Clinton to call for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide

[OKTexas]

You know what is most disturbing about this whole thing? This: What the **** is the big deal? Why is 20 days of early voting such a horrible thing? All that happens is that people will have greater opportunity to vote with a reduced impact on disrupting daily commerce.

And yet, some people are opposed to it because it's a Democrat who said it. ******* tools...

And I'm very sure you've already written a big fat check to fund the facilities, people and equipment for those extra days, RIGHT?

California has in person early voting available 29 days before every election. On the first day regular Vote by Mail ballots are mailed out, our office Voting Center opens. In even year elections we open two locations at county offices. No cost for facilities and the locations are already staffed with personnel.

And of course Montana needs the exact same requirements as California, right?

 

[OKTexas]

You know what is most disturbing about this whole thing? This: What the **** is the big deal? Why is 20 days of early voting such a horrible thing? All that happens is that people will have greater opportunity to vote with a reduced impact on disrupting daily commerce.

And yet, some people are opposed to it because it's a Democrat who said it. ******* tools...

And I'm very sure you've already written a big fat check to fund the facilities, people and equipment for those extra days, RIGHT?

Outside of poll workers who get paid very little and mostly volunteer, no extra costs are involved since most sites are in schools or libraries.

So the ID is no longer an obstacle.
So exorbitant cost is no longer an obstacle.

Next phantom reason to oppose it??m

Are the volunteers going to take off work for 20 day's? You going to shut down the schools and library's for 20 days? Being a liberal candy and me being a parent I sure don't want the schools open for 20 days when strangers are coming in and going.

You don't have to do any of that. The in person early voting can be done at the Elections or another county office using elections personnel.

So I would need to drive 60 miles round trip instead of 9, I don't think so.

 

[neither]

Only the landed gentry should be allowed to vote. If you rent and are poor you should not be allowed to vote. Hail Ceasar.

 

[Seawytch]

Partisans Attack Early Voting for No Good Reason Project Vote Blog

It appears clear that the arguments against early voting are not really about early voting at all,” concludes Rogers. “Any innovation that makes voting easier in general, or more available to previously disenfranchised or under-enfranchised populations in particular, has engendered the ire of one segment of the ‘political class’ that will use any specious or fanciful argument to defeat it. The rest of us, who believe that voting is a right that belongs to all eligible citizens, must marshal the facts and fight back.”

 

[Redfish]

There have always been absentee ballots for those who cannot vote on election day. This whole "election month" bullshit is nothing but a dem/lib attempt to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

So you have proof of this rampant voter fraud going on... Who is organising this? They need to be brought to justice.

I can easily show excessive queuing and voter apathy.

Have you any proof that happening and why has no other first world countries experienced this?

There is far more incidents of voters having there right curbed by excessive voter laws than incidents of voter fraud

One fraudulent vote is one too many. Give us some valid examples to prove your claim in your last sentence.

But mass curbing of peoples right because a law might be broken is OK?

What law? the one that says you can only vote once? or the one that says you can't vote after you die?

The problem with those people voting for the dead is that under our system of a secret ballot, there is no way to determine how a person voted after the fraud has been discovered. I believe the secret ballot is very important for a free society, but in order for it to maintain integrity, only those eligible to vote should be able to vote, and that does require them showing proof of identity when they vote. Of course photo ID can be forged, but it would require a lot more effort for the cheats to find somebody willing to cast an illegal vote and creating a phony photo ID for one time use.

I still think people should have to register to vote in person at the clerk's office, produce photo ID and proof of residency in order to register, and then produce positive ID again when they cast their vote. Voting should not only be our legal right as citizens, but should be seen as a patriotic act of a responsible citizen who should be confident that his/her vote will count and not be cancelled out via fraud.

yes, that is very clear and logical. The only reason dems would oppose those simple logical rules is because they need fraudulent votes in order to win--------and they know it.

 

[Flopper]

20 days for more illegals to cross the border and vote democrat.

And for ACORN to bus around low info voters from polling place to polling place.

How about 20 days of campaigning. I am so sick and tired of. Listening to candidates for a year.

