certainly not at the local level! so would someone care to explain or defend these voter restriction actions in anyway that makes it a good thing to do?

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/opinion/sunday/ohio-mistrusts-democracy.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referrer=

The cost and complexity of expanding voting means and methods is not worth it. It costs money to keep polling locations open for weeks on end, it costs money to send out ballots and have free return shipping.

 

And of course the biggest issue is ensuring the integrity of the vote. Even if there is "no history of electoral fraud" as the NY Times erroneously states (there's no widespread pattern, but it happens every year), it could happen any year and the more expansive we allow the voting methods to be, the easier it will be to manipulate votes.

 

It's fairly simple - show up on election day and vote. If you are truly incapable of showing up to vote, get an absentee ballot. There's really no need to make it any more complicated than that.

lol-leave it to the New York Times to create an inflammatory and disingenuous headline that "Ohio Mistrusts Democracy!" :roll: When did the concept of early voting start anyway?? I thought the Constitution called for only one specific day for an election. If anything, these provisions create safeguards for fair and honest elections, preventing the possibility of electoral fraud, whether or not a given state has a history of this--

 

of course, can we ever really trust Wikipedia? :laugh:

"Election Day in the United States is the day set by law for the general elections of public officials. It occurs on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (this does not necessarily mean the "first Tuesday" in a month because the first day of a month can be a Tuesday.) The earliest possible date is November 2 and the latest possible date is November 8. The 2012 election was held on November 6, 2012."

hm, hadn't heard about the churches busing folks on Sunday.

Alexander Hamilton believed that only the elite should be eligible to vote. He thought that the common people were not intelligent enough to govern themselves.

 

Even today, our turnout percentages are fairly low. Republicans have a much higher turn out percentage then Democrats, though. Thus, it is in the interest of the Democrats to increase the turnout. This is primarily why Obama was able to win. In Hamilton County, Ohio, 100,000 people who had never voted before turned out to vote for Obama.

 

The Democrats want to make voting easier, with expanded voting days, early voting, motor-voter registration laws, and so on. Republicans don't want to make it any easier, because they know that the more effort it takes to vote, the fewer Democrats will turn out.

 

So to be blunt, some Americans don't want everyone to vote.

^ yeah you said it -- if they want to pass voting laws then pass something so we can be more like say in india where you must vote.

The cost and complexity of expanding voting means and methods is not worth it.

 

Cuyahoga County disagrees.

It was easier when voters were simply bribed by beer.

Alexander Hamilton believed that only the elite should be eligible to vote. He thought that the common people were not intelligent enough to govern themselves.

 

Even today, our turnout percentages are fairly low. Republicans have a much higher turn out percentage then Democrats, though. Thus, it is in the interest of the Democrats to increase the turnout. This is primarily why Obama was able to win. In Hamilton County, Ohio, 100,000 people who had never voted before turned out to vote for Obama.

 

The Democrats want to make voting easier, with expanded voting days, early voting, motor-voter registration laws, and so on. Republicans don't want to make it any easier, because they know that the more effort it takes to vote, the fewer Democrats will turn out.

 

So to be blunt, some Americans don't want everyone to vote.

 

 

Only white male property owners could vote in our country's first decades.  Poll taxes and literacy tests weren't stopped until the early 1900s. 

 

Only white male property owners could vote in our country's first decades.  Poll taxes and literacy tests weren't stopped until the early 1900s. 

 

 

Obviously, some people still wish we had them. Is there any doubt Kasich-Husted would implement such a system, were they allowed?

Even if there is "no history of electoral fraud" as the NY Times erroneously states (there's no widespread pattern, but it happens every year), it could happen any year and the more expansive we allow the voting methods to be, the easier it will be to manipulate votes.

 

I don't know the extent to which you were playing Devil's advocate, but that is a pretty weak argument. If it's truly a concern, what should be done is to get a system in place in case such an event does occur.

 

Top-down vote manipulation, gerrymandering, and campaign finance abuses are far greater dangers to democracy that are already happening. In fact we, could look at these attempts to prevent Democratic voters from casting ballots as top-down vote manipulation, or electioneering.

 

These guys really should have stopped at the voter ID stuff. They risk their transparent aim to chip away at the Democratic voter base turning off moderates. Plausible deniability is rapidly disappearing, and preventing people from casting ballots is pretty fzcking despicable.

