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.

 

New Hampshire GOP vs. Voting Rights of College Students

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Article


If some GOP lawmakers get their way, it could be a whole lot tougher for people across the country to cast a ballot in the upcoming 2012 presidential election.



Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, GOP lawmakers are proposing new limits on college students who vote in the state, potentially eliminating a key base of electoral support for Democrats in the state ahead of the upcoming presidential election.



In New Hampshire, Republicans are pushing to end rules that allow same-day voter registration in the state, which has often provided key swing votes for candidates from all parties in the state. State GOP lawmakers are also proposing new limits on students, including a bill that would allow them to vote in college towns only if they or their parents had established permanent residency in the state.


Sounds like somebody dosent want to get voted out in 2012.


In a recent speech to a tea party group in the state, House Speaker William O'Brien described college voters as "foolish." "Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he said, in remarks that were videotaped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students, he said, lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings."


Vote their "feelings"???? Isnt that what your supposed to do when you vote? Vote for who you think should win???? Did I miss something here?


"It's a war on voting," Thomas Bates, vice president of Rock the Vote, a youth voter-registration group, told the Post. "We'd like to be advocating for a 21st-century voting system, but here we are fighting against efforts to turn it back to the 19th century."


There are other states that are doing stuff, such as requiring showing a state id when at the voting booth, and I dont really see a problem with that. But this New Hampshire stuff really is on my nerves. To me it seems that they dont want a group of young and educated citizens voting......hmmmmmm I wonder why that is????

Dosent it seem that we are going back into the 19th century?




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Heres another article that has peoples opinions in it. Article


The GOP's war on students is anti-democratic: It might seem merely "ridiculous" for "Republicans to try to stop those who 'vote their feelings'" from casting ballots, says Steve Benen in Washington Monthly. But this naked attempt to "stack the voting deck" in their favor is also a "dangerous" assault on democracy. "If the GOP is so panicky about losing elections, they should field better candidates and adopt a more sensible policy agenda," not plot to disenfranchise college students.



Targeting students is nothing new: The "arguments against student voting" have been around for decades, says Susan Milligan in U.S. News & World Report. And they're still bunk. If students spend at least three-quarters of the year living, often working, and even paying taxes in their college town, they deserve the right to vote there. And that "lack of life experience" complaint? Funny you don't hear it when the GOP wants to send 18-year-olds off to war.


There are another 2 opinions on this article, 1 that sides with the GOP and another that attacks elderly voters.

The one that supports the GOP anti-college voting stuff says it is a way to "lower voter fraud"



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who first said this: If you are not liberal when you are young, you have no heart; if you are not conservative when you are older, you have no brain.

I am against anything that interferes with the right to vote as you see fit, no matter what.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I always hated the fact that a transient population could swarm on a state like locusts, elect representatives for that state, then move onto the next state.

Transients have no stake in the state they temporarily occupy. They shouldnt be allowed to vote in that state as residents unless they truly are residents. Let them cast an absentee ballot for their real state of residence.

Spend 8 months in a place and get to decide who runs the place for 2 or 4 or 6 years? That makes sense.
edit on 8-3-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   


Oh god,

the freedom crowd

Just like Poll taxes, Means testing, Poll testing, same $hiz different day...

It is like the worst manipulation a lawyers mind can conceive and justify -

Locusts


Nazi's



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


If that is the feeling, then raise the voting age to 21!

If someone isn't mature enough to drink, then maybe they shouldn't be helping to decide the future of the country?

I think all "ages of consent" should be equal. Either you are mature enough to vote, drink, drive, and serve in the military, or you are not mature enough. Why do we have so many different ages for different activities?

I don't think "same day registration" is the problem, but I do think perhaps 18 year olds don't have fully developed political opinions and are too impressionable.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by buni11687
 


If that is the feeling, then raise the voting age to 21!

If someone isn't mature enough to drink, then maybe they shouldn't be helping to decide the future of the country?

I think all "ages of consent" should be equal. Either you are mature enough to vote, drink, drive, and serve in the military, or you are not mature enough. Why do we have so many different ages for different activities?

I don't think "same day registration" is the problem, but I do think perhaps 18 year olds don't have fully developed political opinions and are too impressionable.


Well as it is 18 year olds can got and get their legs blown off for the whims of these politicians, I should think they have a right to unseat chicken hawks...

Maybe we Should take away the old people vote due to potential senility
edit on 8-3-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Good point! If they can participate in the wars drummed up by politicians, then they should at least have the right to vote on those politicians. And I agree about the senility thing, You should have lived in Florida in 2000! Everyone wanted to ban the senile old voters after that fiasco!

So, maybe we raise the age of military service and voting to 21? Or do we lower the age to drink to 18?