Our campaigns are way too long and too expensive. There is no reason why we can't shorten the cycle to a more realistic and tolerable length. Maybe not 20 days, but certainly a lot less than 18 months.

How long does it take for candidates to communicate their positions on issues? How long does it take for the electorate to get to know the candidates, their qualifications and their election platform?

 

[Redfish]

20 days for more illegals to cross the border and vote democrat.

And for ACORN to bus around low info voters from polling place to polling place.

How about 20 days of campaigning. I am so sick and tired of. Listening to candidates for a year.

Our campaigns are way too long and too expensive. There is no reason why we can't shorten the cycle to a more realistic and tolerable length. Maybe not 20 days, but certainly a lot less than 18 months.

How long does it take for candidates to communicate their positions on issues? How long does it take for the electorate to get to know the candidates, their qualifications and their election platform?

I agree, a 90 day campaign, 3 or 4 debates and then election day. If you can't vote on election day, you can get an absentee ballot anytime during the 90 days before the election. There is absolutely no need for early voting.

 

[Foxfyre]

20 days for more illegals to cross the border and vote democrat.

And for ACORN to bus around low info voters from polling place to polling place.

How about 20 days of campaigning. I am so sick and tired of. Listening to candidates for a year.

Our campaigns are way too long and too expensive. There is no reason why we can't shorten the cycle to a more realistic and tolerable length. Maybe not 20 days, but certainly a lot less than 18 months.

How long does it take for candidates to communicate their positions on issues? How long does it take for the electorate to get to know the candidates, their qualifications and their election platform?

Here we have some common ground as far as preference goes, but in a nation such as ours, restricting candidates to any kind of time frame is problematic per the First Amendment. But there could be a rule for Presidential nominations that could prevent a formal announcement before a specified date. I also wish we would get away from the all or nothing concept for presidential elections so that a candidate would take to the convention only the percentage of votes he or she actually got in any given state. That would throw the choice of the candidate to the convention the way it used to be. If nobody wins on the first ballot, then the delegates are free to vote any way they see fit. That would stop a lot of nonsense and we wouldn't have these two-year campaigns.

 

[Seawytch]

Some of you morons need to look at an election calendar (deadlines). Getting ballots to overseas and military voters is often difficult 45 days out due to the deadlines built into the calendar.

 

[Seawytch]

20 days for more illegals to cross the border and vote democrat.

And for ACORN to bus around low info voters from polling place to polling place.

How about 20 days of campaigning. I am so sick and tired of. Listening to candidates for a year.

Our campaigns are way too long and too expensive. There is no reason why we can't shorten the cycle to a more realistic and tolerable length. Maybe not 20 days, but certainly a lot less than 18 months.

How long does it take for candidates to communicate their positions on issues? How long does it take for the electorate to get to know the candidates, their qualifications and their election platform?

Here we have some common ground as far as preference goes, but in a nation such as ours, restricting candidates to any kind of time frame is problematic per the First Amendment. But there could be a rule for Presidential nominations that could prevent a formal announcement before a specified date. I also wish we would get away from the all or nothing concept for presidential elections so that a candidate would take to the convention only the percentage of votes he or she actually got in any given state. That would throw the choice of the candidate to the convention the way it used to be. If nobody wins on the first ballot, then the delegates are free to vote any way they see fit. That would stop a lot of nonsense and we wouldn't have these two-year campaigns.

And in the meantime SuperPACs ARE campaigning on behalf of the candidates and raising unlimited buckets of cash even longer. Yeah, that would work....NOT.

Did you know that neither Jeb nor Walker have declared yet?

 

[Foxfyre]

20 days for more illegals to cross the border and vote democrat.

And for ACORN to bus around low info voters from polling place to polling place.

How about 20 days of campaigning. I am so sick and tired of. Listening to candidates for a year.

Our campaigns are way too long and too expensive. There is no reason why we can't shorten the cycle to a more realistic and tolerable length. Maybe not 20 days, but certainly a lot less than 18 months.

How long does it take for candidates to communicate their positions on issues? How long does it take for the electorate to get to know the candidates, their qualifications and their election platform?