One can list and harp on a multitude of reasons for or against voting restrictions.  It's all colored bubbles.  It boils down to, as noted above, a desire on one side to make it as difficult and burdensome to vote as possible without violating any overriding law and a desire on the other side to do the exact opposite within the bounds of the law, all because a more burdensome system favors the GOP and a less burdensome system favors the democrats.  There's really nothing more to it than that and, from a personal perspective for you and I, it comes down to which system is more in line with American values.  It is a no-brainer to me.  Not even close.

The cost and complexity of expanding voting means and methods is not worth it. It costs money to keep polling locations open for weeks on end, it costs money to send out ballots and have free return shipping.

 

And of course the biggest issue is ensuring the integrity of the vote. Even if there is "no history of electoral fraud" as the NY Times erroneously states (there's no widespread pattern, but it happens every year), it could happen any year and the more expansive we allow the voting methods to be, the easier it will be to manipulate votes.

 

It's fairly simple - show up on election day and vote. If you are truly incapable of showing up to vote, get an absentee ballot. There's really no need to make it any more complicated than that.

... and, of course, we all know that cheap elections are more important than fair elections. What could be simpler than "the Tuesday after the first Monday in November?" If it was good enough 200 years ago to allow for travel to the county seat it's good enough now, even though we have lots more technology; even though we have employers who are reluctant to give workers time off to vote. I mean, why update tradition to accommodate a modern world?

 

Actually, it's been studied a lot, and there is absolutely zero evidence of widespread voter fraud in Ohio. There are infinitesimal instances, statistically insignificant. Now, I know there are those who say any instance of someone voting fraudulantly is one too many. To them, I would say any case of denying someone a legal vote is one too many. But there is more evidence of legal voters being denied their vote than of illegal voters casting a ballot. And, really, voter fraud is insignificant unless it is organized and on a large scale. It doesn't come from individuals, it comes from organizations. And the biggest voter fraud in Ohio today comes from the Republican majority in the legislature, which is systematically throwing up barriers to voters they don't want to be heard.

 

 

Only white male property owners could vote in our country's first decades.  Poll taxes and literacy tests weren't stopped until the early 1900s. 

 

 

Obviously, some people still wish we had them. Is there any doubt Kasich-Husted would implement such a system, were they allowed?

 

State laws excluding any group from voting rights for president and certain other positions are NOT prohibited by the Constitution, but the fourteenth amendment says that if a state prohibits voting rights, then the number of electoral votes for that state will be reduced in the same proportion. So, Ohio Republicans could legally block, say, poor people from voting by enacting a poll tax, or prohibit prisoners from voting. It's not likely to happen because if they did, Ohio would lose electoral votes.

 

 

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state." - Fourteenth amendment, section II

 

Ohio could NOT however, block voters based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th amendment). Ohio could NOT block voters based on sex (19th amendment). Ohio could NOT block voters over 18 years old based on age (26th amendment).

By the way, the same issues apply to the U.S. Census, which is used to apportion representation in the United States House of Representatives, and by extension, electoral votes in presidential elections. The U.S Census is not perfect, and it is well known that the Census does not count everyone. Most notably, poor and homeless people are not counted because of the difficulty of finding them. Some say that the U.S. Census undercounts by as much as 30%.

 

Democrats want to count everyone because it helps representation in states that favor them. Democrats thus favor statistical methods that estimate the number of people not counted directly.

 

Republicans want to keep the Census the way it is, and not use statistical methods, for the opposite reason.

If cost is an issue, then why not just require everyone to show up in one a few select major cities in the State?  For instance, we can having five precincts - Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, Cincy, and Marrieta.  That would dramatically cut down on costs.  We should do away with mail-in ballots as well.  No need to waste the paper or postage.  Would the Republicans go for that?  Sure, it might place an extra burden on rural folk who would have to drive in from a distance, but it would save us money and the prospect of voter fraud, which is probably most easily perpetrated at these rural voting locations where no watchdog groups sit at the tables with checklists, could be minimized.

Enquirer ‏@Enquirer  6m

JUST IN: Judge rules that Ohio politicians have the right to lie http://cin.ci/1BvG4XJ

 

The judge said voters should determine who is telling the truth. Based on what? Lies?