GOP Attempting to Keep People from Voting (Clinton, support, votes)
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.
I think thats an excellent point..
You cant be filing taxes in city A, and then claim you are a resident of city B
Thats simply not true...
Again, its illegal to assault people, thats ANYONE, and again, they have domestic violence laws that say you cant assault your wife, you cant assault your children.. Yes, thats another law... Nothing in the original assault law allows you to assault your wife or your children, so writing new ones making it illegal to assault your wife or your child is very much redundant but done daily.
You cant rob someone, but there are other laws that say you cant go into a bank and tell the teller to give you money, with or without a gun..
You are avoiding the examples on purpose because they dont support your argument..
More likely it clearly shows why people should only vote where they setup residency and pay taxes and you didnt like it..
No, it was ridiculous.
Let me list the ways.
A referendum needs more than a student or two to get on the ballot.
A referendum that affects a state institution has to be on the statewide ballot.
Such a referendum about a private institution would be null and void, neither the state nor the municipality have the authority to dictate to a private institution its tuition rates.
Even if all the above facts were to go away, you have a numbers problem. You would have to have a school which was so large that the students outnumbered the residents. If you had a school so large, you would have to have all those students listing their residency as that community, which is a statistical impossibility, since many students have a number of reasons for not doing so.
As for laws on assault. Actually, it was legal in a number of states to assault your wife, even just a few decades ago. There are still states that don't define domestic rape as domestic rape, but as domestic assault, a lesser charge. So, situations changed, and laws changed. There are numerous classifications and sub-classes of crimes. Murder, assault, robbery, all have various classifications.
These voter fraud laws, though, don't deal with different situations, different criminal classifications. They are redundant for no purpose, they are intrusive for no purpose. They are bad law.
A referendum needs more than a student or two to get on the ballot.
A referendum that affects a state institution has to be on the statewide ballot.
Such a referendum about a private institution would be null and void, neither the state nor the municipality have the authority to dictate to a private institution its tuition rates.
Even if all the above facts were to go away, you have a numbers problem. You would have to have a school which was so large that the students outnumbered the residents. If you had a school so large, you would have to have all those students listing their residency as that community, which is a statistical impossibility, since many students have a number of reasons for not doing so.
As for laws on assault. Actually, it was legal in a number of states to assault your wife, even just a few decades ago. There are still states that don't define domestic rape as domestic rape, but as domestic assault, a lesser charge. So, situations changed, and laws changed. There are numerous classifications and sub-classes of crimes. Murder, assault, robbery, all have various classifications.
These voter fraud laws, though, don't deal with different situations, different criminal classifications. They are redundant for no purpose, they are intrusive for no purpose. They are bad law.
If the student has a lease on a house and files their own taxes in that state, then they are a resident able to vote where ever that student goes.
If the student is a dependent, that isn't the case.
Simple as that IMO.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,755 posts, read 7,562,458 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43
We're a democratic republic. Our representatives are elected through elections with universal suffrage. Additionally, many initiatives at the state level are done purely democratically. For example, Prop 8 was a democratic initiative.
Reverse that a republic, democracy....
"The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region. " The Avalon Project : The Federalist Papers : No. 14 (my underline for emphasis)
My question is, how do we stop people from being registered in multiple locations?
I'm still registered in PA.. In order to remove me they wanted me to mail them a letter which I have never done.. I'm also registered in Oh. I could register in IO, FL, or even GA where I own property, and numerous counties in PA, and theoretically, drive to many of those locations all in 1 day and vote multiple times. I would easily get away with it..
I could also find someone to go in and pretend to be me, and place a vote for me, at least in those states that dont require ID (Pa last I voted did not)..
Nothing is setup to stop this from taking place..
exactly, which is why we need a national standard....and a national id/dl would help with this
because your example is only one..there are many who are not like you and still vote
my thing has been and still is...there HAS TO B A STANDARD
you were 17...did your parents claimyou as a dependant.????...IF SO..then they make your residency....you had a AR id...why not a MN id if you were a resident????.....lots of questions....
this is why we need NATIONAL standards...state laws that at the very least fit a NATIONAL standard..if the state want to have a higher standard, that's fine, but establish a MINIMUM NATIOANL STANDARD
I didn't get a MN ID simply because I didn't need one. My college ID worked for virtually every situation where I needed to supply a photo ID, and when it didn't, my Arkansas ID did so. Why should I waste time getting a MN ID when I didn't need it? Again, why are you wasting time on this? I assure you, I voted only in one state, and I met the residency requirements for that state when I did so.
I think this thread is evidence enough that clarification is needed across the board.
