It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wisconsin county clerk objects to weekend voting because it gives urban areas ‘too much access’

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
www.rawstory.com...





A Wisconsin county clerk testified in federal court this week that weekend voting should be eliminated because it gave urban areas “too much access” to the polls.


What would be the problem with urban Americans having access to the polls. I think we all know don't we.




Novack argued that the state should end weekend voting because it gave an unfair advantage to large urban areas, where minorities are more likely to support Democrats.



In a democracy...how can there be "too much access" to exercising your civic duty to vote?




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I should be surprised, bu sadly am not, that a County Clerk said something like that. I wonder if she has a relative named Kim.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Disgusting.

Too many people in urban areas might exercise their rights?

smh



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
This isn't what people are making it out to be.

The issue is that outside of the cities the offices aren't open for small town folks to vote on weekends.

In fairness to voters statewide, weekend voting needs to be available to all or none.



“If there’s an office open 30 days versus an office that’s only open 10 work days, there are obviously voters that have a lot more access than someone else,” Novack insisted. “There has to come a point where it’s just giving over-access … to particular parts of the state.”


Just another example of the new paradigm, anything you don't like must be racism.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
This isn't what people are making it out to be.

The issue is that outside of the cities the offices aren't open for small town folks to vote on weekends.

In fairness to voters statewide, weekend voting needs to be available to all or none.



“If there’s an office open 30 days versus an office that’s only open 10 work days, there are obviously voters that have a lot more access than someone else,” Novack insisted. “There has to come a point where it’s just giving over-access … to particular parts of the state.”


Just another example of the new paradigm, anything you don't like must be racism.


I agree that access should be equal, but based on population, more locations and hours are probably appropriate where more people are.

For example, there may be more DMV offices in areas with a higher population to reduce wait time and make sure everyone can at least reach a window after waiting hours.
edit on 26-5-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Your point is moot.

If you need to use the services of the BMV you can go to any office.

If I live in Podunk, I have to vote in Podunk. I don't have the option to go vote in the city because the hours are better.

Weekend voting just for some is just another political trick to garner more votes for a certain side.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Absurd...most people work, drop kids off at school and are too tired to go to the polls after work...this is a great idea to have them open on weekends...new is usually slow on the weekends anyway so their is money to be made on that end by airing poll results..



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
We can't have brown people voting my (non-existent) God, think about the children, what about the children!



In fairness to voters statewide, weekend voting needs to be available to all or none.


THAT I agree with.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I wonder how the rural voters would react if smalltown voting was curtailed for some BS reason like the lines are short and there's plenty of early voting access anyway?



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

A lack of weekend voting also means a lack of access for non-retired people with jobs. I live in IL - if it wasn't for early voting available on weekends, I would not be able to vote. Restricting voting to working/commuting hours is an excellent way to exclude the working citizens from voting. Seems to me that's kind of the goal in places where voting is restricted. Even if they have mail-in ballots, people are simply going to be more likely to vote if they can go to a polling place at a time/day which works with their schedules.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: reldra

Your point is moot.

If you need to use the services of the BMV you can go to any office.

If I live in Podunk, I have to vote in Podunk. I don't have the option to go vote in the city because the hours are better.

Weekend voting just for some is just another political trick to garner more votes for a certain side.


Your point is moot.

The argument likely stems from fiscal concerns as the justification point in voter access inequities they like to lean to for the record, the cost of having proper access for poorer urban areas for those "who don't pay their fair share" and then have the gut to say the longer line means that ACCESS is "higher" its tongue in cheek for being hateful to high population, poor areas. The kneejerk probably comes from the deeply ingrained SYSTEMIC disparities that have long since solidified in the minds of the "white America" side of SEGREGATED AMERICA as to WHY "those city dwellers" are in the fix they're in, because of ALLEGED incompetence and purported BAD CHOICES they've made all life to put them there. So that if you argue along the line of FISCAL purposes is a good way to hide your intent.

And to use that circular logic as to why the difference in ACCESS might not be discrimination in order to DISCRIMINATE is something that's been going on for DECADES since the supposed end of racial inequities. Where history has SELECTIVE MEMORY over FHA housing loans, the Oregon Land Donation Act, Robert Moses Eminent Domain Purposely plowing through neighborhoods of color and designing quality of life access bridges of Parkways on Long Island to be low ceilings to disallow city dwellers to take BUS transit to share public recreational space with "desirables".

That city should fund a PER CAPITA study of voter access, and stop intimating that the city is just a splurge of overbreeding welfare queens with nothing better to do than wait on line because of their accumulated "bad choices".

edit on 2016 by BlubberyConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlubberyConspiracy

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: reldra

Your point is moot.

If you need to use the services of the BMV you can go to any office.

If I live in Podunk, I have to vote in Podunk. I don't have the option to go vote in the city because the hours are better.

Weekend voting just for some is just another political trick to garner more votes for a certain side.


Your point is moot.

The argument likely stems from fiscal concerns as the justification point in voter access inequities they like to lean to for the record, the cost of having proper access for poorer urban areas for those "who don't pay their fair share" and then have the gut to say the longer line means that ACCESS is "higher" its tongue in cheek for being hateful to high population, poor areas. The kneejerk probably comes from the deeply ingrained SYSTEMIC disparities that have long since solidified in the minds of the "white America" side of SEGREGATED AMERICA as to WHY "those city dwellers" are in the fix they're in, because of ALLEGED incompetence and purported BAD CHOICES they've made all life to put them there. So that if you argue along the line of FISCAL purposes is a good way to hide your intent.

