. --- No. 1 is fixable, she was unqualified and kids shouldn't be running county investment funds. Just set some qualifications for the office.

No. 2 is far more up to debate. I get why college students want to vote in town. But that's not the point, the point is when they can register. It sounds like students are the type most likely to roll out of bed and get caught up in election day fever while not exactly planning ahead to exercise their right to vote say 3 weeks ahead.

But it's a sliding scale. The tighter the registration rules the more likely a college student will not vote because it's more likely the voter will be disengaged from the process. It doesn't restrict his/her ability to vote, it just makes it less likely he will vote. - But the looser the registration rules, the more likely anyone with a right to vote will vote, but it also increases the likelihood that people outside the district/city/county/country will vote and the more likely people will double vote.

Personally, to me, and probably all of us, voting is important. If you're engaged enough to talk about it here, there is probably nothing that would keep you from registering on time so you could vote. Registration rolls should be prepared in time to allow anyone who wants to vote to register and to ensure no one improperly votes. What has changed is the motor voter rule and same day registration, meaning that our voter rules have less reliability. It would be good if the discussion were more along these lines, and less motivated by libs/progs/Demos and cons/Repubs complaining their side is hurt every time the rules are changed. I think the process should be more about process and reliability of election results. To me, this insane process of provisional voting and post-election challenges is more harmful than one legitimate voter being denied the ballot or one foreign citizen being allowed to vote. The 2000 election was bad enough, we are really messing with fire here.

In the end though, all of this is being driven by national politics when most elections are local. Todd, I don't get it, you wouldn't be upset if you saw a very conservative coworker who you 100% knew lived in a neighboring county outside your district walking in to vote against the guy you want for your city councilman? You would say nothing to him or anyone else?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Is there evidence of increased fraud in jurisdictions with same-day voter registration? I've never lived in a place where this was available but I've always thought it was a good idea in theory.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is there evidence of increased fraud in jurisdictions with same-day voter registration? I've never lived in a place where this was available but I've always thought it was a good idea in theory.

Well FWIW when I was looking at the NH issue, I found these.

A situation where a 20 year old girl got elected county treasurer via Facebook and maybe three examples of one non-citizen voting and another two people double voting in NH. Maybe there's more, who knows.

Personally I don't like the idea of a Sec. of State going after voters after the fact to actually prosecute them for voting, to me it would be preferable to ensure they are properly registered at the polling station.

 

[Rich Conway]

The thing about military or colleges, eventhough they are probably not long-term residents, they represent the views of the population of people who will be there. So even if that particular student or soldier is not there, there likely will be someone else there with similar issues, needs, and concerns which should be represented in local government in that area. So yes, they should be able to vote there.

Sorry, I'm a little confused by this one. College students represent the views of local residents? Some college towns perhaps, but I doubt this is true in the majority of college towns.

Edit: Personally, I'd suggest that whether or not the students have anything in common with the full-time residents should have zero bearing on whether they can vote in the college town versus at home. I just found the comment odd.

You find it odd that the generic college student would have an interest in being represented in the politics of a college town? That the vote of a student that has since moved on doesn't at least approximate the interests of the new student that took their place?

Your first sentence isn't at all what I said. Whether they have an interest in being represented is not the same as whether their interests are the same as the local residents.

On the plus side, your second sentence clarifies for me what jon_mx was getting at, so thanks for that. I interpreted his statement to mean that the views of the college students are similar to the views of the local residents, when what he almost certainly meant was that the views of the college students are similar to the views of the college students that will be there in five years.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Personally I don't like the idea of a Sec. of State going after voters after the fact to actually prosecute them for voting, to me it would be preferable to ensure they are properly registered at the polling station.

I sort of think the opposite. If there is a credible threat of prosecution and a severe enough penalty, I think it would deter any rational person from illegal voting. That's how we deal with most other crimes, we wait until you do the illegal thing and then we prosecute you. Seems to work relatively well.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).

I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

For those situations make it where they spend 50% (or more) of their time Or, to avoid all those dumb hoops, register in the state where you're going to school and take a utility bill with you....most schools make you pay your own phone or cable bill. This really isn't that complicated.

I thought people were arguing that college students shouldn't be allowed to register where they go to school? Maybe I'm confused. The complication isn't about logistics, it's about who should be eligible to vote in a particular election.

It's probably me that's confused. I don't get it. Nationally, this doesn't seem to matter in the least. Perhaps it's a "concern" at the local level, but then, at the local level, the politicians should understand their environment and adjust accordingly.

I agree with this.

However all registration is like this. Any registration rule makes it "harder" to vote. If the goal was to make it easy as possible to vote then there would be no registration at all.

