The whole idea of “voter ID” as enacted by Republicans, is to place a burden on voters as a disincentive to go the the polls. Notice the “photo” requirement, which ratchets up the burden a little more

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:33 AM

.
Yet, you would probably argue that registration requirements and restrictions on lawful gun owners is for “gun safety” and not just to place a burden on gun owners as a disincentive to won a firearm. Those who fall prey to the scheme are de facto unworthy of exercising their right to bear arms.

weaselyone on January 28, 2013 at 9:36 AM

.
GREAT counter-analogy ! … : )

The GOP cannot police election fraud in big cities where in essence they have no influence. This measure would protect the state electoral awards from being determined by massive fraud in the cities. Those districts are going Blue anyway so they can cheat their heads off if they wish but it will only effect statewide elections not national ones.

KW64 on January 27, 2013 at 7:16 PM

.
If we concede that election fraud cannot be “policed” ANYWHERE in the U.S. (including the big cities), then we’re only left with two horrific options.

One of them is surrender. The other one isn’t.

Thanks for confirming my point.

The whole idea of “voter ID” as enacted by Republicans, is to place a burden on voters as a disincentive to go the the polls. Notice the “photo” requirement, which ratchets up the burden a little more

And as a bonus backhand, those who fall prey to the scheme are de facto unworthy of exercising their right to vote!

Hey, l2g, I’ll bet you were a big fan of the poll tax as a way to determine who was worthy to vote.

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Yet you would probably argue that registration requirements and restrictions on lawful gun owners is for “gun safety” and not just to place a burden on gun owners as a disincentive to won a firearm. Those who fall prey to the scheme are de facto unworthy of exercising their right to bear arms.

Now, after gerrymandering congressional districts, the Republicans will simply go for outright vote rigging to win. The last gasp of a Party that cannot win on ideas or philosophy.

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:16 AM

This is just flat out wrong. Empirical evidence (Nebraska voting history) shows this to be an advantage for Democrats in red states. Nebraska hasn’t voted D since 1964, yet with this system, Obama picked up 1 EV in 2008 despite losing the whole state by 15% to McCain.

Districts have to be re-evaluated and redrawn by law. Don’t get your panties in a twist because Republicans are better at local politics and are in control when districts happen to be redrawn.

Win state elections and governor races and you get to redraw districts. Stop crying about a practice that has been in place since nearly the beginning of our elecion system. Also, I am sure that Democratic super-majority in California would never dream of redrawing their districts to split red voting areas and keep themselves in power, right?

The way it is now, most of the citizenry might as well not even vote.

Lily on January 26, 2013 at 1:22 PM

They already do not…

astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 1:26 PM

This is the real problem in this country.
Hardly anyone is voting compared to how many could vote.
Americans are spoiled & apathetic & have left the governing & leadership jobs to the people who showed up.
Meanwhile, the good leaders stay home bcs they’re too busy oftentimes being selfish.
Though I’ll grant people kudos like Palin who tried & failed bcs they were so vilified they never had a chance.
The media set the stage for them to fail.
We here at HA probably all vote. But the people who should vote have convinced themselves their vote doesn’t matter so why bother.
This is disgraceful & we honestly as a people do not deserve our Liberty if we cannot even get off the fracking couch to go vote.
And Liberty is certainly dead when no one will even run for local offices who could go real good bcs they ‘don’t want to get involved’.
I see this time again here in SW ND. I would run for the screwl board myself to change things even tho it’s a pain in the butt. But I work there & cannot. So I encourage others whom I think would be good leaders.
And guess what? They shrug their shoulders & give up. Bcs they have become hopelessly apathetic.
I despise this almost as much as I do nasty liberals.

Now, after gerrymandering congressional districts, the Republicans will simply go for outright vote rigging to win. The last gasp of a Party that cannot win on ideas or philosophy.

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:16 AM

You mean we’ve all become — gasp — Democrats????

The EC was designed as a last ditch effort to prevent a tyrant from becoming president. Man, you start tinkering with something as long-standing as the EC, then what else???? Besides the Dems considered this I believe in the 1990′s and then said no.

Bad move.

It looks Baaaaaaaaad!

It’s a states prerogative, right?

Why, yes! It is!

Who cares how it “looks?”

Do you think Demacraps give a rats arse…that is, if they thought they’d benefit, it would already be done.

Citizens who can’t handle the burden of acquiring state photo ID for themselves are UNWORTHY TO VOTE … period.

listens2glenn on January 26, 2013 at 10:17 PM

.
Thanks for confirming my point.

The whole idea of “voter ID” as enacted by Republicans, is to place a burden on voters as a disincentive to go the the polls. Notice the “photo” requirement, which ratchets up the burden a little more

And as a bonus backhand, those who fall prey to the scheme are de facto unworthy of exercising their right to vote!

