Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.............. and the democrats want everyone (including the dead) to vote and vote often- commonly in the same election.
Finally there are some rules being enforced to prevent the widespread democratic voter fraud and the libs are upset. They are so often used to voter fraud on demand that the concept of "one man- one vote" is infuriating.
Can you prove widespread voter fraud? It should be easy. Why aren't more cases of voter fraud prosecuted? It's a federal offense. A serious federal offense. And yet while Republicans complain and whine about voter fraud, they never can prove it. Why is that?
.............. and the democrats want everyone (including the dead) to vote and vote often- commonly in the same election.
Finally there are some rules being enforced to prevent the widespread democratic voter fraud and the libs are upset. They are so often used to voter fraud on demand that the concept of "one man- one vote" is infuriating.
PS. The vote and vote often quote. It's attributable to a Republican. (very hush-hush)
how does one determine where they should vote,..what if you have two homes (even within the same state) should you be allowed to vote this year for the Nassau county controller, and next year for the Suffolk county controller because thay are on different years??? or if different states should I be allowed to vote in 2010 on my new york house for new york govenor, and then turn around and vote in 2011 for a CO governor based on my co home, then in 2012 vote back in new york because the senator is running
the answer SHOULD be no..it should be based on a PRIMARY residence
there has to be a STANDARD
Good point....What if you own a homes in two different states and elections fall in different years,you could vote in both states as you are only voting once in each particular election.
They in fact can vote in their state just has manyother gropus do by mail in baloots. Its really no diffeerent than we require of the militray on people that actually earn their living by traveling. There is a reson for resdience votif whithi the local area that they l;ve in to controltheir own local governamnt which are usaully o the ballots of nay electiob because of cost. There is no reason not to vote even if your not iyour area of residence really.
Can you prove widespread voter fraud? It should be easy. Why aren't more cases of voter fraud prosecuted? It's a federal offense. A serious federal offense. And yet while Republicans complain and whine about voter fraud, they never can prove it. Why is that?
Why should there be a need to prove it?
I would think just the possibility of voter fraud(which is stealing honest voters say in an election) is enough....
No...if a person goes to college in one state but lives in another the rest of the year your reasons would apply in BOTH states,but the person cannot vote in BOTH states.
You live there. You pay utilities there. You work there. You pay taxes there. The laws that are enacted, the taxes that are passed, the new roads that are built, the reduction in police staff, all have an impact on you.
This is all possible to do in two totally different states....but you don't think the person should be able to vote in both states do you?
how does one determine where they should vote,..what if you have two homes (even within the same state) should you be allowed to vote this year for the Nassau county controller, and next year for the Suffolk county controller because thay are on different years??? or if different states should I be allowed to vote in 2010 on my new york house for new york govenor, and then turn around and vote in 2011 for a CO governor based on my co home, then in 2012 vote back in new york because the senator is running
the answer SHOULD be no..it should be based on a PRIMARY residence
there has to be a STANDARD
And in the case where a person has a choice of what place they consider to be their primary residence, you think the government should make that decision. I thought Republicans were about less government (clearly the idea of redundant laws, though, are supported by Republicans, and more laws doesn't equate to less government by anyone's measure), and I thought Republicans were about less intrusion into people's personal lives. Deciding where someone's primary residence is for them couldn't be more intrusive.
I lived in Minnesota while I attended college. I paid taxes in Minnesota. I didn't have a driver's license. My main identification was an Arkansas ID card. Does the ID card mean I wasn't a resident of Minnesota? I have utility bills and rental receipts that say otherwise. Shouldn't it be up to the person to decide where their primary residence is, what jurisdiction they want to vote in? Does it matter if they have two homes in two jurisdictions and can change their minds if they want?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