And, do we need some type of basic skills test before issuing a voter registration? I have always been a fan of retesting drivers every 6-9 years before allowing them to renew their driver's licenses. This would eliminate a lot of the threat of old folks on the roads, and keep everyone in-tuned to new traffic laws. Kind of a CE requirement like most other licenses have.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by buni11687
 


If that is the feeling, then raise the voting age to 21!

If someone isn't mature enough to drink, then maybe they shouldn't be helping to decide the future of the country?

I think all "ages of consent" should be equal. Either you are mature enough to vote, drink, drive, and serve in the military, or you are not mature enough. Why do we have so many different ages for different activities?

I don't think "same day registration" is the problem, but I do think perhaps 18 year olds don't have fully developed political opinions and are too impressionable.


Psh... Typical ageist. I scoff at your putrid remark with the utmost disrespect.


I've been "mature enough" to drink since I was 16, which, though I am from America, is the legal drinking age in Germany, 14 when with parents, for wine, beer, and cider.
I also had more "fully developed" political opinions than both my parents/every other legal adult in my life.

If I could see your feet, I would spit upon the ground on which you stand.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
With this and the attack on unions in the Midwest, it appears that the GOP is kicking into high gear for the 2012 campaign season! Of course, GOPPERS will tell you that Democrats do the same sort of thing - and will probably be correct to some extent or other. However, they are willing to look beyond their own party's corruption because everybody does it (so it must be OK, right?)

I can see this thread serving as an omen to the next two years of campaigning, as it becomes increasingly apparent that both sides of the Aisle are trying their very hardest to prevent the other side form voting. Of course, the GOP is *always* better at this kind of thuggery because their policies, the corporatist policies, and the anti-crime policies all sync up so nicely. I wouldn't be surprised if a Republican really does steal the next election, and everybody realizes it!



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PinkAndBlack
 


Maybe you should have read a little closer. I said either / or. Either raise all the ages to 21 or lower all the ages to 18. I've been drinking since about 15 too, and I am 37 now, not an alcoholic and not the first DUI.

My beef is just with the subjective ages for different things. In some states you can get married at 16, but you can't send a naked picture of yourself to your boyfriend until 18, at which time you can also vote in a president or die for your country, but you can't drink for 3 more years? I don't care what age they set, they just need to be consistent!



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


..So .. why should college students be allowed to vote for City and State ballots if they are not a resident of said state?

And out of state students are a very small minority of college students. Sounds to me like Dems are just worried about loosing a few of their brainwashed drones who normally cast a vote for them.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Reply to post by Rockpuck
 


No kidding.

I agree with an established residency to vote.

It makes sense.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by buni11687
 


..So .. why should college students be allowed to vote for City and State ballots if they are not a resident of said state?

And out of state students are a very small minority of college students. Sounds to me like Dems are just worried about loosing a few of their brainwashed drones who normally cast a vote for them.


Sounds to me like the GOP is trying to cut out their competition because they are afraid their ideas can not win on merit alone... If an SOB is sleeping in the state most every night, not just passing through, I reckon they are a resident

how lawyer is this idea going to get?
edit on 8-3-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I thought there were already residency laws in place to vote for local elections, or does it vary state to state?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Reply to post by TKDRL
 


NH has no durational residency requirement.

I could load a bus with massholes and send them up to NH and have they vote for Kerry as NH residents the same day then drive them home to MA to vote again.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I agree, that's exactly why the GOP is doing it.

But it doesn't change the fact that a non-resident of a state should have no right to vote in that state.
I don't agree with lowering or raising the voting age (it should be 18 and remain there) or changing same-day registration .. but I simply don't see logically why an out-of-state college student should be allowed to vote on local issues. Federal, no problem, and absentee for their home cities/states .. why not? But not local for where they attend school --- unless they establish residency.

Dems are trying to protect their investment in college students.
GOP is trying to cut the competition.

I'm just trying to cut through the BS.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Thats how I think of this issue to. If somebody spends every day and night living in a certain state, I personally would consider them a resident. If they spend a few years going to school in a different state, shouldnt they be able to have a voice? I believe yes, but thats just the way I think.

Edit - An opinion in the 2nd link I posted kind of sums it up for me.


If students spend at least three-quarters of the year living, often working, and even paying taxes in their college town, they deserve the right to vote there.



edit on 8-3-2011 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2011 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Well if that is true, then I don't see why either side of the isle wouldn't want a safeguard put in place to stop it.... It is crazy if people from neighboring states can just go and vote there.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Have you stopped to think that such a measure would benefit Republicans more than Demcorats?

If Massachusetts sends college students to Vermont and those students vote Democrat in Vermont, then Democrat Party loses a few Democratic voters in Massachusetts, thus allowing Republicans a bit of "wiggle room" to try and top the Democrats?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join