Hey, l2g, I’ll bet you were a big fan of the poll tax as a way to determine who was worthy to vote.

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:33 AM

.
The whole idea of voter ID, is to prevent FRAUD. There’s no reason for a “poll tax”, as it has nothing to do with disproving legal citizenship.

I reject outright any premise that implies “lower income people can’t afford the cost-burden of obtaining a state photo ID”.

Lower income people still engage in regular daily business activity that absolutely requires a state photo ID, and by that I mean:

“Poor people on welfare and other fixed income have ALWAYS had state photo IDs.”

The only reason for rejecting voter ID is to allow legal voters to vote multiple times, or allow illegal voters to vote at all (probably multiple times as well).
This is NOT going to happen again. Either we will get elections conducted in a way that we can all trust the results, or the “worst case scenario” will unfold.

Either you think “that’s a bluff”, or you don’t give a damn.

With the mental attitudes, that those citizens (includes politicians) on your side of this debate approach it, you’re leaving us no other options.

Hey, l2g, I’ll bet you were a big fan of the poll tax as a way to determine who was worthy to vote.

chumpThreads on January 27, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Oh, cry me a river next time you have to show ID to purchase pseudoephedrine or get a library card or purchase a drink in a bar (which, from the maturity of your posts, sounds like you still do). Voter ID is a tool to prevent fraud, period, and is used throughout the big world outside the US without controversy. The only people who argue against it are libs who want to protect their voter base of illegals, felons and dead people.

The more I hear of this electoral vote change strategy, the more I like it. Having lived through the ridiculous tantrum our Texas Dems threw over legal redistricting, leaving the state to illegally prevent voting on it, the more in favor I am to out maneuvering them in their endless, seemingly unchecked, flouting of actual law. If we can use a legal process to do it, go for it. And if Dems can use it when they are a majority, then as the majority they will have the right to do so.

But then again, don’t they think that these same vulnerable people deserve the right to bear arms, and aren’t ID’s and high fees and background checks and training an onerous burden for enjoying 2nd amendment rights?

Citizens who can’t handle the burden of acquiring state photo ID for themselves are UNWORTHY TO VOTE … period.

listens2glenn on January 26, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Thanks for confirming my point.

The whole idea of “voter ID” as enacted by Republicans, is to place a burden on voters as a disincentive to go the the polls. Notice the “photo” requirement, which ratchets up the burden a little more

And as a bonus backhand, those who fall prey to the scheme are de facto unworthy of exercising their right to vote!

Hey, l2g, I’ll bet you were a big fan of the poll tax as a way to determine who was worthy to vote.

Requiring ID to vote is NOT voter suppression – well unless you are talking about suppressing the illegal vote, the duplicate votes and voting of the dead. There is little you can do these days without an ID, including renting a video, so your blatant lie even if repeated ad nauseum is not worth the space it took to write it.

I see nothing wrong with getting rid of the EC period. One vote per person legally qualified, national popular vote wins.

katablog.com on January 27, 2013 at 10:48 AM

“Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” –Mike Turzai.

Voter suppression in the guise of “voter ID” was a deliberate strategy by Republicans to hold down Democratic votes in the election. You can tell by the states that insisted on a photo ID and those that rejected student IDs. Then there were the threatening billboards set up in minority neighborhoods.

Yeah, it was attempted voter suppression pure and simple.

Now, after gerrymandering congressional districts, the Republicans will simply go for outright vote rigging to win. The last gasp of a Party that cannot win on ideas or philosophy.

Requiring ID to vote is NOT voter suppression – well unless you are talking about suppressing the illegal vote, the duplicate votes and voting of the dead. There is little you can do these days without an ID, including renting a video, so your blatant lie even if repeated ad nauseum is not worth the space it took to write it.

I see nothing wrong with getting rid of the EC period. One vote per person legally qualified, national popular vote wins.

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

claudius on January 27, 2013 at 10:27 AM

That would help some.

I don’t believe this nation is founded on the premise that large population centers should oppress the nation.

I don’t believe our founders envisioned for us a voting environment in which the validity and the strength of the individual vote would be diluted and nullified to the point of apathy due to criminality and outright corruption and that one of two national party’s would actually nurture that exact despicable scenario.

Speakup on January 27, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Our founders did foresee the problems you note. That is why women did not get the right to vote, they have been known to be emotional rather than thinking in their base nature, sorry women, but it is just facts. That is why the people without skin in the game were not allowed to vote, you actually had to own a business or land in order to vote.

There are just too many allowed to vote in this nation… As of now, half are leeches.