Republicans apparently pushing to only allow voters

[Charles_Main]

the college kids are not going to be allowed to vote there even WITH an ID. Good reading comprehension there

You mean not be allowed to vote where they dont have a permenant residence?

Requiring people to vote where they actually live is very offensive to Democrats isn't it?

So, deployed military?

They call em absent ballots. Which is probably how the College kids should be voting as well. You cast your vote where your legal residence is, not just anywhere. So that you are voting on the correct local issues, and not the issues of the area where you happen to go to school temporarily.

 

[gekaap]

Residence determines where one can vote. Unless they want to take up residence in the State they are going to college in then they should have to follow the same rules everyone else follows.

If you are in a given state for more than half the year, is that not moreso your state of residence than the state you live in for only a couple months of the year?

 

[whitehall]

Residence determines where one can vote. Unless they want to take up residence in the State they are going to college in then they should have to follow the same rules everyone else follows.

If you are in a given state for more than half the year, is that not moreso your state of residence than the state you live in for only a couple months of the year?

There you go dummies. The state has the right to determine residency requirements for hunting and fishing, why not for voting? Nobody is denying the students the right to vote. The argument is about which congressional district they legally live in.

 

[AllieBaba]

They'll vote where the schools tell them to, dammit!

 

[Londoner]

People don't get.

Movement Conservatism has the scope and power of the old New Deal Liberalism, which controlled American politics and opinion for nearly 40 years.

New Deal Liberalism was so powerful that both parties were forced to obey it. Nixon was a New Deal Liberal despite wanting desperately to destroy it. Reagan strengthened Social Security because even he could not defeat the consensus. This is why both parties seemed nearly identical in the 50s and 60s. The American desire for the New Deal created a consensus which politicians could not kill. (This is why corporations fear things like Social Security and Health Care. Not because these programs don't work, but because they work too well, i.e., voters want the candy. Corporations don't want any impediments to cheap labor and monopoly control of American markets. They don't want to put the public interest between share holder and bottom line. They don't want government agents sniffing around their smokestacks or running tests on the cancer causing agents in their food)

Dear Reader, I'm asking you to understand the power of major historical movements. Once in place, they create an impenetrable network of government agencies with industry-fed money loops. They also create electoral coalitions so they can maintain effective majorities at the federal, state, and local levels. They fund university research and control media editorial boards. They decide who gets elected and who gets destroyed. They determine election laws. They control gerrymandering. They control how people understand government. They pay people to create stories about how Obama has ties to Muslim terrorists and how poor people created the 2008 meltdown (as AIG and Goldman slip into the night). This is what powerful movements do. And nothing short of a movement can move something as large and unruly as the United States of America.

Dear Reader, there is something else you should know about movements. They are revolutionary. They seek nothing less than radical change to the existing order. In other words, they are emphatically not Conservative (but they have no problem using Conservatism. Reagan passed the nation's most liberal abortion policy as governor of California, but he saw the moral majority as a useful tool to capturing the Silent White Majority, i.e., Reagan was a politician, and all politicians depend on useful idiots who cry when Dear Leader speaks of the "Evil Empire". Reagan played middle America like a fiddle as he handed the nation's future to stateless transnationals, opened borders, sold weapons to terrorists, and created structural deficits as far as the eye could see. FYI: the Movement has erased all of this from the official record).

http://books.google.com/books?id=hQ...&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=4s...&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The reason Movement Conservatism was able to finally defeat New Deal Liberalism is because the Left committed political suicide in the 60s: radicals moved the Democratic party away from southern dixiecrats & northern catholic workers toward Civil Rights, feminism, secularism, and multiculturalism. They moved the party from Cold War patriotism to anti-war rebellion -- and so they lost middle America. This allowed the Right to use the Culture War to capture the great white Silent Majority. Once the Right had the electoral power, they were able to win elections and slowly mold government into their own special interest machine -- they finally had the money to create a powerful movement which efficiently turned business profits into political outcomes. Indeed, they created a universe of think tanks, political action committees, publishing groups, and lobbying networks that allowed them to hire an army of workers who produced whatever data, news story, or dirty trick necessary to keep power. This kind of power allowed them to steal elections and start questionable wars. This is what movements do.

The primary goal of Movement Conservatism has long been to break liberal voting coalitions. This is why they target unions and college kids. Their goal is to make it hard for Democrats to vote. Period. This is what movements do. When The Movement saw college kids standing behind Obama, it immediately went to work drawing up battle plans to thwart the ability of college kids to vote. Do you know how much money pours into the Movement for controlling the outcome of elections? Movements prevent the wrong people form voting. This is why they scrubbed the voting roles of African Americans in Florida 2000. This is why they made sure Columbus and inner city Cleveland didn't have enough voting machines in 2004.

Dear Reader, there is something you must know about movements. They don't care about the law. They don't care about the truth. They are at war.

(and they stop at nothing)

The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives ... - Google Books

 

[gekaap]

There you go dummies. The state has the right to determine residency requirements for hunting and fishing, why not for voting? Nobody is denying the students the right to vote. The argument is about which congressional district they legally live in.

