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: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Sounds to me like the GOP is trying to make it so only residents of NH can vote on NH issues and the Dems are trying to block it. The GOP has the right idea here. The Dems are, yet again, trying keep the deck stacked in their favor. Something tells me that if only residents of NH could vote, the state would no longer be a blue state. All the more reason to move there.

/TOA




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


The f'ers are about to see a major revolt, if this 49 year old vet and republican is any valid sample.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


Wow. Republicans trying to take away rights again? This is dumb. Is the Governor saying that because college students vote liberal they shouldn't be voting and are "foolish"? Voter disenfranchisement is all this is.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Janky Red
 


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.


A test just to vote? How about no. Look into the Jim Crow Laws.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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
 



Only there isn't any evidence of widespread voter fraud like this in NH or any other states.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback

Only there isn't any evidence of widespread voter fraud like this in NH or any other states.


How could there be? Even if I truck several hundred people up from Lowell to vote in Nashua then back to Lowell to vote again the results are still in within hours and nobody is going to check up on those same-day registrations.

For all we know there is, very likely is, fraud like this going on in every polling place in the nation. There isnt any real way to stop it or catch it and even if there was nobody is going to nullify the results of election day for a mulligan.

I have no confidence whatsoever that there has been a single fraud free election in my lifetime which to me makes every election in my lifetime null and void.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
The republican's intentions are of course, selfish, and it's all about cutting the competition. However, the democrat's counter is just as selfish. They want to keep one of their main strategies in the peak of the voting process.

Regardless of the intentions on either party, the idea of being able to bounce from place to place to vote where you are not a resident, is not a sound principle. The area that these "squatters" are misrepresenting, are making the true residents disenfranchised.

It's also one of the top methods for corporate fraud, outside of the voting process as well.

It is a bit funny though, because the Repubs are basically working against themselves on this one in the end, it's just that they're so worked up in a frenzy on having a loose foundation for the 2012 elections, that they will undercut even themselves to get a short-gain.
edit on 10-3-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
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.


I could never understand the American reluctance to treat an 18 year old as an adult (well, in most legal ways an 18 year old is an adult, but culturally and socially they most definitely are not). I realize that that my be true in many countries, but the effect is definitely more pronounced in the US.

It's a difficult question as there needs to be a serious change in mentality. It would seem extremely archaic to raise the voting age to 21, but if you were to make all ages of statutory consent 18, you would need to address a serious social deficit in the United States - namely that for some reason, people here just refuse or do not recognise someone in their late teens or over the age of 18 as being capable and responsible.

We need to stop molly-coddling kids in this nation...



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
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.


If you think about it, people (college students) who spend the majority of a year in a town also feel the effects of which political party is incumbent in local government at the time. As someone who is directly effected by the prevailing political process and system, why should you not be able to have an influence on that? I know in the US the argument does not apply as much, but when I used to live in Canada, when you moved provinces, the provincial government which provided your healthcare and unemployment benefits (if you needed them) changed. Why should someone whose life is directly effected by provincial policy not be able to cast their vote to effect that?

As another poster stated, if you work and pay state tax in a college town, why should you not be allowed to vote there?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
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)


Don't forget old people die. Why the hell should they get to decide who is in power when they could die walking out of the polling center. Exactly what America needs is more voter restrictions.


Side note: I noticed the theme in this thread against college students getting to vote seems to be set in the idea that college students only spend a matter of months in any given location. Not too many 4 + year degree holders I am guessing?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Side note: I noticed the theme in this thread against college students getting to vote seems to be set in the idea that college students only spend a matter of months in any given location. Not too many 4 + year degree holders I am guessing?


If you live year round for the duration of your education in that college town or in close proximity to that college town then you are a resident of that college town.

If you spend September-November there, go home for December and January, then return for February through June you arent exactly a resident. Would you ever put down your dorm or campus housing on a form as a "permanent address" or just as your mailing address?

Move there, live there, work there, vote there. Otherwise why dont we all just get PO Boxes anywhere we want and vote anywhere we want? A vote already doenst mean squat anyway so who cares?
edit on 10-3-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


If I spent 10 months out of the year there, why would I not vote there?
You should vote in the place you get your mail, even if you are only there 2 months a year?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


So Ill stay here in NH, get a PO Box in Jersey and vote in Jersey. You dont see anything wrong with that?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


So Ill stay here in NH, get a PO Box in Jersey and vote in Jersey. You dont see anything wrong with that?


