Voting

[indago]

Journalist Roxana Hegeman wrote for The Associated Press 17 May 2016:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson ruled that the state's proof-of-citizenship requirements likely violate a provision in the National Voter Registration Act that requires only "minimal information" to determine a voter's eligibility. She ordered Kansas to register thousands of voters whose paperwork is on hold because they did not comply with the requirement. ...Robinson wrote that "even if instances of noncitizens voting cause indirect voter disenfranchisement by diluting the votes of citizens, such instances pale in comparison to the number of qualified citizens who have been disenfranchised by this law."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VOTING_CITIZENSHIP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-17-22-33-15)

[indago]

Isn't it a wonderment though that these same citizens can get enough identification to obtain food stamps, and an EBT card, but when it comes to obtaining ID for citizenship, they are at a loss...

[Elessar]

I am all for a national system of patterned valid voter registration, to be
administered by the individual States, but be kept under federal purview.

Thus, establishing a National constant that cannot be ignored.

[Kathianne]

I'm sorry, I am against the federal government usurping any powers given directly to the states by the Constitution, there's been enough of that already with the 'unstated' powers. Tyvm.

[darin]

There is no hope. :-/ Get some land. Become self-sufficient. Protect what's yours.

[indago]

From The Associated Press 19 May 2016:
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on Thursday upheld Virginia's 2013 law requiring voters to show a valid photo ID at the polls. The Virginia Democratic Party sued state elections officials, saying the photo ID requirement unconstitutionally suppresses voting by blacks, Latinos and young people. U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson wrote that the Democratic Party did not prove that the law violates the Voting Rights Act or several constitutional amendments...
-------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VOTER_ID_LAWSUIT_VIRGINIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-19-19-28-49)

[indago]

Looks like the Supreme Court is going to have to tackle this one...

[Elessar]

I'm sorry, I am against the federal government usurping any powers given directly to the states by the Constitution, there's been enough of that already with the 'unstated' powers. Tyvm.

Kathi, I do not see it usurping anything. There should be a national standard,
administrated by the states.

To legally operate a motor vehicle, you need to have a valid license or permit,
and those are recognized nation wide.

I do not see a voter registration supported by the Feds as being any different;
the Feds being the oversight.

Same as I feel English, our dialect of it, should be declared our national language.
How much would be saved by not having to print stuff in Spanish, to have to hear
"For Spanish, Press 1". Products imported across borders would be protected because
of NAFTA, although I'd rather read Canadian French than Spanish.

[Gunny]

From The Associated Press 19 May 2016:
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on Thursday upheld Virginia's 2013 law requiring voters to show a valid photo ID at the polls. The Virginia Democratic Party sued state elections officials, saying the photo ID requirement unconstitutionally suppresses voting by blacks, Latinos and young people. U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson wrote that the Democratic Party did not prove that the law violates the Voting Rights Act or several constitutional amendments...
-------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VOTER_ID_LAWSUIT_VIRGINIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-19-19-28-49)

That is stupid. It suppresses the right of non-citizens. You can be white as Casper the Ghost, get pulled over, and you better have some ID. This is where white man speak with forked tongue.

[Kathianne]

Kathi, I do not see it usurping anything. There should be a national standard,
administrated by the states.

To legally operate a motor vehicle, you need to have a valid license or permit,
and those are recognized nation wide.

I do not see a voter registration supported by the Feds as being any different;
the Feds being the oversight.

Same as I feel English, our dialect of it, should be declared our national language.
How much would be saved by not having to print stuff in Spanish, to have to hear
"For Spanish, Press 1". Products imported across borders would be protected because
of NAFTA, although I'd rather read Canadian French than Spanish.

I have no doubt if the fed could take over driving licensing they would. As for voting, the states should decide who is eligible to vote-as long as there isn't discrimination via race, religion, sex, or I guess sexual identification. IOW, as long as the states aren't trying to target a group to make them ineligible.