And I still don't think there is any liberal or progressive who will actually say they want someone who should not be voting to be able vote.

They may say they are ok if some illegal aliens vote and some people vote twice in the interest of ensuring that all who can vote can and do; but ask them if they want Limbaugh listeners voting in Democratic primaries or if they want people from the rich Republican suburban parish/county next door voting against their Democratic big city mayor and see what they say.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=395859&hl=%2Boperation+%2Bchaos

Um, lots of registration rules make it easier to vote, such as same day registration. Republicans oppose them all.

I think that's more to the heart of it.

If you look at the Sievers example, the problem was 1. a 20 year old was able to run for treasurer (the county/town's fault) and 2. Sievers ran a Facebook campaign and apparently a good deal of Dartmouth showed up on a whim to vote her in. --- No. 1 is fixable, she was unqualified and kids shouldn't be running county investment funds. Just set some qualifications for the office.

No. 2 is far more up to debate. I get why college students want to vote in town. But that's not the point, the point is when they can register. It sounds like students are the type most likely to roll out of bed and get caught up in election day fever while not exactly planning ahead to exercise their right to vote say 3 weeks ahead.

But it's a sliding scale. The tighter the registration rules the more likely a college student will not vote because it's more likely the voter will be disengaged from the process. It doesn't restrict his/her ability to vote, it just makes it less likely he will vote. - But the looser the registration rules, the more likely anyone with a right to vote will vote, but it also increases the likelihood that people outside the district/city/county/country will vote and the more likely people will double vote.

Personally, to me, and probably all of us, voting is important. If you're engaged enough to talk about it here, there is probably nothing that would keep you from registering on time so you could vote. Registration rolls should be prepared in time to allow anyone who wants to vote to register and to ensure no one improperly votes. What has changed is the motor voter rule and same day registration, meaning that our voter rules have less reliability. It would be good if the discussion were more along these lines, and less motivated by libs/progs/Demos and cons/Repubs complaining their side is hurt every time the rules are changed. I think the process should be more about process and reliability of election results. To me, this insane process of provisional voting and post-election challenges is more harmful than one legitimate voter being denied the ballot or one foreign citizen being allowed to vote. The 2000 election was bad enough, we are really messing with fire here.

In the end though, all of this is being driven by national politics when most elections are local. Todd, I don't get it, you wouldn't be upset if you saw a very conservative coworker who you 100% knew lived in a neighboring county outside your district walking in to vote against the guy you want for your city councilman? You would say nothing to him or anyone else?

I wouldnt care if he was properly registered, although under your hypo it seems he should be registered in his own county.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).

I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

For those situations make it where they spend 50% (or more) of their time Or, to avoid all those dumb hoops, register in the state where you're going to school and take a utility bill with you....most schools make you pay your own phone or cable bill. This really isn't that complicated.

I thought people were arguing that college students shouldn't be allowed to register where they go to school? Maybe I'm confused. The complication isn't about logistics, it's about who should be eligible to vote in a particular election.

It's probably me that's confused. I don't get it. Nationally, this doesn't seem to matter in the least. Perhaps it's a "concern" at the local level, but then, at the local level, the politicians should understand their environment and adjust accordingly.

I agree with this.

However all registration is like this. Any registration rule makes it "harder" to vote. If the goal was to make it easy as possible to vote then there would be no registration at all.

And I still don't think there is any liberal or progressive who will actually say they want someone who should not be voting to be able vote.

They may say they are ok if some illegal aliens vote and some people vote twice in the interest of ensuring that all who can vote can and do; but ask them if they want Limbaugh listeners voting in Democratic primaries or if they want people from the rich Republican suburban parish/county next door voting against their Democratic big city mayor and see what they say.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=395859&hl=%2Boperation+%2Bchaos

Um, lots of registration rules make it easier to vote, such as same day registration. Republicans oppose them all.

I think that's more to the heart of it.

If you look at the Sievers example, the problem was 1. a 20 year old was able to run for treasurer (the county/town's fault) and 2. Sievers ran a Facebook campaign and apparently a good deal of Dartmouth showed up on a whim to vote her in. --- No. 1 is fixable, she was unqualified and kids shouldn't be running county investment funds. Just set some qualifications for the office.

No. 2 is far more up to debate. I get why college students want to vote in town. But that's not the point, the point is when they can register. It sounds like students are the type most likely to roll out of bed and get caught up in election day fever while not exactly planning ahead to exercise their right to vote say 3 weeks ahead.

