Guess in which states election laws are tightening?

If you said red states, you win a pocket Constitution!

I wonder why Republican-controlled Legislatures are doing everything they can to make it difficult to vote? Shouldn't it be easier to vote in Florida than Iraq?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vote-florida-20111031,0,1962738.story

 

Where do I collect my prize?

Why people would be surprised by this, is anyone's guess.

 

Two honest thoughts:

1. Voting is a right. Everyone who is a citizen should be able to vote. If you are a citizen, you should be able to prove it.

2. Yes, this still sucks. But does it suck any worse for people in Democrat controlled states that vote Republican in presidential elections, but that vote doesn't count because Democrat legislatures say majority vote gets all the electoral college votes?

 

In the summer, Colbert suggested that only Republican lawmakers be allowed to vote thus guaranteeing "only the right people" vote.

 

This is officially the stupidest post in SJ history. Congratulations.

You are aware that with two exceptions, that is the way it is in every single state, right?

You are also aware that the adjectival form of Democrat is Democratic, correct?

 

hmmm, ask an honest question, but just an attack. Interesting.

 

OK, then does it suck any worse for people in Republican-controlled states who vote for Democrats but that vote "doesn't count"? Or are you somehow not as concerned about them?

(Incidentally, I'm puzzled by your logic that a vote "doesn't count" if the guy you voted for doesn't win.)

As to your first question, exactly what document do you carry that proves you're a citizen? (And a driver's license is a wrong answer.)

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/17/140539204/do-new-voting-laws-suppress-fraud-or-democrats

In Kansas, in the last 13 years, there have been seven people convicted of voter fraud.
Basically, these laws are adressing a problem that doesn't exist, unless, of course, the problem is Democrats winning elections.

 

Ok, first quit assuming I am a Republican and trying to make straw man assertions.

Yes, i think it does suck that people can vote for president and essentially not be counted because of electoral ballots in their states go to one person instead of based on district or even the simple "most votes wins rules." And I do understand why the electoral college was started so I am not calling for getting rid of it.

And fare enough on proving citizenship with a DL, which is what I was getting at. However, shouldn't people be able to prove who they say they are? I think that is a fair question. Is their proof of widespread voter manipulation? No, but it is a talking point.

However, is their proof of widespread disenfranchisement? Remains to be seen, but I will add this anecdote. On the week, the state I live in voted on strengthening these kinds of laws, the state Democratic Party chairman made a big fuss about millions of people losing the right to vote because they did not have photo proof. Front page of every major paper in the state that morning. That afternoon I get an e-mail (along with thousands of other people I assuming) practically begging for people to come forward with disenfranchisement stories. About two weeks later, I got a similar email asking for stories, but this time for "thousands" of people affected.

 

No, people should NOT have to prove they are who they say they are. That's a FUNDAMENTAL principle of a free society, that the person or entity making an accusation has to prove that it's true, rather than the accused proving that it's not.

Fundamental.

 

Why do i have to prove who I am to board an airplane or open a bank account?

I mean it's none of American Airline's or First National Bank of Hooterville's fucking business, right?

 

The lack of convictions is a poor way of identifying the potential problem.

It's not an easy crime to catch or convict.

It's like saying the absence of prostitution convictions proves it's not happening.

You also used a very red state. Fraud is much more likely to happen in tightly contested elections.

I don't know how big the problem is, but both John Fund of the Wall Street Journal and Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia have addressed it in books.

Obviously preventing it needs to be the focus, since it's hard to prove and even if you can prove it, an election may had already been wrongly decided.