Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Grey Templar wrote:

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Oklahoma is now requiring ID. We never had a single case of voter fraud at the polls, but now we have it.

Personally I think 50 cases of fraud would be less of a tragedy than even one person being denied to vote.

Poor person who cannot get a day off from work, or the required proof to get one, or a ride, or the money. People. Luke care less.

Soldier doesn't get to vote, get the pitchforks and torches.

Go figure.

How pray tell do soldiers whose state of residence is OK vote?

Soldiers have ID.

Which does them feth all good from Georgia.

I'm afraid I don't understand. I believe a military ID is valid everywhere.

Its a CAC card to be exact. I think its more towards the absentee ballets of soldiers oversea's. Giving them three more days of getting the ballots in before the deadline since getting mail out from countries takes longer.

Grey Templar wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand. I believe a military ID is valid everywhere.

You don't pay taxes or vote in the state you are IN; you do both in the state you are FROM. So if OK has a voter ID requirement; how do soldiers FROM OK but IN another state vote.
It's absentee ballot, it's always been and will always be absentee ballot. It's a rhetorical point that even once voter ID laws are in place there are exceptions. Rural voters largely vote by mail as well.

Ahhh.

I'm sure there is a procedure to verify Absentee votes. Maybe a SS number or using the Military itself as the verification source.

Grey Templar wrote:Ahhh.

I'm sure there is a procedure to verify Absentee votes. Maybe a SS number or using the Military itself as the verification source.

Voter ID laws are pretty much aimed at stopping absentee votes. That's why it's precieved as an attack on Dem voters; the elderly, the poor, and the working class often vote using the absentee ballot.

Easy. APO addresses. Also get the absentee ballot from a disignated NCO or Officer within the unit.

The lawsuit the Obama campaign group going with is

Obama campaign officials said the suit doesn’t attempt to restrict the voting rights of military members. The officials said they filed the suit to try to even the playing field for all Ohio voters by allowing early voting up until Monday for everyone, including members of the military, because they believe a two-tiered, early-voting process is unfair.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/05/axelrod-defends-suit-on-ohio-military-voting-law-calls-romney-stance-hameful/#ixzz22iXKL900

What has me curious now since this went legal and still continue past election. DO the votes still counts

AustonT wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Ahhh.

I'm sure there is a procedure to verify Absentee votes. Maybe a SS number or using the Military itself as the verification source.

Voter ID laws are pretty much aimed at stopping absentee votes. That's why it's precieved as an attack on Dem voters; the elderly, the poor, and the working class often vote using the absentee ballot.

Well I think its silly to use the Absentee system if you are perfectly capable of going to the actual polling place yourself. It's real purpose is to allow service members and travelers to vote. It shouldn't be something you do continiously.

Grey Templar wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Ahhh.

I'm sure there is a procedure to verify Absentee votes. Maybe a SS number or using the Military itself as the verification source.

Voter ID laws are pretty much aimed at stopping absentee votes. That's why it's precieved as an attack on Dem voters; the elderly, the poor, and the working class often vote using the absentee ballot.

Well I think its silly to use the Absentee system if you are perfectly capable of going to the actual polling place yourself. It's real purpose is to allow service members and travelers to vote. It shouldn't be something you do continiously.

Or if you live a significant distance from the polls or have a job, We really need to make polling day a national holiday.

That would be a nice idea. I doubt it would increase voter turn out much, shopping might, but it would at least give people no excuse not to have voted.

youbedead wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Ahhh.

I'm sure there is a procedure to verify Absentee votes. Maybe a SS number or using the Military itself as the verification source.

Voter ID laws are pretty much aimed at stopping absentee votes. That's why it's precieved as an attack on Dem voters; the elderly, the poor, and the working class often vote using the absentee ballot.

Well I think its silly to use the Absentee system if you are perfectly capable of going to the actual polling place yourself. It's real purpose is to allow service members and travelers to vote. It shouldn't be something you do continiously.

Or if you live a significant distance from the polls or have a job, We really need to make polling day a national holiday.

Or if you are elderly, in a nursing home, in the hospital, working a job that takes you far away from home (oil field workers as an example).

So it went from "Obama is attacking the military" to "we want the same rules for everybody". Who would have thought that there was more to the story.

