New G.O.P. Bid to Limit Voting in Swing States
 

If you can't beat them then do everything you can to make it difficult as possible to vote....

rest of the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/us/new-gop-bid-to-limit-voting-in-swing-states.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

All this is just desparate buying time last ditch moves. If the R's want to remain a viable party they need to start moving toward the center as their natural base is dying off.

Poor people whose precincts just happened to go 100% for Obama in Cleveland and Philly.
And more voted than were residing in several of those areas.

:musicbooh

"It's for the poor!" The thieves battle cry.

Making sure you are who you say you are is such a crime.

You need an ID to get welfare. Use that one.

Hahaha!!!

It's really about MONEY.
 

Not if you are a Corporation (see People v. Citizens United).

The Corporations through their well paid lobbyists, pretty much get whatever they want.

At ANY level of politics, from dog catchers to the Presidency and Congress.

What's the matter with you, doesn't "Maintaining Ideological Purity" mean anything to you???!! :P

Actually the social security card is the one favored by the better off. They get bigger checks, and live longer, and collect by far the larger share of the biggest entitlement pie.

Do you ever check the veracity of any of those forwarded emails you get??

West and North Philly = 94 percent black resident population, SEVEN white residents according to the 2010 census. Only 12 registered Republicans in that division, NONE of whom voted for Romney or answered an inquiry carried out by the Philadelphia Enquirer.
Yeah, there's a CONSPIRACY for ya!:rolleyes:

I find it very sad to watch people oppose measures that attempt to nature the legitimacy of elections.

Moral and ethical people would not oppose such measures.

Saw an unarguably good bumper sticker on a car the other day:


Picture of a dog's sad face next to this inscription:

DOGS AGAINST ROMNEY 2012

The real problem is lack of voter participation.

As soon as you show us a measure which is intended to make elections more legitimate, then we'll talk.

Anyone who doesn't see that these R measures are an attempt to disenfranchise poor D voters is asleep at the wheel.

How about the republican measure to cut early voting in Wisconsin, where they have excellent voter turnout... maybe too good for some people's taste...;)

That is indeed a problem. I've always looked at my right to vote being sort of like I'm being given this very valuable coupon that I can only spend for exercising my freedom to vote. The coupon is no good anywhere else, so why waste it.

At the same time I would like to see people study and learn about the issues and candidates before they vote, but everyone has the right to vote whether they know anything or not. I like to see EVERYONE vote. Even if they all vote opposite to myself. I want to see everyone who is honestly qualified to do so, cast their vote. Our country is nothing without an honest and legitimate election process.

I would like to know more about that. Early voting is one of the few tools we have to encourage people to vote. Taking it away in areas where it is provided is insanity IMHO.

This.

Scott Walker Signs Early Voting Restrictions Making It Harder For Low-Income Voters To Vote | ThinkProgress

Wisconsin's New Law Only Allows Voting While Most People Are Working - The Wire

This is Scott Walker's second swipe at restricting voting access...
GOP Steps Up Attack on Early Voting in Key Swing States | The Nation

Obama vote totals exceeded 97% with a 60% turnout I think it was.....

I'll bet a corporation has to identify itself in all transactions involving the government. Am I wrong?

I've been the victim of a DNC misinformation campaign by high ranking Democrats...........my apologies.

Ditto.

How does excluding people with the right to vote promote the legitimacy of elections?

How does allowing people to vote with no proof of eligibility promote legitimate elections?

Why is it all over sudden a problem?

I didn't know it was sudden.

Its been a problem for a long time, lots of dead people and pets vote...multiple times...

Ok, why does it all over sudden have to be addressed?

Show you a measure? The measure has been all over the news for several years. The legitimacy improvement involves showing positive identification when voting. You don't have to make a lot of money to have personal identification.

If you admit there might be a problem, why would you delay fixing it?

Clearly it doesn't or it would have been.

Nice to see it finally getting some attention.

For a viable, trusted election there must be a balance between security and availability.

I'm all for proper ID and purple finger. Would love to go around with a purple finger like a Christian with lenten ashes. I recognize that's not for everybody.

If you want me and my ilk to have faith in an election then you have to provide me and my ilk with some assurances that only eligible voters, vote.

Why is that a problem?

I dunno.

But some people believe the world is flat, the check is in the mail, and only qualified voters, vote.

Ok, why is that only people on the right side of the political spectrum think it's a problem?

The purple finger works only when voting is mandatory, like in most European countries. Is that what you want?

Damned if i know.

Maybe because they're right?

Just kidding, just kidding.

It was a problem for me before it became popular. I will not disdain popularity from a single source if it serves my aims.

I'm not kidding. The article posted by the OP is about new laws that are beyond voter identification, that they are putting in place. Even that I can see and understand the need for voter ID, those new laws look to me to serve only one objective: they disenfranchise one voter group that would vote most likely democratic. Looks like state organized voter fraud to me.

You could be right, I dunno. I expect if you are right that the people will bash the pendulum swingers in the next election and it will sway the other direction.

It's probably an age thing, but my outrage gauge has a badly worn bourdon tube.

It's why I have wished we had more strict voter ID laws for nearly 50 years, have mentioned it a few times in my monthly advice column to my elected members of Congress, but have yet to lose sleep over it. Apparently my elected members of Congress have been sleeping okay, too.

It doesn't. That is why proof of eligibility has always been required in every jurisdiction, except for a couple of screw ball places that apparently had no voter ID requirement at all. The problem is not with requiring ID. The problem is with ID requirements that have the purpose and/or effect of excluding certain groups of people who are believed to generally vote against Republicans.

That's a solution in search of a problem, IMHO.

Your telepathy organ is to be revered.

Well Said! The key is indeed balance, but it MUST be legitimate.

It doesn't.

I'd like to see fair and reasonable ID rules put into place, and now.... not 2 months before the next election.

If the D's had any sense, they would write their own version of voter ID laws which don't have as many negative consequences to their voter base....

Was voting mandatory in Afghanistan and Iraq? I didn't know that.

BINGO!!!! We have a winner!!!

This has always been puzzling to me. Anyone who believes that our elections are 100% or even 99% legit is not facing reality.

I want them to be as close to 100% as possible. That goal can not be met without proper identification.

67.35% of Internet statistics are 85.91% wrong 93.22% of the time and the rest are invented out of thin air to make a point unsupported by evidence.

I agree with every word.

The evidence, it seems to me, suggests that the new, GOP-style voter ID laws diminish the integrity of elections because for every fraudulent vote these laws prevent, they exclude more than one otherwise eligible voter.

For example: Voter ID | Brennan Center for Justice

Well guess what, Cheez-Whiz, it ain't you who believes the system has a systemic problem and it aint' you who needs convincing.

Instead of criticizing like a eunuch in a harem, why not advance a solution that addresses the paranoid schizophrenics who deludedly believe there might be a problem while not placing an undue burden on qualified voters?

So far, all I've seen is thinly veiled attempts to weaken the other side, nothing that truly attempts to aid in legitimacy.
The dems are showing very poor strategy by not taking up the mantle of voter id in a manner which would not hurt their side as badly as what has been offered up so far.
The idea of voter ID polls well, so one would think they would have someone on it..

Anyone find it interesting that the states covered by section 5 of the Voter's Rights Act have almost all passed new and highly restrictive voting laws?