Kep
Think you're still on the voting rolls in PoR, MD?
Cornell University
NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018
**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Glass at 0%: No Heart
Isn't that just a matter of being an informed citizen? We rely upon citizens to understand that to vote in the first place they have to register. We rely upon them to understand that if they change their name they have to re-register. We rely upon them to understand that if they move, they have to re-register. This just one more item. Did you vote in the last 6 years? If not, you need to re-register.
I'm still waiting for an answer as to why they shouldn't purge the rolls every year.
We should all be expected to register to vote before every single election. What is the legal, or for that matter factual basis for just assuming that we still live where we claimed to live before the last election, that our name is the same, or that we're even alive? There is no basis for making that assumption.
Before we vote, we should be expected to present ourselves, show we're still alive, tell them where we're living so that we can demonstrate that we are eligible to vote for that particular set of alderman candidates or in that particular congressional district, and generally demonstrate that we are an eligible voter in that particular district or ward.
We don't do that, but we should. You know why we don't? No legal basis. In fact I'd argue that the law that requires you to be an eligible voter really mandates that you register before each election. But we don't do it because of time and money. It's much easier and cheaper for states to just become lazy and let the rolls remain as they are.
All Ohio has done is move closer to what all states should be doing.
That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Glass at 0%: No Heart
You're not losing the right. I liken it to Handy's example of he chooses not to assemble, then does he lose the right to assemble. My answer was no, but if he has a permit to assemble, it doesn't last forever. If he doesn't use it the municipality can revoke it after a certain amount of time and require that he get a new one. That's not trampling on the Constitution.
Regarding why in general the voter rolls are updated I would think it has less to do with mythical voter fraud that knuckledraggers are always wheeling out and more to do with more mundane issues such as the cost of contacting voters for mailers and other such updates. I get quite a few of those from the town each year, but if 3 times as many people are on the rolls as who actually live in the town that's a lot of wasted $$$ for people who are no longer around. So the boring question remains, how long do some of you want to keep non-voters on the rolls? Like if someone's a Civil War veteran, can we take them off?![]()
Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin
Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin
"I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."
"It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
-aparch
"Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
-INCH
Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
-ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007
We don't do it because history has proven every time you make voting harder, it is always targeted at already disadvantaged groups like minorities and women. And it's always done for partisan advantage; they sell it as anti-fraud so gullible people like yourself will support it even though the measured voter fraud rate is something like 0.0001 percent.
Last edited by unofan; 06-13-2018 at 10:17 AM.
This may be a dumb question, but why do you assume that everyone who wants to vote has the same free time that you do, so that you can renew your voting registration on an annual basis? We don't even do that for driver's licences, for crying out loud. The only think we do it for is vehicle registration, and that's pretty easy to do on line.
Why should we treat voter registration so much differently than everything else? What does that achieve? What do you think gets fixed when you annually purge the voters?
Seems like a colossal waste of time, and money, and effort to solve nothing. Honestly, are you willing to pay more taxes so that the state can hire people to deal with this on an annual basis?
Why is it actually lazy to not renew the voter rolls very often? I don't understand that thinking what so ever.
You want the voter to put more effort into voting, but you end up putting a HUGE burden in the system to do that. That's a waste.
Everything is so politicized right now. I bet if in today's climate a state legislature proposed requiring someone to re-register if they changed their name, (something that's been required for years) most of you and thousands of others would be screeching about how we're trying to deprive disadvantaged groups of the right to vote.
I don't lobby to make it more difficult to vote, and I think voter fraud is virtually non-existent. That said, I have no problem with what Ohio did to clean up its rolls, and I would not object to a state proposing what I outlined earlier, which is to require re-registration before every election. The fact that I think it would be fine, and even wise, to do that doesn't mean that I'm demanding that it happen or that I'll even be disappointed if it didn't.
That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)