Considering that voting registration occurs at the state level, in a way they ARE denying people the right to vote. What happens when the "home" state says you cannot vote here because you spend 8 months of the year in another state and thus are not what we consider a resident of this state?

Voting is a constitutional right, unlike hunting and fishing. (Also, I'm not familiar with regulations regarding residency as it applies to hunting and fishing licenses since I don't participate in either, so it's difficult for me to compare the scenarios. Can you provide an example?) Anyone over 18 has the right to vote. The constitution furthermore states that a person is a citizen of the state in which they reside. Thus, the entire question comes down to how is one's state of residence determined for the purposed of the constitution.

Generally speaking, if I move to another state, I can can on day one register to vote in that state. I do not see why this should be so different for college students moving out of state to attend school. This entire issue has problems in my eyes because there are so many potential cracks through which things could potentially fall. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to pass a federal law that will outline how residency should be determined for voter registration purposes, for instances where people reside in different states at different times of the year. At least that way there would be consistency that could be applied. I, personally, favor a person's voting right within the state where they spend the largest portion of their year.

 

[Dot Com]

Voting should be mandatory for all US citizens..like Jury Duty.

I believe that Australia is like that & theres a fine for not voting
Compulsory voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enforced
These are the 12 countries that enforce compulsory voting:
Argentina (compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70. However in primaries, citizens under 70 may refuse to vote, if they formally express their decision to the electoral authorities, at least 48 hours before the election. This is valid only for the subsequent primary, and needs to be repeated every time the voter wishes not to participate.)
Australia (compulsory enrollment and voting for state and national (federal) elections for all eligible adults (18 and above). In some states local (council) elections are compulsory too.).[citation needed]
Brazil[6] (non-compulsory for citizens between 16 and 18 years old, those older than 70 and illiterate people)
Chile (enrollment voluntary)
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ecuador (compulsory for citizens between 18 and 65 years old; non-compulsory for persons aged 16–18, illiterate people, and those older than 65)
Fiji
Liechtenstein
Nauru
Peru (compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70)
Singapore
Uruguay

 

[Care4all]

You mean not be allowed to vote where they dont have a permenant residence?

Requiring people to vote where they actually live is very offensive to Democrats isn't it?

So, deployed military?

Deployed military vote in their home districts, generally through absentee ballots.

When I was in college, I voted in my home district absentee as well. I didn't try to vote where i went to school. I didn't live there.

What a concept!

you didn't live there, in your school's town, 9 months of the year and only 3 months at your parent's house, where i presume is where you called 'home'?

Did you commute back and forth from your parent's house?

It just seems to me, that one should be voting in the area that they live most of the year? After all, this IS the area where one would need representation, that affects them, no???

 

[DiveCon]

So, deployed military?

Deployed military vote in their home districts, generally through absentee ballots.

When I was in college, I voted in my home district absentee as well. I didn't try to vote where i went to school. I didn't live there.

What a concept!

you didn't live there, in your school's town, 9 months of the year and only 3 months at your parent's house, where i presume is where you called 'home'?

Did you commute back and forth from your parent's house?

It just seems to me, that one should be voting in the area that they live most of the year? After all, this IS the area where one would need representation, that affects them, no???

they should vote where their legal residence is

 

[Care4all]

Deployed military vote in their home districts, generally through absentee ballots.

When I was in college, I voted in my home district absentee as well. I didn't try to vote where i went to school. I didn't live there.

What a concept!

you didn't live there, in your school's town, 9 months of the year and only 3 months at your parent's house, where i presume is where you called 'home'?

Did you commute back and forth from your parent's house?

It just seems to me, that one should be voting in the area that they live most of the year? After all, this IS the area where one would need representation, that affects them, no???

they should vote where their legal residence is

what's the definition of 'legal residence'?

 

[Sallow]

so voting should be mandatory?

what do you suggest you do to a person IF they don't go vote, hang em.
and who will wear the brown shirts and jackboots to make SURE everybody votes.

Hangin's too good for 'em.

We need an old fashion burning at the stake.

Can't get enough people voting for your guys voluntarily so you want to use the thread of force?

Well..we could get a candidate who's daddy's running mate puts a justice in the supreme court so when he loses a popular election..the court will appoint him.

But where's the fun in that?

 

[DiveCon]

you didn't live there, in your school's town, 9 months of the year and only 3 months at your parent's house, where i presume is where you called 'home'?

Did you commute back and forth from your parent's house?

It just seems to me, that one should be voting in the area that they live most of the year? After all, this IS the area where one would need representation, that affects them, no???

they should vote where their legal residence is

what's the definition of 'legal residence'?

generally it would be the residence they lived in
before school

 

[Care4all]

so the town where they reside 3/4's of the year, even if they live off campus, is not considered their residence?

the article is about IN STATE students, citizens of the State, that live in a different town than mom and dad due to going to college there for 4 years minimum.

I personally think they should be allowed to vote, in the town in which they live most of the time and if they register there...since this is where they will need gvt representation, as long as they are wiped off the voter roll in the town that mom and dad live in.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hangin's too good for 'em.

We need an old fashion burning at the stake.