Phanatik wrote:"The National Guard Association of the United States and more than a dozen other fraternal military groups asked a
U.S. judge for permission to intervene in and oppose a lawsuit filed by President Barack Obama’s campaign
challenging the fairness of Ohio’s early voting rules." <snip>

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-ohio-military-voting/2012/08/03/id/447524

And yet, every election cycle it's the kool-aid drinkers on the Left that whine about election suppression because the Right thinks people should show valid i.d. to vote.

Regards,

You and people like you are exactly the reason US politics is so utterly fethed up.

You read something like this and don't think for one second about the problems with political parties being charged with administering the rules of elections, you don't think for one second about Republican efforts to manipulate voting rules that are at least as overtly partisan as the effort above. Instead you just think this is another thing to yell at the left over, so you better post it to dakka straight away.

This unthinking partisan crap is exactly why both parties feel free to shamelessly stuff about with electoral processes.

So just fething stop it.

Grey Templar wrote:
Rediclous, everyone can get ID of some kind. There are plenty of free IDs out there, and those that arn't are very cheap.

The idea that this is a poll tax is silly. Its requiring you to provide something you really should already have.

Well, no, its requiring you to have one if you want to vote, which is placing a financial barrier in between people and the ability to exercise their rights. It isn't a poll tax, but it is a requirement that would place a barrier to voting in front of a group that is already disenfranchised by their economic status.

To draw a parallel, I imagine you aren't overly fond of the idea of needing to pay for a permit to own a handgun.

LordofHats wrote:Electoral college votes roughly correlate to the popular vote. Only in very close races, like the Bush Gore race, do we see the Electoral college declare a winner who is not the popular winner (result of winner takes all).

More to the point, exactly which politician a state's electoral college votes are given to is determined by the popular vote within that state*. Ohio is a swing state, in fact in this upcoming election it is the most likely state to be the tipping point between the two candidates. It could even be argued that one of the major reasons that Romney is an underdog is because he's behind in polling in Ohio, and without Ohio its really hard to figure out how he could win the election.

So yeah, whether soldiers have special rules or have their early voting kept to the same rules as everyone else matter a hell of a lot.



*Though states each determine exactly how they do that... whether its winner takes all, or proportionate or some weirdo variant of that.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Spoiler:

Mel I have no idea what this picture is supposed to mean; should I?

It one of the most ludicrous voting districts created in recent gerrymandering attempts. Afraid that hispanics would vote democrat, the Republican party attempted to gather as much of the hispanic population in one dictrict as they could so as to limit their effect on Texas government.

Its awesome. The prick they jerrymandered is a multiterm prick.

Grey Templar wrote:That would be a nice idea. I doubt it would increase voter turn out much, shopping might, but it would at least give people no excuse not to have voted.

Actually, making election day a national holiday opens up tons of options for GOTV operations. You could, for example, host events that required an "I voted" sticker in order to enter. This type of thing would probably favor Democrats at first, as most GOTV operations are liberal, but the GOP would catch on eventually*.



*And should start catching on anyway.

dogma wrote:I agree, but I also think that its inevitable (and in some cases arguably beneficial, for example denying the franchise to felons), and that so long as we're stopping short of "losing" ballots or outright intimidation it isn't all that horrible. I think that ID requirements and this particular lawsuit both fall well short of being offensive, though I would say that this suit is rather petty and that ID requirements are treated with more gravity than their likely effectiveness (or necessity) deserves.

I agree that in most cases the actions undertaken fall well short of being offensive, particularly in this case where there is a genuine question over whether the military needs special rules for voting due to their particular circumstances. I honestly don't know if they need a special exemption, and think the best way to resolve the issue would be for it to be heard by a court.

The issue, really, is the openly partisan nature of each of the electoral process disputes, and the way in which so many people on both sides meekly accept their side's manipulative position, and even attempt to defend it. That's offensive. Partisan politics has gotten to the point that many people don't even blink to consider if democratic principles should be more important than every little thing it takes to win.

Mail coming in from overseas take longer to arrive to the state polling center. Three day extended period was to cover down on the absentee ballots coming from troops in the middle east. SO all votes can be counted within the state

sebster wrote: Partisan politics has gotten to the point that many people don't even blink to consider if democratic principles should be more important than every little thing it takes to win.

