Comments on: The partisan politics of election laws http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/21/the-partisan-politics-of-election-laws/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: JL4 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/21/the-partisan-politics-of-election-laws/#comment-70966 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:43:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18173#comment-70966 The system we have now for voting works. Monkeying with voting laws is only a way to diminish some voters’ ability to vote – who usually vote Democrat. It is an attempt to shut out certain blocks of people, and it plays into gerrymandering.

Striking Section 5 would be a colossal mistake because it flings the door wide for abuse by vote-seeking politicians. The Republicans who want these changes so badly now had better think for a minute; what if the Democrats make changes that affect YOU?

Leave Section 5 and voter laws alone. Our system works now, and just because the Republicans don’t like it doesn’t mean it warrants change.

]]>
By: COindependent http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/21/the-partisan-politics-of-election-laws/#comment-70955 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:01:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18173#comment-70955 Vote integrity is neither a GOP or Democratic party issue (spare me the bleeding hearts, please.) It’s the process that demands attention (a) to ensure everyone legally able to vote has the “opportunity” to do so, and (b) that one person has only one vote.

Thus, voter identification is paramount to the process. (Even in war-torn Iraq they were able to hold an election–remember the purple finger?) I am hesitant to embrace the idea that Voter ID laws prevent the “disenfranchised” from voting. The fact that people (like that 94 year old lady that the President identified in his SOTU) are willing to stand in line for hours to vote, but others are not willing to take the time to secure a state ID, literally months in advance of an election, is disingenuous at best.

And the idea that requiring a state issued ID is a constraint is absurd, when I see the so-called “disenfranchised” clearing TSA at the airport, cash a check at a bank, and showing ID in the supermarket to use their debit/credit cards–let alone secure publicly-funded benefits by proving who they are. That’s is a false argument espoused by those (lawyers?) that lack common sense. (Ask any one of them if they would take a check in payment for their services if the person could not prove who they are.)

Where the system gets complicated is where you have states issue ID’s to those not eligible to vote (e.g. drivers licenses in CA)and ballots are forwarded to out-of-state addresses (see New York residents voting in both NY and FL) That complicates a relatively easy verification process. Each ballot should have two unique numbers on it–(1) the ballot ID and (2) the voter ID. All of this can be read/processed using technology–and it virtually eliminates voter duplication without restricting one’s right to vote.

This same process could be used for mail-in ballots, where you have a system that tracks ballots that have been mailed against the voter ID number. Thus, you minimize the opportunity for the “precinct worker” in Ohio who voted more than once. Once her ballot is mailed, she has the responsibility to track it and return it–and she relinquishes her right to vote in the precinct. If she is unable to manage that process, then she has demonstrated that she is incompetent to vote in the first place. And if two ballots with her ID are processed, then both are nullified (period).

]]>
By: pavoter1946 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/21/the-partisan-politics-of-election-laws/#comment-70954 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:58:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18173#comment-70954 If has less to do with who votes as to how the votes are counted. Therein lies the power the politicians desire. Voting needs to be considered an absolute right, just as some consider gun ownership.

Rather then more layers of challenge, there needs to be universal access, and reasonable requirements.

Suppression of the vote is the antithesis of democracy. Yet too often that is the goal, to make sure only the ‘right’ people vote.

But really, without noting the effects of gerrymandering, voting often is an exercise in futility.

]]>
By: borisjimbo http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/21/the-partisan-politics-of-election-laws/#comment-70947 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:22:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18173#comment-70947 As if there were no more racism in America, as if the GOP hasn’t found new ways to skew elections their way.

]]>
By: Angerfist http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/21/the-partisan-politics-of-election-laws/#comment-70943 Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:13:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18173#comment-70943 We need another government agency like a hole in the head. Exactly what discrimination are you talking about? Showing an ID? How is that discriminatory?

What really needs to happen is they need to make it possible to vote online. It can be secure. You can file your tax return online, so there should be no objections whatsoever. I know people who didn’t vote because the lines were too long.

Voter apathy would be reduced if there were less barriers to voting like having to travel to some remote poling place and have to wait in order to vote.

They also need more than 2 political parties. Left, right, blue Democrat vs. Republican is pathetic. Independent does not count. It’s not a contender, there is no organized party.

]]>
By: tmc http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/21/the-partisan-politics-of-election-laws/#comment-70937 Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:42:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18173#comment-70937 yep, more government, more lawsuits, more gridlock. Just more of the same.

]]>
By: Shamizar http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/21/the-partisan-politics-of-election-laws/#comment-70935 Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:03:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18173#comment-70935 Clearly the writers of this article don’t live in the same world as the rest of us. To implement their ill-conceived legislative “fixes” would create an unbelievable nightmare of frivolous litigation. But then, they are lawyers, so maybe that explains their “solution.

]]>