Can't get enough people voting for your guys voluntarily so you want to use the thread of force?

Well..we could get a candidate who's daddy's running mate puts a justice in the supreme court so when he loses a popular election..the court will appoint him.

But where's the fun in that?

In other words, you have no problem using violence to get your way. Got ya.

 

[mnbasketball]

Unless they want some ACORN involvement where they were registering people over and over again with phony names trying to flood the ballot box.

Are you stupid or is it your just dumb. there isn't any problem with voter fraud. You got an idea of how many people have voted that weren't legal or voted more than once in our country in the last election. about .00001% of the voters and most of it was someone where they showed up to vote that had asked for a absentee ballot or someone sent the vote in for their spouse who died not realizing it was not legal.

You people are pure dog shit and don't have the balls to admit that your total attack is directed at scaring people from voting. But please show your facts if you wish.

 

[Care4all]

Unless they want some ACORN involvement where they were registering people over and over again with phony names trying to flood the ballot box.

Are you stupid or is it your just dumb. there isn't any problem with voter fraud. You got an idea of how many people have voted that weren't legal or voted more than once in our country in the last election. about .00001% of the voters and most of it was someone where they showed up to vote that had asked for a absentee ballot or someone sent the vote in for their spouse who died not realizing it was not legal.

You people are pure dog shit and don't have the balls to admit that your total attack is directed at scaring people from voting. But please show your facts if you wish.

Mickey Mouse never ended up voting. All the bad names and duplicate voters that were registered by the few crooked temporary hires by Acorn were caught, via our registration checks....done by the State voter registration employees and also, because Acorn gave them a list of the ones they saw that were fraudulent.....

the Acorn employees were trying to stuff their pockets with money, they could care less about the ballot box....these crooked employees knew Mickey Mouse didn't stand a prayer, of really voting....they just wanted their money for the job they were hired for so they pretended to do their jobs of registering people to vote.

that's a fact....

 

[shintao]

Can't get enough people voting for your guys voluntarily so you want to use the thread of force?

Well..we could get a candidate who's daddy's running mate puts a justice in the supreme court so when he loses a popular election..the court will appoint him.

But where's the fun in that?

In other words, you have no problem using violence to get your way. Got ya.

Goctha!!!

 

[mnbasketball]

this is closer to the truth on voter fraud!

One of the biggest stories in Illinois right now (bigger than Rahm Emanuel's every move and thought) is how Congressman Mark Kirk, running for President Obama's former senate seat, was unknowingly caught on tape telling state Republican leaders that he is funding "the largest voter integrity program in fifteen years for the state of Illinois." The plan, he explained, is to place election monitors in certain precincts that are, according to Kirk, especially susceptible to voter fraud. Those precincts are in places like the Southside of Chicago and the Westside of Chicago–i.e., areas that happen to be composed mainly of Democratic and African American voters unlikely to vote for Kirk.

The Kirk Campaign has defended the program, saying it has nothing to do with race and is merely an effort to cut down on "...voter fraud that is well-known in Illinois…." It’s nothing you haven’t heard from the Republicans and their allies before; accusations of voter fraud, particularly in minority-heavy districts, have been rampant ever since Obama seemed poised to win the presidency in 2008* and continue to proliferate now. But what you may not have heard is that the type of election stealing that conservatives claim to be stopping seems to be exceedingly rare.

A few years ago the Brennan Center for Justice, at New York University, undertook an exhaustive analysis of voter fraud allegations--everything from reports that people were voting twice to stories of dead people casting ballots. The vast majority of allegations turned out to be baseless and, in a 2007 report, the Center's Justin Levin wrote that "It's more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls." More recently, in a 2010 book called The Myth of Voter Fraud, Barnard political science professor Lorraine Minnite did her own analysis based on state government records. She reached the same conclusion. According to Minnite, between 2002 and 2005 there was only one case of voter registration fraud and five cases of people voting twice. That’s a total of six cases within a three year span.That’s not to say election stealing never takes place: As the blogger Archpundit notes, there have been documented cases of absentee ballot fraud and phone jamming to interfere with get-out-the-vote efforts, just to name two. But Kirk’s “integrity” campaign won’t deter that sort of trickery. The only thing it will deter is turnout in communities likely to reject Kirk.

 

[California Girl]

so the town where they reside 3/4's of the year, even if they live off campus, is not considered their residence?

the article is about IN STATE students, citizens of the State, that live in a different town than mom and dad due to going to college there for 4 years minimum.

I personally think they should be allowed to vote, in the town in which they live most of the time and if they register there...since this is where they will need gvt representation, as long as they are wiped off the voter roll in the town that mom and dad live in.

Following your logic, those of us who live outside the US, should not be allowed to vote at all. And that includes our deployed military... since we do not technically require government representation.

 

[del]

Hangin's too good for 'em.

We need an old fashion burning at the stake.

Can't get enough people voting for your guys voluntarily so you want to use the thread of force?

Well..we could get a candidate who's daddy's running mate puts a justice in the supreme court so when he loses a popular election..the court will appoint him.

But where's the fun in that?

right next to the reality