And to use that circular logic as to why the difference in ACCESS might not be discrimination in order to DISCRIMINATE is something that's been going on for DECADES since the supposed end of racial inequities. Where history has SELECTIVE MEMORY over FHA housing loans, the Oregon Land Donation Act, Robert Moses Eminent Domain Purposely plowing through neighborhoods of color and designing quality of life access bridges of Parkways on Long Island to be low ceilings to disallow city dwellers to take BUS transit to share public recreational space with "desirables".

That city should fund a PER CAPITA study of voter access, and stop intimating that the city is just a splurge of overbreeding welfare queens with nothing better to do than wait on line because of their accumulated "bad choices".


3 big paragraphs, and lots of city folk big words sure were perty, gosh good thing the have nots have you looking out for them.

The ONLY thing I learned from your over-written tirade is, in your view, REVERSE discrimination is just fine.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DorianSoran

I don't believe in rights, I believe in privileges and to strive for due access to such as a policy.

And I certainly don't see discrimination as a solution to discrimination.

Your reply was rather short and I feel like you read nothing, could you quell that feeling for me a bit and expand on what you actually mean?

Did you not see the concern raised in the article as the original problem? What was your issue with?

What is your proposed solution?

What I get from your sound is that you don't think voter access should be maximized proportionally. Almost like the founders debacle over the Senatorial Representation and the population basis House representation. I myself don't believe too strongly in democracy as a totalitarian stand alone system, it's two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, but one whose placement is duly put in most any functional system. Because without a functional ear, the system becomes irrelevant to its captives. But yet, I hear from your tone that you somehow feel that a certain number of voters from a particular district is more than enough rather than getting everyone's input into the democratic component of our nation's system.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you feel that the quality of your voter is higher?

Or are you suggesting that any increase in voter access should be made system wide? If so, I agree, however, our fiscal system which today's style of privileged currently ride on, is one that runs on INEQUITIES and seems to have been designed to function that way with no exit plan, but continual demonization of those who hold it up or become disenfranchised from it.
edit on 2016 by BlubberyConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Are you saying that people who live in urban areas should have MORE access than people that live in rural areas? That is what this clerk is complaining about.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra
If a national holiday was given
specifically so people could vote during big elections,
the USA would swing left...like WAY left.

And I should clarify I'm no leftie.
nor righty


edit on 26-5-2016 by UnderKingsPeak because: USA

edit on 26-5-2016 by UnderKingsPeak because: not a comrade

edit on 26-5-2016 by UnderKingsPeak because: not a fascist



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
a reply to: reldra
If a national holiday was given
specifically so people could vote during big elections,
the USA would swing left...like WAY left.

And I should clarify I'm no leftie.
nor righty



I think you misspelled RIGHT. Lots of conservatives don't even vote because they are busy working. If voting day was a national holiday more conservatives would vote.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: abe froman
This isn't what people are making it out to be.

The issue is that outside of the cities the offices aren't open for small town folks to vote on weekends.

In fairness to voters statewide, weekend voting needs to be available to all or none.



“If there’s an office open 30 days versus an office that’s only open 10 work days, there are obviously voters that have a lot more access than someone else,” Novack insisted. “There has to come a point where it’s just giving over-access … to particular parts of the state.”


Just another example of the new paradigm, anything you don't like must be racism.


I agree that access should be equal, but based on population, more locations and hours are probably appropriate where more people are.

For example, there may be more DMV offices in areas with a higher population to reduce wait time and make sure everyone can at least reach a window after waiting hours.

Correct! Here's a basic example to get the point across. The previous city I lived in has a population of more than 1 million people. The current county I live in has roughly 70,000 people. Anyone with even a passing interest in logistics can see it will take far more time to get 1,000,000 people to vote than 70,000 people. Hence, the increased amount of days & polling stations.

Not to mention, the article's a little deceptive with the way it worded the amount of available voting days. It compares 30 days to 10 work days, which are completely different measures of time. "Work days" might include only Mon-Friday, meaning there are still 14 days/2 weeks available to vote in the smaller areas. And some places, like my current city, don't make their services available all 5 days of a traditional work week. As in, some government offices are closed on Thursdays or Wednesdays. So those "10 work days" might actually stretch out over an even longer period of time (note: too bored to check any further lol).

a reply to: abe froman

If you really feel like that, why not simply increase the amount of voting days for the smaller areas? Why cut the areas with much higher concentrations of people? We could probably use a simple equation of 1 voting day per X amount of citizens per x amount of polling stations to see how long each district "needs" for elections (note: I think they already do something like this, hence why higher population areas have more polling stations and may have more available voting days).
edit on 26-5-2016 by enlightenedservant because: clarified some stuff



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12




A Wisconsin county clerk testified in federal court this week that weekend voting should be eliminated because it gave urban areas “too much access” to the polls.


Wow, it's so bad it's almost funny. What an ass.

Voting shouldn't be such a pain in the ass, people working 9-5 and retail can't just always go and vote.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I understand the reasoning behind this fully. I see it first hand. Like another poster said, either EVERYONE gets weekend voting, or NONE.

You see, my state is much like California, wherein TWO cities in the state have more votes than the rest of the state combined. They basically undermine the rural votes.

Now, why should they get more and longer access to vote than we do when they already over-represent our state?

Hell, on college football gameday, the stadium becomes the 3rd largest population in our state, and most of them are rural travelers, that are never fully represented in government.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join