Here we have some common ground as far as preference goes, but in a nation such as ours, restricting candidates to any kind of time frame is problematic per the First Amendment. But there could be a rule for Presidential nominations that could prevent a formal announcement before a specified date. I also wish we would get away from the all or nothing concept for presidential elections so that a candidate would take to the convention only the percentage of votes he or she actually got in any given state. That would throw the choice of the candidate to the convention the way it used to be. If nobody wins on the first ballot, then the delegates are free to vote any way they see fit. That would stop a lot of nonsense and we wouldn't have these two-year campaigns.

And in the meantime SuperPACs ARE campaigning on behalf of the candidates and raising unlimited buckets of cash even longer. Yeah, that would work....NOT.

Did you know that neither Jeb nor Walker have declared yet?

True. Jeb said he'll announce mid month. Walker will no doubt declare within the next week or two. But if you don't want money to influence elections, the only answer is to remove anybody's ability--those inside and outside the federal government--to benefit from those cash donations. And that means busting the federal government back to its constitutional roots. And there is a lot of resistance to that especially among those who complain the loudest about all the money in elections.

And ironically it would also remove most of the incentive to rig elections.

 

[Nyvin]

20 days for more illegals to cross the border and vote democrat.

And for ACORN to bus around low info voters from polling place to polling place.

How about 20 days of campaigning. I am so sick and tired of. Listening to candidates for a year.

Our campaigns are way too long and too expensive. There is no reason why we can't shorten the cycle to a more realistic and tolerable length. Maybe not 20 days, but certainly a lot less than 18 months.

How long does it take for candidates to communicate their positions on issues? How long does it take for the electorate to get to know the candidates, their qualifications and their election platform?

I agree, a 90 day campaign, 3 or 4 debates and then election day. If you can't vote on election day, you can get an absentee ballot anytime during the 90 days before the election. There is absolutely no need for early voting.

Absentee ballots are much worse for voter fraud then early voting, which should be kind of obvious if you think about it....

 

[hazlnut]

Clinton to call for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide - The Washington Post

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to call for an early voting period of at least 20 days in every state.

Clinton will call for that standard in remarks Thursday in Texas about voting rights, her campaign said. She will also criticize what her campaign calls deliberate restrictions on voting in several states, including Texas.

The former secretary of state's address at historically-black Texas Southern University in Houston comes as Democrats pursue legal challenges to voting rule changes approved by Republican legislatures in several states.

Clinton and her allies claim the changes are aimed at narrowing the electorate in ways that benefit Republicans.

“This is, I think, a moment when we should be expanding the franchise,” Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said in an interview. “What we see in state after state is this effort by conservatives to restrict the right to vote.”

Once again, Clinton acts, which will force the GOP to react.

This has been going on for quite a while, now.

Discuss. Is this a good idea, or a bad one?

Democratic candidate Clinton is talking about a 20-day early voting period NATIONALLY.

More people voting is always good.

 

[hazlnut]

20 days for more illegals to cross the border and vote democrat.

Kinda hard to do if you're not registered to vote.

 

[hazlnut]

Smart move. It forces the GOP to react than act.

It doesn't force shit, all needs to be done is ignore her.

The little hot heads can't help themselves.

They will fall right into her trap.

 

[Flopper]

20 days for more illegals to cross the border and vote democrat.

And for ACORN to bus around low info voters from polling place to polling place.

How about 20 days of campaigning. I am so sick and tired of. Listening to candidates for a year.

Our campaigns are way too long and too expensive. There is no reason why we can't shorten the cycle to a more realistic and tolerable length. Maybe not 20 days, but certainly a lot less than 18 months.

How long does it take for candidates to communicate their positions on issues? How long does it take for the electorate to get to know the candidates, their qualifications and their election platform?

Here we have some common ground as far as preference goes, but in a nation such as ours, restricting candidates to any kind of time frame is problematic per the First Amendment. But there could be a rule for Presidential nominations that could prevent a formal announcement before a specified date. I also wish we would get away from the all or nothing concept for presidential elections so that a candidate would take to the convention only the percentage of votes he or she actually got in any given state. That would throw the choice of the candidate to the convention the way it used to be. If nobody wins on the first ballot, then the delegates are free to vote any way they see fit. That would stop a lot of nonsense and we wouldn't have these two-year campaigns.

