But the fact is the shifting demographics heavily favor one of the parties. If things were left to do what they will naturally, then Democrats would be in for a few decades of dominance, at least until the next demographic swing. So if you're the Republican party, and have already acknowledged the swing in demographics, how to you combat it? You prevent people from voting for the opposition. That's whats going on here. But no one wants to admit it. It's the elephant in the room. North Carolina came way too close to going blue, which is why we're seeing the redistricting going on there. Texas was in huge danger of being a swing state within the next few elections, so of course they redistricted (conveniently removing that lady who filibustered the abortion law from office). They probably delayed that outcome by a few elections, or until the next demographic swing I'm sure they're hoping...
After standing in line for over an hour next to the most obnoxious woman in existence. Every thought had to be verbalized, every observation had to be made loudly, every photo she ever took had to be shown, and her last comment to me was "Go ROMNEY!" before literally skipping off. I swear to god, the mental imagine of using a garrote and dragging her lifeless corpse into the nearby bathroom flashed through my head at that point. Im convinced standing next to her for that long was an intentional, insidious attempt by the local government to prevent me from voting.
Anyways, i was warned id need 2 forms of identification. Brought 3 and left a 4th at home by accident. Went all righteous on the poor lady checking id's, but i think she only asked for one.
Can vaguely recall being checked the '08 election, but that was only a single id as well.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...ons-unanswered"Ignorance is not an excuse" were the words Goodell used when describing why those involved in the Saints bounty scandal would not avoid punishment.
#freespesh. Because HIPAA
I don't disagree that this disproportionately affects the poor and minorities. However, I would be more than supportive of offering a free ID to anyone who could not afford it just to ensure that the people who are voting are actually eligible to vote. I do not think that anyone in Washington is altruistic enough to care who votes and who doesn't vote, they just want to win elections and keep their power. We the people have to maintain a vigilant watch over what the heck they're doing.
The only way to ensure that an election is valid is to ensure that the people that are voting are eligible to vote and that those who are eligible are given proper access to vote then those votes must be tallied correctly. I am not really confident in any of those the criteria right now, especially the eligibility. Either way, I apologize if I came across as a jerk.
voter ID is common sense. there's no conspiracy against minorities or people under 30.
O should have cut holder loose a year ago. another reason why the center has lost confidence in the administration.
http://www.vermontcynic.com/opinion/...9#.UfhuUdK1FJsThe New Hampshire House of Representatives has introduced a bill, HB 176, that would change the definition of "domicile" in a way that would prevent college students from registering to vote in the state, unless they grew up in the town they are registered in.
The Supreme Court held in 1972 that long-term residency requirements for voting were unconstitutional. Today, New Hampshire has no residency requirement, it only requires that citizens register 10 days before an election.
If enacted, this legislation would disenfranchise thousands of voters.
Though promoted as an effort to prevent voter fraud, critics have called into question the motivation of the legislation, introduced by a Republican caucus that just gained control of the chamber last month.
Since college students overwhelmingly vote Democratic, this bill would undoubtedly aid Republicans in future elections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2011030802271New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.
"Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack "life experience," and "they just vote their feelings."
New Hampshire House Republicans are pushing for new laws that would prohibit many college students from voting in the state - and effectively keep some from voting at all.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/...call_loss.htmlTrue the Vote traveled all the way from Texas for this Wisconsin bout, stringing along hundreds if not thousands of poll observers from around the country. It’s worth examining how close they are working with the Republican Party.
By about 2 p.m., Carolyn Castore, who coordinated an initiative between Wisconsin Election Protection and the state’s League of Women Voters to field voter complaints, said she’d taken about 140 calls, mostly from college students who were challenged on their right to vote. Many of those students were challenged by True the Vote poll watchers, said Castore. (True the Vote mocked those students on Twitter).
College students were hampered by a new voter residency requirement that says a citizen must live in one location for 28 days in order to register to vote. Before the 2011 law went into effect the requirement was only 10 days. Many students graduated in mid-May, went home from campuses to live with their families, and thus were affected by the 28-day rule.
Also, a photo voter ID bill that passed this year, but was blocked by two judges, was not supposed to be in effect. But students complained about being challenged on ID grounds anyway.
http://www.thenation.com/article/169...#ixzz2aaMUYVjsTrue the Vote is most widely known for its advocacy of restrictive photo voter ID laws. But while that might garner headlines, the group’s real focus is on policing the act of voting itself. As Ouren declared during the group’s national summit in April, and repeated again in Boca Raton, his recruits’ job is chiefly to make voters feel like they’re “driving and seeing the police following you.” He aims to recruit 1 million poll watchers around the country.
Not a conspiracy when your party publicly boasts about it. And this post is just focusing on students.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169284...#ixzz2aaNWCWBDOn Election Day 2004, long lines and widespread electoral dysfunction marred the results of the presidential election in Ohio, whose electoral votes ended up handing George W. Bush a second term. “The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters,” found a post-election report by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. According to one survey, 174,000 Ohioans, 3 percent of the electorate, left their polling place without voting because of the interminable wait. (Bush won the state by only 118,000 votes).
After 2004, Ohio reformed its electoral process by adding thirty-five days of early voting before Election Day, which led to a much smoother voting experience in 2008. The Obama campaign used this extra time to successfully mobilize its supporters, building a massive lead among early voters than John McCain could not overcome on Election Day.
In response to the 2008 election results, Ohio Republicans drastically curtailed the early voting period in 2012 from thirty-five to eleven days, with no voting on the Sunday before the election, when African-American churches historically rally their congregants to go to the polls. (Ohio was one of five states to cut back on early voting since 2010.) Voting rights activists subsequently gathered enough signatures to block the new voting restrictions and force a referendum on Election Day. In reaction, Ohio Republicans repealed their own bill in the state legislature, but kept a ban on early voting three days before Election Day (a period when 93,000 Ohioans voted in 2008), adding an exception for active duty members of the military, who tend to lean Republican. (The Obama campaign is now challenging the law in court, seeking to expand early voting for all Ohioans).
To deny that barriers to voting such as photo ID are not about voter suppression is either being disingenuous or incredibly naive.
To get even the slightest edge in an election is precisely why these things happen. It is also why liberals are fighting tooth and nail to keep it from happening. Their constituencies are disproportionately affected.
This is the only reasons politicians care about this.
Hopefully we will have some sort of biometric approach that will absolve this whole argument(i.e. being able to prove that the person in front of you is who they say they are without beaurocratic hurdles)
I cannot understand anyone that would argue against photo ID for a gun purchase.