Are Democrats promoting any bills aimed at keeping people

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

The republicans have sponsored bills requireing ID's, and also bills in Ohio which prevent people from voting early. Both were aimed at a certain group of voters (Democrats). Have democrats put forth any similar bills aimed at keeping republicans from the polls?

[nursebenjamin]

Systemic and widespread voter suppression activities: one more reason to not vote Republican this year.

[Boots]

While your question is very valid, I think a more accurate and poignant question would be "have the democrats historically done so when the roles were reversed?" (when a republican incumbant had a slight lead)

[sleepyhead]

While your question is very valid, I think a more accurate and poignant question would be "have the democrats historically done so when the roles were reversed?" (when a republican incumbant had a slight lead)

What either of these groups have done in the past has very little significance. If the republican party was the same as it was prior to 1980, I could very easily vote for Republicans. If they repent in sackcloth and ashes I could very easily vote for Republicans again. Right now the Republicans are attempting to rig the election and therefore for this and other reasons I will vote against the Republicans. What Democrats did in the past has nop relevance.

[Boots]

While your question is very valid, I think a more accurate and poignant question would be "have the democrats historically done so when the roles were reversed?" (when a republican incumbant had a slight lead)

What either of these groups have done in the past has very little significance. If the republican party was the same as it was prior to 1980, I could very easily vote for Republicans. If they repent in sackcloth and ashes I could very easily vote for Republicans again. Right now the Republicans are attempting to rig the election and therefore for this and other reasons I will vote against the Republicans. What Democrats did in the past has nop relevance.

At least part of your sentiment, I agree with totally--had McCain of 2000 run in 2008, I'd have voted for him.

however, I believe the past *does* have relevance, because it informs the present--and the future. If the dems rig the 2016 elections, will you not vote for them?

[bluethread]

Hello,

The republicans have sponsored bills requireing ID's, and also bills in Ohio which prevent people from voting early. Both were aimed at a certain group of voters (Democrats). Have democrats put forth any similar bills aimed at keeping republicans from the polls?

Sorry, your bias is showing. Could it be that they are just making sure that only citizens are voting? To be fair, maybe the democrates you are talking about are people who are not citizen. Democrates seem to believe in requiring ID's to come to their fund raisers, but not for varification of citizenship. By the way, what does Obama have against cell phones? Maybe he doesn't want someone recording him talking about the voters he does not want to focus on, like us bitter clingers. You know, the other 47%.

[sleepyhead]

Hello boots and bluethread,

>>>however, I believe the past *does* have relevance, because it informs the present--and the future. <<<

Feel free to present your reasoning if you desire.

>>>If the dems rig the 2016 elections, will you not vote for them?<<<

Right now I vote anti-republican both in regards to people running and the initiatives. Usually that means voting for Democrats and the initiatives they favor. For the past several years the Republicans through there media machine have conducted a smear campaign against liberals. If and when they discontinue the practice I might vote for a Republican.

>>>Sorry, your bias is showing. Could it be that they are just making sure that only citizens are voting? To be fair, maybe the democrates you are talking about are people who are not citizen.<<<

To be fair the republicans would need to provide some evidence that non citizens are voting.

>>>Democrates seem to believe in requiring ID's to come to their fund raisers, but not for varification of citizenship. By the way, what does Obama have against cell phones? Maybe he doesn't want someone recording him talking about the voters he does not want to focus on, like us bitter clingers. You know, the other 47%.<<<

Please show how the above is relevant.

[micatala]

Hello,

The republicans have sponsored bills requireing ID's, and also bills in Ohio which prevent people from voting early. Both were aimed at a certain group of voters (Democrats). Have democrats put forth any similar bills aimed at keeping republicans from the polls?

I am not aware of any such efforts by democrats.

To me, at least in states where there is a substantial fee (more than $20 say) for obtaining these ID's, this is a de facto poll tax. That is besides the barriers represented by having to go to the facility where the ID's are issued, possibly having to get a birth certificate reissued with more additional expense and effort, and the usual standing in line, etc.