You really can't stop someone from campaigning as it would be a violation of the right to free speech. However, you can certainly attack the issue via campaign finance laws.

 

[Socialist]

Oh, I agree with clinton on something..

 

[candycorn]

You know what is most disturbing about this whole thing? This: What the **** is the big deal? Why is 20 days of early voting such a horrible thing? All that happens is that people will have greater opportunity to vote with a reduced impact on disrupting daily commerce.

And yet, some people are opposed to it because it's a Democrat who said it. ******* tools...

And I'm very sure you've already written a big fat check to fund the facilities, people and equipment for those extra days, RIGHT?

Outside of poll workers who get paid very little and mostly volunteer, no extra costs are involved since most sites are in schools or libraries.

So the ID is no longer an obstacle.
So exorbitant cost is no longer an obstacle.

Next phantom reason to oppose it??m

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence, but feel free to carry on.

Which facts are those?

Facilities? Open already.
Equipment? Only used at election time. Incredibly unlikely that there will be other state wide elections happening within 20 days of a federal election and, even if it were, in Texas--as you know--early in person voting not every polling place open on election day is open during early voting.
Personnel? As stated, this will be an extra cost but its not as if they get paid a huge amount of money anyway. And we would only be talking about a few workers, not the entire election staff.

You can pretend that keeping places open double the time won't cost double, but you're delusional.

As long as you keep pretending that is what I said, I'm comfortable with you looking dumber than usual

 

[OKTexas]

And I'm very sure you've already written a big fat check to fund the facilities, people and equipment for those extra days, RIGHT?

Outside of poll workers who get paid very little and mostly volunteer, no extra costs are involved since most sites are in schools or libraries.

So the ID is no longer an obstacle.
So exorbitant cost is no longer an obstacle.

Next phantom reason to oppose it??m

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence, but feel free to carry on.

Which facts are those?

Facilities? Open already.
Equipment? Only used at election time. Incredibly unlikely that there will be other state wide elections happening within 20 days of a federal election and, even if it were, in Texas--as you know--early in person voting not every polling place open on election day is open during early voting.
Personnel? As stated, this will be an extra cost but its not as if they get paid a huge amount of money anyway. And we would only be talking about a few workers, not the entire election staff.

You can pretend that keeping places open double the time won't cost double, but you're delusional.

As long as you keep pretending that is what I said, I'm comfortable with you looking dumber than usual

Tell me, how many polling places are there in the US and what is the average daily cost of running one? Answer that and then you might have an argument that it won't cost that much.

 

[Foxfyre]

20 days for more illegals to cross the border and vote democrat.

And for ACORN to bus around low info voters from polling place to polling place.

How about 20 days of campaigning. I am so sick and tired of. Listening to candidates for a year.

Our campaigns are way too long and too expensive. There is no reason why we can't shorten the cycle to a more realistic and tolerable length. Maybe not 20 days, but certainly a lot less than 18 months.

How long does it take for candidates to communicate their positions on issues? How long does it take for the electorate to get to know the candidates, their qualifications and their election platform?

Here we have some common ground as far as preference goes, but in a nation such as ours, restricting candidates to any kind of time frame is problematic per the First Amendment. But there could be a rule for Presidential nominations that could prevent a formal announcement before a specified date. I also wish we would get away from the all or nothing concept for presidential elections so that a candidate would take to the convention only the percentage of votes he or she actually got in any given state. That would throw the choice of the candidate to the convention the way it used to be. If nobody wins on the first ballot, then the delegates are free to vote any way they see fit. That would stop a lot of nonsense and we wouldn't have these two-year campaigns.

You really can't stop someone from campaigning as it would be a violation of the right to free speech. However, you can certainly attack the issue via campaign finance laws.

You don't remedy bad people by changing the system. And you can't fi a bad system by changing the people. We have had I don't know how manyy campaign finance reforms and each time they left loopholes big enough to drive a convoy of freight trains through. The ONLY constitutional remedy is to eliinate the ability to benefit by payola to those in government along with removing the ability of people in government to use their positions to benefit themselves.