I agree, and I say that as someone who probably would need to find another job if politics were less partisan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Mail coming in from overseas take longer to arrive to the state polling center. Three day extended period was to cover down on the absentee ballots coming from troops in the middle east. SO all votes can be counted within the state

Then mail them earlier, or go off the postmark.

Relapse wrote:I had family in the military when Gore tried to disallow the military votes from overseas, which were 2 to 1 against him. He lost a lot of supporters and pissed off a really good chunk of the military. I'm thinking if Obama doesn't learn from history he might burn himself really well.

That's very much the FOX news version of the story. The dispute was over overseas ballots that were received late and lacked postmarks or any symbol to show they were submitted within the allowed time frame (its entirely possible they were filled out on or after the date of the election, once it became obvious the election was going to be very close). This was in line with processes ordered by the Republican Secretary of State, Kathryn Harris. It is a perfectly reasonable request for a politician to require that only legal votes are accepted.

Now, obviously, the motivation for denying these votes was because they were predominantly Republican, no arguing about that. But the story you give above makes it sound like Gore was attempting to reject all military, instead of just those that came in late, and that lacked any evidence they were cast before the date of the election.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:This is so trivial it's not even worth this thread...
3 days? If they took it away who cares? If they leave it who cares?
It's only 3 days...

Well, I think it's an interesting enough issue, but then I'm a bit of a nerd who likes reading about stuff like this. But as the scathing attack Phanatik pretended it was? Nah, it sure as hell isn't that.

argh

Melissia wrote:Same. Texas and many other states engage in it in a more subtle form via gerrymandering, and I really wish we could get rid of gerrymandering and instead have electorates divided up amongst statistical, non-partisan grounds.

I'm not sure I'd ever use the word 'subtle' in a sentence describing Texas' gerrymandering practices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:If you don't read my stuff, I'll just die!

Actually, I was surprised to read your post. I thought I already had you on ignore.

Ciao babe.

Phanatik's approach to dakka is that he wants to shout at all the filthy lefties, and lots of people he likes to pretend are lefties, but doesn't want to hear any of them respond. This is exactly as productive as you'd assume.

This is going to back fire on Obama. Even hough they want everyone to have the same right in Ohio the military card been played.

Jihadin wrote:This is going to back fire on Obama. Even hough they want everyone to have the same right in Ohio the military card been played.

Is the military vote more important than all the other votes, or is there some other special reason why everybody can't have the same deadline?

Is the military vote more important than all the other votes, or is there some other special reason why everybody can't have the same deadline?

Can a soldier vote on the same day as everybody else in Ohio while in Afghanistan?

d-usa wrote:
Is the military vote more important than all the other votes...

Depends on the election. It was what gave Lincoln a second term...

And I agree that Military votes need more time then regular ones. Why? Because a tin can a klick under the ice might not make it back in time to mail everything.

BaronIveagh wrote:
And I agree that Military votes need more time then regular ones. Why? Because a tin can a klick under the ice might not make it back in time to mail everything.

So? I'm not afforded special privileges if I go backpacking in Mongolia. And that submarine probably isn't going to surface in order to send off absentee ballots.

You'd think with today's tech, we could just vote on the net. Think how many more people would vote if they didn't have to leave the house. And you could still set up polling places with all the booths hooked into the net.

Simple and easy.

You could even allow voting to take place over a week instead of just one day to make sure everyone gets a chance to vote.

If you choose that time to go backpacking in Mongolia.....seriously? Mongolia? It doesn't apply to you because you choose to go. The deployed units does not have the freedom to choose to go.

Backpack in Northern Tahiland its much better


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So? I'm not afforded special privileges if I go backpacking in Mongolia. And that submarine probably isn't going to surface in order to send off absentee ballots.

Mission dictates.

Jihadin wrote:If you choose that time to go backpacking in Mongolia.....seriously? Mongolia? It doesn't apply to you because you choose to go. The deployed units does not have the freedom to choose to go.

Backpack in Northern Tahiland its much better

Who the hell goes to Thailand for the backpacking? (unless it's a backpack full of Thai stick that you have to take from the uplands down to the river and then off to New Guinea)

And, actually, the Flaming Cliffs in outer Mongolia are very nice. Just remember to keep your bribes paid.

Jihadin wrote:
Mission dictates.

Exactly.