Bill Clinton: New voting laws 'assault' on values

[sinkspur]

Because the more time you have to vote, the more time you have to run around to multiple precincts to vote. Early voting encourages voter fraud. Keeping the voting window relatively small helps make sure that people can vote, but vote only once.

Why can't I run around on Election Day and vote multiple times?  Your example is silly. 

[Gazoo]

Then absentee ballots should not be allowed.  period.  are we prepared to take that step?

Even with absentee ballots most states have laws that you must verify your registration. If you are an active voter you will have already been verified by ID or electric bill.

http://www.longdistancevoter.org/verify_voter_registration#north_carolina

Absentee ballots WERE -outside of Obama's new laws- a rarity for the very sick and dying, as well as military serving outside of CONUS.

But in most cases/states they are verified via registration.

[Rapunzel]

Then absentee ballots should not be allowed.  period.  are we prepared to take that step?

I am.  And no voting on electronic machines, go back to the paper ballots that are run through optical scanners and register your vote in front of you.  Either we take back our voting system or this country will be toast... and if it means people having to actually go vote on election day then sobeit.

Why do you think Colorado Dems pushed through mail-in ballots like Oregon - easy to have those old people in nursing homes return ballots which are signed and sealed by the Democrats running the homes and never even looked at by the old people (and yes that is happening around the country)...

[Oceander]

Even with absentee ballots most states have laws that you must verify your registration. If you are an active voter you will have already been verified by ID or electric bill.

http://www.longdistancevoter.org/verify_voter_registration#north_carolina

Absentee ballots WERE -outside of Obama's new laws- a rarity for the very sick and dying, as well as military serving outside of CONUS.

But in most cases/states they are verified via registration.

And that's why I have no problem with them; however, if the ability to vote prior to the actual day of an election facilitates fraud, then all absentee ballots must be done away with because they provide the ability to vote prior to election day.

[Rapunzel]

In Florida in the district Alan West lost there was reports of voters showing up to vote and being told someone else had already voted in their name on paper.

[Oceander]

I am.  And no voting on electronic machines, go back to the paper ballots that are run through optical scanners and register your vote in front of you.  Either we take back our voting system or this country will be toast... and if it means people having to actually go vote on election day then sobeit.

Why do you think Colorado Dems pushed through mail-in ballots like Oregon - easy to have those old people in nursing homes return ballots which are signed and sealed by the Democrats running the homes and never even looked at by the old people (and yes that is happening around the country)...

With respect to voting machines, I very much agree that this is one place where "paperless" is a vice, not a virtue.  Ballots should be large, on paper, easily and demonstrably markable (i.e., no hanging chad issues), and kept as backup to substantiate the reported results.  Paper ballots can "disappear" but not as readily as electronic ballots can.

[sinkspur]

I am.  And no voting on electronic machines, go back to the paper ballots that are run through optical scanners and register your vote in front of you.  Either we take back our voting system or this country will be toast... and if it means people having to actually go vote on election day then sobeit.

Why do you think Colorado Dems pushed through mail-in ballots like Oregon - easy to have those old people in nursing homes return ballots which are signed and sealed by the Democrats running the homes and never even looked at by the old people (and yes that is happening around the country)...

So, voting only on the first Tuesday of November and only on paper.

That's not going to happen.

Voter ID, yes.  But restricting the times people can vote, no.  We should make it as convenient as possible to vote.

[Rapunzel]

With respect to voting machines, I very much agree that this is one place where "paperless" is a vice, not a virtue.  Ballots should be large, on paper, easily and demonstrably markable (i.e., no hanging chad issues), and kept as backup to substantiate the reported results.  Paper ballots can "disappear" but not as readily as electronic ballots can.

The machines used in this country are (or were until recently) manufactured in Venezuela and the same machines Hugo used to swing all his elections his way. Even a member here from Las Vegas said he voted for Romney and watched as his machine said Obama in 2012.  We use the optical scanner here which is is fill in the black boxes (no hanging chads) and it is scanned and then we receive a receipt for our vote.  Many of these electronic machines do not produce a paper trail, there was multiple reports of old people not understanding how to use them and "monitors" walking over to their machines and without asking who they wanted - they put in a vote for Obama. In addition there was machines which were illegally taken home and then returned the next day in PA and Ohio.... 

[Luis Gonzalez]

To paraphrase Josef Stalin, it's not the people who vote or how they vote that decide elections. It's the people who count the votes, and how  they count them that do.

[Oceander]

To paraphrase Josef Stalin, it's not the people who vote or how they vote that decide elections. It's the people who count the votes, and how  they count them that do.

which is why the democrats have made a point of trying to gain as many of the secretary of state offices as they can since it is usually the secretary of state who is responsible for certifying the results of an election.

[Rapunzel]

which is why the democrats have made a point of trying to gain as many of the secretary of state offices as they can since it is usually the secretary of state who is responsible for certifying the results of an election.

That is the George Soros project - his personal pet project.  Worked pretty well in WI when we had the recount and suddenly found a lot of votes for the comedian as well as Washington State, etc.

[Oceander]

That is the George Soros project - his personal pet project.  Worked pretty well in WI when we had the recount and suddenly found a lot of votes for the comedian as well as Washington State, etc.

which brings up another failing of republicans/conservatives, namely, failing to appreciate the consequences of this and failing to focus on winning secretary of state offices.