But it's a sliding scale. The tighter the registration rules the more likely a college student will not vote because it's more likely the voter will be disengaged from the process. It doesn't restrict his/her ability to vote, it just makes it less likely he will vote. - But the looser the registration rules, the more likely anyone with a right to vote will vote, but it also increases the likelihood that people outside the district/city/county/country will vote and the more likely people will double vote.

Personally, to me, and probably all of us, voting is important. If you're engaged enough to talk about it here, there is probably nothing that would keep you from registering on time so you could vote. Registration rolls should be prepared in time to allow anyone who wants to vote to register and to ensure no one improperly votes. What has changed is the motor voter rule and same day registration, meaning that our voter rules have less reliability. It would be good if the discussion were more along these lines, and less motivated by libs/progs/Demos and cons/Repubs complaining their side is hurt every time the rules are changed. I think the process should be more about process and reliability of election results. To me, this insane process of provisional voting and post-election challenges is more harmful than one legitimate voter being denied the ballot or one foreign citizen being allowed to vote. The 2000 election was bad enough, we are really messing with fire here.

In the end though, all of this is being driven by national politics when most elections are local. Todd, I don't get it, you wouldn't be upset if you saw a very conservative coworker who you 100% knew lived in a neighboring county outside your district walking in to vote against the guy you want for your city councilman? You would say nothing to him or anyone else?

Great court opinion on the GOP vote suppression voter ID laws.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It's too bad that neither Reagan nor GHWB decided to put Posner on the Supreme Court back when he was considered a reliable conservative. Would be pretty sweet to have Posner there instead of Scalia or Kennedy or Thomas.

 

[jon_mx]

It's too bad that neither Reagan nor GHWB decided to put Posner on the Supreme Court back when he was considered a reliable conservative. Would be pretty sweet to have Posner there instead of Scalia or Kennedy or Thomas.

You got Souter, what more could you want?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It's too bad that neither Reagan nor GHWB decided to put Posner on the Supreme Court back when he was considered a reliable conservative. Would be pretty sweet to have Posner there instead of Scalia or Kennedy or Thomas.

You got Souter, what more could you want?

Yeah, that was a good one.

 

[Jim11]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

 

[Jim11]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

 

[greenroom]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

 

[Jim11]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

 

[tommyGunZ]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

So you're in favor of creating new laws and legistation to fix a problem that you don't even know exists?

Who knew Jim 11 was a big gov't republican?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

So you're in favor of creating new laws and legistation to fix a problem that you don't even know exists?

Who knew Jim 11 was a big gov't republican?

Lets be fair here! Having elections decided by voters is a very big issue.

 

[greenroom]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

How does voter ID help the mail in vote or Absentee voting? Why don't Republicans go after that? Other than the US military who are serving this great country, why do you need to mail in a vote? If you really want to address voter fraud go after that! Absentee voting is where the majority of fraud is taking place. IMO

 

[Jim11]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

How does voter ID help the mail in vote or Absentee voting? Why don't Republicans go after that? Other than the US military who are serving this great country, why do you need to mail in a vote? If you really want to address voter fraud go after that! Absentee voting is where the majority of fraud is taking place. IMO

Some people prefer to mail in a ballot, rather than go to the polls. In Colorado, a copy of the photo ID must be included in the mailed in ballot.

If you think people are going to complain about going to the trouble of getting a photo ID, what do you think will happen if they were actually forced to go to a polling place to vote? Every election. Isn't that more trouble than getting an ID?

 

[timschochet]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

How does voter ID help the mail in vote or Absentee voting? Why don't Republicans go after that? Other than the US military who are serving this great country, why do you need to mail in a vote? If you really want to address voter fraud go after that! Absentee voting is where the majority of fraud is taking place. IMO

Absentee voting is mostly white and mostly conservative. Why would Republicans target that?

 

[Jim11]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

So you're in favor of creating new laws and legistation to fix a problem that you don't even know exists?

Who knew Jim 11 was a big gov't republican?

Why are you against IDs? It's easy to get one. I think you want to perpetuate voter fraud.

 

[Jim11]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

How does voter ID help the mail in vote or Absentee voting? Why don't Republicans go after that? Other than the US military who are serving this great country, why do you need to mail in a vote? If you really want to address voter fraud go after that! Absentee voting is where the majority of fraud is taking place. IMO

Absentee voting is mostly white and mostly conservative. Why would Republicans target that?

I would target all possible fraud.

 

[Rich Conway]

Absentee voting is mostly white and mostly conservative. Why would Republicans target that?

I'd have no problem if we decided to eliminate all absentee ballots, excepting the military, of course.

