chickaree wrote: Maybe have election week instead of election day?
Until I see some actual proof that illegals are voting in sufficient numbers to cause a problem, I think we should leave the voting process as it is. I doubt the conservatives would go for it anyway, they certainly didn't want to spend any money on hanging chad problems in Florida.
Well being that I am a Republican, the voting system is broke, most seem to know it, and the only way to really prove that there is a problem with illegal voting is to do just that, verify those voting. Election week is not a bad idea.
pineinthegrass wrote: Looks like the Dems in RI find it OK to be disenfranchising so long it helps their candidates. Makes perfect sense!
Can you tell me how it is disenfranchising? And why is it so bad to prove who you are and that you are registered to vote there? Like was stated, you have to show ID for anything anymore. Why are some Dems so against showing ID to vote?
pineinthegrass wrote: Looks like the Dems in RI find it OK to be disenfranchising so long it helps their candidates. Makes perfect sense!
Can you tell me how it is disenfranchising? And why is it so bad to prove who you are and that you are registered to vote there? Like was stated, you have to show ID for anything anymore. Why are some Dems so against showing ID to vote?
I thought my irony/sarcasm was obvious enough. Where you been this evening? lol
I'll spell it out. Liberals say you disenfranchise voters by requiring an ID, even if it's free. I pointed out that in RI, even the Dems agreed to a photo ID because in that case it helped their cause. Hence, they "disenfranchised voters" just like they've criticized the Repubs of doing. Read this tomorrow, it may make more sense to you.
And to continue. What's so difficult about a free photo ID? You are supposed to take some personal effort to vote anyway. You need to register, which used to take some effort. You need to get your ass off the couch to go vote, even if to mail it in.
Yes, the Dems have been making it easier and easier to get their voters who won't get their ass off the couch to register and vote. What's wrong with helping them get a voter ID photo as well, so long as it's legit? I see no problem with a photo ID. RI got it right, assuming it's free and legit.
I actually have no problem with it since I have had to show a photo ID when I've voted in CO.......Just the mechanism to get photo ID's to every one may end up being a bigger hassle than anticipated....not every state is as small as RI.
archer wrote: I actually have no problem with it since I have had to show a photo ID when I've voted in CO.......Just the mechanism to get photo ID's to every one may end up being a bigger hassle than anticipated....not every state is as small as RI.
And why do you think it would be harder to get a legit ID than it should be to register to vote, or even take a bit of effort to visit your local voting place to place your vote? Like I said, there will be people to help you do it in exchange for your vote. :VeryScared:
archer wrote: I actually have no problem with it since I have had to show a photo ID when I've voted in CO.......Just the mechanism to get photo ID's to every one may end up being a bigger hassle than anticipated....not every state is as small as RI.
And why do you think it would be harder to get a legit ID than it should be to register to vote, or even take a bit of effort to visit your local voting place to place your vote? Like I said, there will be people to help you do it in exchange for your vote. :VeryScared:
Huh....where did I say that it would be harder to get a legit ID than to vote?
I like mail in voting because I am out of the state when elections are held. It also works well for military, people who travel for a living, those who are disabled, people without transportation, etc. I doubt you could convince people to give that up. Requiring people to show up at a polling place could be a hardship for any number of people. I think the Democrats are saying that we should make it easier for people to vote not make it harder......but of course the first time you register you need to show an ID.
Under the new law, poll workers will ask voters for identification beginning in 2012, and a number of non-photo documents such as a Social Security card or birth certificate will suffice for them to be allowed to vote.
In 2014, however, any identification will need to include a photo. The state will provide free photo identification, and provisional ballots will be made available to anyone without the proper documents.
That was for RI. Ohio passed a law too, and offered free photo ID. But the ACLU is all over it. Just do a Google...
archer wrote: I actually have no problem with it since I have had to show a photo ID when I've voted in CO.......Just the mechanism to get photo ID's to every one may end up being a bigger hassle than anticipated....not every state is as small as RI.
And why do you think it would be harder to get a legit ID than it should be to register to vote, or even take a bit of effort to visit your local voting place to place your vote? Like I said, there will be people to help you do it in exchange for your vote. :VeryScared:
Huh....where did I say that it would be harder to get a legit ID than to vote?
You suggested it would be hard to get photo ID's ("bigger hassle"). I just pointed out I don't see how it should be harder than registering to vote, voting in person, or even voting by mail (hey, you have to buy a stamp [or is that free?, I forget, but you still have to request the ballot], and walk/drive to mail it). Or should political activists do all that for you?