I remember the 2000 election and all the stories out of Florida about folks who were kept from voting. Then later, as sanity returned, it came out that numerous people tried to vote in different districts, had let their registration lapse, or were convicts. Then the Democrats, incredibly enough, switched to claiming the ballot was too difficult to read. Then someone pointed out that the Democrats had created that very ballot.
Ya know, it is just striking a spot on a piece of paper or a touchscreen. Does it really need to be a trauma?
A referendum needs more than a student or two to get on the ballot.
A referendum needs a percentage of the previous number of voters to get on the ballot.. If there is a town with 2,000 people, and 1,000 of them are students, you easily could get a referendum on the ballot like this
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
A referendum that affects a state institution has to be on the statewide ballot.
Doesnt have to be a statewide ballot. How about a very small municipality, which consists primarily of what we would call "a college town" and the small businesses in the region that support it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Such a referendum about a private institution would be null and void, neither the state nor the municipality have the authority to dictate to a private institution its tuition rates.
It woudlnt dictate tuition rates, it would dictate who pays.. It would be indeed legal, in the same manner PELL pays for peoples college education..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Even if all the above facts were to go away, you have a numbers problem. You would have to have a school which was so large that the students outnumbered the residents. If you had a school so large, you would have to have all those students listing their residency as that community, which is a statistical impossibility, since many students have a number of reasons for not doing so.
No.. according to your argument they should be allowed to vote in the community even if they were not a residency right? Remember the thread, you are criticising the need to make them a resident.. And yes there are lots of small towns where students outnumber the residents..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
As for laws on assault. Actually, it was legal in a number of states to assault your wife, even just a few decades ago. There are still states that don't define domestic rape as domestic rape, but as domestic assault, a lesser charge. So, situations changed, and laws changed. There are numerous classifications and sub-classes of crimes. Murder, assault, robbery, all have various classifications.
Thats simply not true.. In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person 1) tries to or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious or "aggravated" assault/battery occurs when one 1) tries to or does cause severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly weapon. Historically, laws treated the threat of physical injury as "assault", and the completed act of physical contact or offensive touching as "battery," but many states no longer differentiate between the two.
There was never an exception to allow you to beat your wife. They might have turned their back on the crime, but that doesnt mean it was legal.
You are making things up as you go along to try to pretend laws arent redundant..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
These voter fraud laws, though, don't deal with different situations, different criminal classifications. They are redundant for no purpose, they are intrusive for no purpose. They are bad law.
What gives you the ability to judge what is worthy and what isnt? Dont you think the residents of a state should decide what is a valid law and what isnt? Another liberal who thinks they know better for others..
I didn't get a MN ID simply because I didn't need one. My college ID worked for virtually every situation where I needed to supply a photo ID, and when it didn't, my Arkansas ID did so. Why should I waste time getting a MN ID when I didn't need it? Again, why are you wasting time on this? I assure you, I voted only in one state, and I met the residency requirements for that state when I did so.
again, I am not saying anything bad about you(the individual of yourself)...just the fact that there needs to be a national standard, and maybe a national database, so that fraud cant (to the best of our ability) happen
what is wrong with proving a residency in ONE state, so that we know that (the crooked few) arent screwing things up
even if you own multiple homes in multiple states..there should be only one place you can vote,, not multiple places....STANDARDS, RULES, and REGULATIONS...or you have anarchy
I think this thread is evidence enough that clarification is needed across the board.
I remember the 2000 election and all the stories out of Florida about folks who were kept from voting. Then later, as sanity returned, it came out that numerous people tried to vote in different districts, had let their registration lapse, or were convicts. Then the Democrats, incredibly enough, switched to claiming the ballot was too difficult to read. Then someone pointed out that the Democrats had created that very ballot.
Ya know, it is just striking a spot on a piece of paper or a touchscreen. Does it really need to be a trauma?
It's not really a trauma, but a spin. Everything is spun to suit these days. Like the title of this thread, anyone with a thought in their head can see that it's spinning. It would be more correct to say "DNC wants illegal votes" considering the Dem's always own the student demography. It's just spun to represent the OPs' leanings.
"There's no doubt that this bill would help Republican causes," said Richard Sunderland III, head of the College Republicans at Dartmouth College. But, he added, "this doesn't help if the Republican Party wants to try to win over people in the 18-to-24 age range."
When even republican body of students can see the problem, it is pretty safe to assume that they are seeing a problem with the future of the republican party. We don't even need to see the video of the republican speaker making his real intentions clear to see that such actions are really politically motivated and short sighted.
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.