[Rapunzel]

which brings up another failing of republicans/conservatives, namely, failing to appreciate the consequences of this and failing to focus on winning secretary of state offices.

I agree.  It is as important as who is governor - especially here in AZ where we have a SOS and a governor and no Lt. Governor, if the governor leaves (Napolitano) the SoS becomes governor (Jan Brewer)

[Oceander]

I agree.  It is as important as who is governor - especially here in AZ where we have a SOS and a governor and no Lt. Governor, if the governor leaves (Napolitano) the SoS becomes governor (Jan Brewer)

Not only that, but I would hazard a guess that it is the secretary of state who certifies the results of the election for governor, meaning that, in effect, the secretary of state has the power to pick the governor.

[Rapunzel]

Not only that, but I would hazard a guess that it is the secretary of state who certifies the results of the election for governor, meaning that, in effect, the secretary of state has the power to pick the governor.

Absolutely.  Look at Washington State for evidence of your example... both governor AND senate races were thrown from the GOP to the Democrats by the SoS and questionable recounts with "found" ballots that were sitting in a backroom somewhere and mysteriously appeared.   

[Fishrrman]

[[ Then absentee ballots should not be allowed.  period.  are we prepared to take that step? ]]

Sounds good to me, with two exceptions:
- active military on duty (overseas or away from home states)
- elderly and infirm/hospitalized (who can prove need).

Yep, I'm prepared to "take that step".

[Oceander]

[[ Then absentee ballots should not be allowed.  period.  are we prepared to take that step? ]]

Sounds good to me, with two exceptions:
- active military on duty (overseas or away from home states)
- elderly and infirm/hospitalized (who can prove need).

Yep, I'm prepared to "take that step".

Why the exceptions?  What's the rational basis for excluding, for example, people who, because of unavoidable commitments, cannot be at their assigned polling station on election day?

[Fishrrman]

[[ We should make it as convenient as possible to vote. ]]

No, NO, N-O !!

We should NOT make it "convenient" to vote, ever.
It must remain, literally, a duty of citizenship.

Making it "easy" makes it easy to introduce fraud. That's the whole point.

Make voting a chore that requires effort, and you'll ensure that those who DO vote will be doing so with a personal commitment to the electoral system. And that those who are trying to commit fraud may just find it's not worth their time or trouble...

[Oceander]

[[ We should make it as convenient as possible to vote. ]]

No, NO, N-O !!

We should NOT make it "convenient" to vote, ever.
It must remain, literally, a duty of citizenship.

Making it "easy" makes it easy to introduce fraud. That's the whole point.

Make voting a chore that requires effort, and you'll ensure that those who DO vote will be doing so with a personal commitment to the electoral system. And that those who are trying to commit fraud may just find it's not worth their time or trouble...

then why not limit the vote to people who have real skin in the game:  people who own real property and who have significant capital investments (i.e., "stuff" that the government could take from them and give to others)?

[Fishrrman]

[[ Why the exceptions?  What's the rational basis for excluding, for example, people who, because of unavoidable commitments, cannot be at their assigned polling station on election day? ]]

Because dem's da breaks.

See my post 42 above.
Voting should be "a chore". If someone chooses to be at some other "commitment" during voting day, well, that's his/her "choice" (I'm pro-choice, eh?).

And that includes you, sir. If you don't want to show up at the polls on election day, you've given up your right to be heard politically through that means of expression.

A soldier on duty CAN'T vacate himself from his duty to get to the polls. He has no option, no choice.

Same for the elderly who are physically unable to get to the polls, even if they want to go.

By the way, I put my money where my mouth is. This past November's election day, I chose to visit a severly handicapped friend in another state, rather than vote. No claim for an absentee ballot or any of that. I wasn't there, I didn't vote.

Like I said above, dem's da breaks.

[Oceander]

[[ Why the exceptions?  What's the rational basis for excluding, for example, people who, because of unavoidable commitments, cannot be at their assigned polling station on election day? ]]

Because dem's da breaks.

See my post 42 above.
Voting should be "a chore". If someone chooses to be at some other "commitment" during voting day, well, that's his/her "choice" (I'm pro-choice, eh?).

And that includes you, sir. If you don't want to show up at the polls on election day, you've given up your right to be heard politically through that means of expression.

A soldier on duty CAN'T vacate himself from his duty to get to the polls. He has no option, no choice.

Same for the elderly who are physically unable to get to the polls, even if they want to go.

By the way, I put my money where my mouth is. This past November's election day, I chose to visit a severly handicapped friend in another state, rather than vote. No claim for an absentee ballot or any of that. I wasn't there, I didn't vote.

Like I said above, dem's da breaks.

You do realize, don't you, that by not requesting an absentee ballot you have made it possible for someone to pretend to be you and cast a vote in your name while you're away.  If I know ahead of time that you'll be out of town, all I need do is gussy up enough ID - whatever is, or is not, required - present myself at your polling station, and vote; I can get away with it because I know you'll never show up to object.

"Dem's da breaks" is a not a particularly good way to run an electoral system.

And, more to the point, I have not seen any persuasive evidence that early voting or absentee voting per se causes or permits election fraud.  Without a good way to associate a vote with a real person, there is the opportunity for fraud, but that opportunity exists solely because of the lack of a good voter ID system, and is just as effective when there are no absentee ballots as when there are.

It is the lack of voter ID, not the ability to vote at some point in time before election day, that facilitates election fraud.