[indago]

That is stupid. It suppresses the right of non-citizens. You can be white as Casper the Ghost, get pulled over, and you better have some ID. This is where white man speak with forked tongue.

In the article, which "white man speak with forked tongue"?

[Gunny]

In the article, which "white man speak with forked tongue"?

I don't read the articles. I use common sense. IMO, if you are voting for a Federal office the voting rules should be Federal. If it's a state office, then state rules. The flip-flopping back and forth to suit themselves is what gets me. The Federal government doesn't take care of one damn thing it's supposed to, but feels free as Hell to meddle in state's rights.

There should be a single standard when voting for Federal office for all 57 of Obama's states. One set of rules for both parties. The Feds let the states run crap they shouldn't, then stick their nose into the states' business where it doesn't belong.

[Kathianne]

I don't read the articles. I use common sense. IMO, if you are voting for a Federal office the voting rules should be Federal. If it's a state office, then state rules. The flip-flopping back and forth to suit themselves is what gets me. The Federal government doesn't take care of one damn thing it's supposed to, but feels free as Hell to meddle in state's rights.

There should be a single standard when voting for Federal office for all 57 of Obama's states. One set of rules for both parties. The Feds let the states run crap they shouldn't, then stick their nose into the states' business where it doesn't belong.

Well except for the Constitution regarding states and voting.

[Gunny]

Well except for the Constitution regarding states and voting.

In that regard, I disagree with the Constitution. I doubt the FF's envisioned the debacle we've made of it. This is one thing I think should be Federal. Like the border. And immigration. And everything else the Federal gov't doesn't take of. It's too busy worrying about crap it has no business worrying about.

[Kathianne]

In that regard, I disagree with the Constitution. I doubt the FF's envisioned the debacle we've made of it. This is one thing I think should be Federal. Like the border. And immigration. And everything else the Federal gov't doesn't take of. It's too busy worrying about crap it has no business worrying about.

and this would be another thing.

Sorry, I want total restraints of the Constitution put on the Federal Government. Really.

[Gunny]

and this would be another thing.

Sorry, I want total restraints of the Constitution put on the Federal Government. Really.

Don't have to be sorry with me. The difference is, I want the federal government to take care of what it is supposed to. My point is, they don't. As far as meddling in state affairs we agree. Except I see the Federal position of POTUS as a Federal deal.

[Kathianne]

Don't have to be sorry with me. The difference is, I want the federal government to take care of what it is supposed to. My point is, they don't. As far as meddling in state affairs we agree. Except I see the Federal position of POTUS as a Federal deal.

If the feds got control of the voting requirements-if the dems were in power everyone would be eligible to vote, no restraints on illegals, felons, etc. No thanks, I think the states should be responsible and if the people in that state are really upset over something, they'll let them know.

[Gunny]

If the feds got control of the voting requirements-if the dems were in power everyone would be eligible to vote, no restraints on illegals, felons, etc. No thanks, I think the states should be responsible and if the people in that state are really upset over something, they'll let them know.

The Federal government already controls the votes. Thus, the electoral college. We're disenfranchised right there. The whole notion that our vote counts is a sham. You let the states run around like morons doing their own thing, then your delegates vote for who they want anyway. I still maintain that for Federal office there should be a single standard for all parties. That's fair. What we have now is not fair at all.

[aboutime]

How many years does it take for someone, anyone, living in the USA to finally begin to understand?

Truth is. WE THE PEOPLE are NOT the people who elect, or vote ANYONE into office. All of this Political Stuff, celebrated by the NOVEMBER, first Tuesday Fiasco, designed by Politicians to enhance Politicians who effectively fool WE THE PEOPLE every time....is nothing more than a Smoke Screen, hidden behind the Party, or Parties that have enough SPENDING MONEY to continue to FOOL We the people.

The recent changes in allowing FELONS to finally vote by Democrat politicians in office, is merely a screen they are using to DISGUISE the DEAD vote, the DOUBLE vote, and the ILLEGAL vote WE THE PEOPLE are not SMART ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE.