Now, I have some sympathy with the notion that we should try to prevent voter fraud, including having non-citizens voting. The problem I have is that all the evidence suggests in person voter fraus is next to non-existent. Thus, we are spending and asking citizens to spend millions of dollars and lots of effort to prevent an almost non-existent problem.

And of course, the clear intent is to sway the election by preventing from or making it more difficult for people to vote who are likely to trend democratic. The obstensivle reason, while reasonable on its surface, is just an excuse. This was infamously admitted by one of the legislators in Pennsylvania who helped pass that state's voter ID law.



If the concern really is integrity of the voting system, then the Republicans should put their money where their mouth is and make ID's available to everyone for free. If it is not worth tax money to get that done, then in my view they are not being honest when they say this is a significant problem.



I also note the following. Now, I offer this with a grain of salt, as I have no familiarity with the organizations pushing this story. But I do find it interesting, given the history of what happened in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

Apparently, the Romney family is now invested, at least indirectly, in companies who make the voting machines used in several states.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... investment

http://www.freepress.org/departments/di ... /2012/4724

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12204-do ... our-e-vote

Now, I am perfectly willing to see this story torn to shreds. However, if true, it is interesting, again, especially because of previous history.


The Republicans screamed long and loud about ACORN stealing the last election, even though there was no evidence that ACORN's actions led to a single person casting a ballot improperly or any other kind of voter fraud.

In this election, we also have True the Vote, a Tea Party affiliated group claiming to be working on election reform or integrity.

http://www.truethevote.org/




They plan on engaging in what is essentially voter intimidation.


http://www.propublica.org/article/a-rea ... d-watchdog


See also

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170698/tr ... te-threats#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_the_Vote

According to Politifact, True the Vote has claimed Eric Holder wants the U.N. involved in monitoring our elections.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/true-vote/


Now, one can certainly find instances, especially in the more distant past, of similar behavior on the part of the democrats. Many still say, with some justification, that Kennedy's 1960 victory should be considered tainted.

In fact, on the voter intimidation front, FOX discussed the New Black Panther Party for a number of weeks around the time of the 2008 election. One or two guys ranting outside a polling place and waving bats supposedly to chase white people away from the polls. That was supposed to be a big deal. There was no evidence a single person did not vote because of their actions, as I recall.

True the Vote, while employing somewhat less confrontational tactics, is a nationwide movement specifically meant to keep "suspicious" people from voting. You can imagine who the suspicious people are. Perhpas this will also have no actual effect, but it is clearly a much more serious threat than the NBPP. I wonder why FOX is not covering this?




I am all for preventing such shenanigans. But we should not use a faux concern for integrity in the process as an excuse for disenfranchising citizens. I think in the long run we need to remove elections from the purview of partisans, and that would include establishing non-partisan methods for redistricting.

[chris_brown207]

Hello,

The republicans have sponsored bills requireing ID's, and also bills in Ohio which prevent people from voting early. Both were aimed at a certain group of voters (Democrats). Have democrats put forth any similar bills aimed at keeping republicans from the polls?

Sorry, your bias is showing. Could it be that they are just making sure that only citizens are voting? To be fair, maybe the democrates you are talking about are people who are not citizen. Democrates seem to believe in requiring ID's to come to their fund raisers, but not for varification of citizenship. By the way, what does Obama have against cell phones? Maybe he doesn't want someone recording him talking about the voters he does not want to focus on, like us bitter clingers. You know, the other 47%.

Don't take the OP's word for it whether the intent was to block certain voters and swing specific states, all we have to do is ask Rep Mike Turzai (R) from Pennyslvania: "...Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - Done." ....


Heck, you can even ask Fox News commentators - "GOP's fictional voter fraud charges aim to keep Democrats from voting" http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/ ... om-voting/

[eutychus]

What is the problem with asking a person to produce identification to enable them to vote? I've had to do so since I was 16 (which was old enough to vote on issues in Ohio), and I didn't have a driver's license until I was 28. There is such a thing as a state ID for those of us who couldn't drive for one reason or another. I must produce identification to use my Visa card, for Pete's sake. Big deal, and all I'm doing is buying Chinese! Isn't the voting process a bit more sacrosanct that Asian Chao?Shouldn't it be protected from potential abuse? Or are y'all worried dead folks won't get to vote?