 

[timschochet]

Of course you would. Because you know that the net effect of doing this would be to suppress low-income minority voters who are Democrat and who are starting to turn this country Democrat in every election. Why not just admit it?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

How does voter ID help the mail in vote or Absentee voting? Why don't Republicans go after that? Other than the US military who are serving this great country, why do you need to mail in a vote? If you really want to address voter fraud go after that! Absentee voting is where the majority of fraud is taking place. IMO

Some people prefer to mail in a ballot, rather than go to the polls. In Colorado, a copy of the photo ID must be included in the mailed in ballot.

If you think people are going to complain about going to the trouble of getting a photo ID, what do you think will happen if they were actually forced to go to a polling place to vote? Every election. Isn't that more trouble than getting an ID?

I'm for Voter ID, but can you provide me with a link to that Colorado requirement. Because I live in CO, vote by mail, and have never had to send in a copy of my ID. I don't want my vote getting tossed if I've been missing something.

 

[timschochet]

Absentee voting is mostly white and mostly conservative. Why would Republicans target that?

I'd have no problem if we decided to eliminate all absentee ballots, excepting the military, of course.

You know Rich, ideally I would love it if less people voted, and if those who voted were educated on all the issues. But suppressing minority voters is wrong. And it's being pushed only as a means to help the GOP, and most people see right through it.

 

[Jim11]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

How does voter ID help the mail in vote or Absentee voting? Why don't Republicans go after that? Other than the US military who are serving this great country, why do you need to mail in a vote? If you really want to address voter fraud go after that! Absentee voting is where the majority of fraud is taking place. IMO

Some people prefer to mail in a ballot, rather than go to the polls. In Colorado, a copy of the photo ID must be included in the mailed in ballot.

If you think people are going to complain about going to the trouble of getting a photo ID, what do you think will happen if they were actually forced to go to a polling place to vote? Every election. Isn't that more trouble than getting an ID?

I'm for Voter ID, but can you provide me with a link to that Colorado requirement. Because I live in CO, vote by mail, and have never had to send in a copy of my ID. I don't want my vote getting tossed if I've been missing something.

Just checked - it's required the FIRST time you vote by mail. Did you do it once?

 

[Jim11]

Of course you would. Because you know that the net effect of doing this would be to suppress low-income minority voters who are Democrat and who are starting to turn this country Democrat in every election. Why not just admit it?

Spouting the lefty line, eh Tim? How is having an ID suppressing the vote?

 

[Jim11]

Wow. Just read Posner's entire dissent. An absolutely blistering assault on Voter-ID nonsense.

Yes, having an ID to prove who you are is just much too much to ask of an individual. It's a tremendous burden to get a photo ID. Tremendous.

OTOH, if people were given a tax free sum of say, $1000, if they presented a valid photo ID, I'd wager they'd have one.

I don't get it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Knowing which party opposes voter ids tells you which party is in the business of voter fraud.

Look I have no issue with showing ID when voting, but please stop pretending this is about voter fraud. There is very minimal fraud going on. (yes there is some, and guess what showing ID is not going to prevent it 100%)

So what is the real goal of those screaming for voter ID? Could it be to suppress the vote? If you are saying those that are yelling to prevent showing ID, are for fraud; then those that are pushing it are for suppression of voters?

How do you know that voter fraud is minimal? Maybe it's being done well and isn't detected. A photo ID would certainly lessen fraud and the "suppressing the vote" mantra is a red herring. It's very easy to get an ID. In fact, most people already have one

http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id/article/2534254

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

How does voter ID help the mail in vote or Absentee voting? Why don't Republicans go after that? Other than the US military who are serving this great country, why do you need to mail in a vote? If you really want to address voter fraud go after that! Absentee voting is where the majority of fraud is taking place. IMO

Some people prefer to mail in a ballot, rather than go to the polls. In Colorado, a copy of the photo ID must be included in the mailed in ballot.

If you think people are going to complain about going to the trouble of getting a photo ID, what do you think will happen if they were actually forced to go to a polling place to vote? Every election. Isn't that more trouble than getting an ID?

I'm for Voter ID, but can you provide me with a link to that Colorado requirement. Because I live in CO, vote by mail, and have never had to send in a copy of my ID. I don't want my vote getting tossed if I've been missing something.

Just checked - it's required the FIRST time you vote by mail. Did you do it once? Also, look at your ballot...it it has a black border in the upper left corner, you don't need to include a photo ID copy. If it's red, you do.

 

[Koya]

Serious question... since its been demonstrated that very little voter fraud has actually happened and almost none proven to have occurred, what is your true, base rationale to deprive folks who have literally voted for generations, from exercising that right?