Anyone who doubts this only has to open their mind, begin to THINK, and Understand what they SEE taking place....ISN'T REALLY WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE.

Taking me back to my often repeated charge about how I DO NOT TRUST ANY POLITICIAN.

[Kathianne]

The Federal government already controls the votes. Thus, the electoral college. We're disenfranchised right there. The whole notion that our vote counts is a sham. You let the states run around like morons doing their own thing, then your delegates vote for who they want anyway. I still maintain that for Federal office there should be a single standard for all parties. That's fair. What we have now is not fair at all.

Totally disagree. The electoral college is a very important safeguard in the system. I don't have the time right now to explain my point of view, but will one day when I'm off.

[Gunny]

Totally disagree. The electoral college is a very important safeguard in the system. I don't have the time right now to explain my point of view, but will one day when I'm off.

The electoral college gave us Obama. Hitlery won the popular vote. I don't need some jackass politician thinking for me. I hate the electoral college. It takes away our right to be counted.

[Kathianne]

The electoral college gave us Obama. Hitlery won the popular vote. I don't need some jackass politician thinking for me. I hate the electoral college. It takes away our right to be counted.
The electoral college has nothing to do with primaries. She lost because of super delegates.

[Gunny]

The electoral college has nothing to do with primaries. She lost because of super delegates.

I am well aware. Point is, those delegates she lost because of voted against the will of their constituency. That alone says your vote doesn't count. And it has everything to do with electoral college. You can win the popular vote and STILL lose.

[indago]

I am well aware. Point is, those delegates she lost because of voted against the will of their constituency. That alone says your vote doesn't count. And it has everything to do with electoral college. You can win the popular vote and STILL lose.

POSTED (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?54001-Trump-%97-Caucus&p=799740#post799740)

The people already have their say in the federal government system by voting for their representatives in the House of Representatives.

[Gunny]

POSTED (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?54001-Trump-%97-Caucus&p=799740#post799740)

The people already have their say in the federal government system by voting for their representatives in the House of Representatives.

Yeah. That's worked. Next plan?

I understand the argument but I completely disagree with the system. When the electoral college can override the popular vote then we aren't a democracy and our votes don't count. What gets me is, it's one of the founding ideals of this nation and it's a sham. Everything we fought a revolution against is now everything we stand for. Playing semantics to tell me I'm represented is a waste of time.

[Elessar]

and this would be another thing.

Sorry, I want total restraints of the Constitution put on the Federal Government. Really.

I understand that. Yet there DO need to be some constants handed down from
the Federal level, just as Gunny offered above. Right now there is minor chaos
and it is not getting better.

[Kathianne]

Yeah. That's worked. Next plan?

I understand the argument but I completely disagree with the system. When the electoral college can override the popular vote then we aren't a democracy and our votes don't count. What gets me is, it's one of the founding ideals of this nation and it's a sham. Everything we fought a revolution against is now everything we stand for. Playing semantics to tell me I'm represented is a waste of time.


and there are very good reasons we are NOT a democracy, though certainly moving in that direction. We are a republic:


re·pub·licrəˈpəblik/
noun



a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.



archaic
a group with a certain equality between its members.

[Gunny]

and there are very good reasons we are NOT a democracy, though certainly moving in that direction. We are a republic:

Regardless. I believe in one set of rules for all for the Presidency. It's a federal office and should be ruled as such. I don't like how about half the states vote to begin with.

[Kathianne]

Regardless. I believe in one set of rules for all for the Presidency. It's a federal office and should be ruled as such. I don't like how about half the states vote to begin with.

Then don't live in those states. Simple enough. If enough folks agree they will demand their states change.

[Gunny]

Then don't live in those states. Simple enough. If enough folks agree they will demand their states change.

I understand the nuances. Of all people. :laugh: I've lived everywhere. There's no logic involved.