Yes, actually I do. The part where you STAY in NH. That would be entirely antithetical to anything I said and in no way makes an argument against it. I specifically said you should get to vote where YOU ARE most of the year, regardless of where you get your mail. I am not sure what you read.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


ETA:

HAHA Nevermind I misread.


Anyway, yes, you may be spending time at your school but you dont live there. You dont have any stake in how that areas is run. Any changes that you may be voting for or against wouldnt affect that area for years anyway.

Personally, while in school living back and forth with no real home you are transient and really shouldnt be voting in anything but federal elections. At least I didnt. I made a conscious decision that I wasnt from that area I went to school in and had no business pretending to know the place the people or their issues. It would have been self-righteous and presumptive of me to even attempt to vote there among those people. If anything I still had a stake and an understanding of the place where I grew up and could have justified voting there but I still didnt because I didnt know where I was going to end up, I even lived there and worked there year round for 6 years but I knew I was leaving that city and that state eventually and had no business interfering with it.
edit on 10-3-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


If you live, pay taxes and then get to vote in your college town that's fine. If you then file for an absentee ballot for your home state as well then that is when a problem arises. That is happening in this country and it isn't just college students either. This was first done in the 60's and worked very well on college compasses. It has continued and no one has ever been prosecuted for it. Go to some college hangouts immediately before and on the night of an election and listen to the conversations. "Snow Birds" have done this for years in both local and Federal elections!
The only way to get anywhere near a fair election anymore is what some states have resorted to and that's Voter ID's! They then should be correlated to what your home state is according to IRS records. That would be a hurdle for the federal government to vote on! Otherwise all elections are suspect!

Zindo
edit on 3/10/2011 by ZindoDoone because: spelling



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


A truck carrying hundreds of people would be noticed. You want to make a law for something that isn't happening.You can't just have a hunch and react. A theme in this country is innocent until proven guilty.

As stated earlier by others, spending 10 months out of the year in a town is more than enough time to be a resident. Aren't absentee ballots one of the first things thrown out in recounts?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Throwback
 


What about a bunch of people jumping on greyhound buses and trains? If I would have known there was this kind of BS loophole in voting, I woulda voted RP in like 5 different states lmao.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


ETA:

HAHA Nevermind I misread.


Anyway, yes, you may be spending time at your school but you dont live there.


How do you figure I do not live in a place that I spend the vast majority of 4 years? Where would I be living?

You dont have any stake in how that areas is run. Any changes that you may be voting for or against wouldnt affect that area for years anyway.

How many years? 4? 6? 8? Are we targetting just 2 year schools with this?



Personally, while in school living back and forth with no real home you are transient and really shouldnt be voting in anything but federal elections.

Perhaps your college years were spent on the run but that was not only not the case for me, it was not the case for really anyone that I went to school with. It was simply not affordable or feasable to constantly fly back to a home that I no longer lived in.

At least I didnt. I made a conscious decision that I wasnt from that area I went to school in and had no business pretending to know the place the people or their issues.

So that should apply to everyone? What about me? For 6 years, I spent more than 10 months out of the year where I went to school. I worked there. I paid income tax there. I paid sales tax there. I paid rent there. Does my personal experience not count as much as yours does? There are people that go to the same school for more than 6 years even. Do they count? Who's college experience defines THE college experience?

It would have been self-righteous and presumptive of me to even attempt to vote there among those people. If anything I still had a stake and an understanding of the place where I grew up and could have justified voting there but I still didnt because I didnt know where I was going to end up, I even lived there and worked there year round for 6 years but I knew I was leaving that city and that state eventually and had no business interfering with it.
edit on 10-3-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

That sounds great for you. Some of us never go back to the podunk town we went to college to escape from in the first place. Personal annecdotes hardly make the argument that voting rights across the board should be demolished.

Again, old people die all the time. Why should they ever get to vote for anything, right?
edit on 10-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


If you live, pay taxes and then get to vote in your college town that's fine. If you then file for an absentee ballot for your home state as well then that is when a problem arises. That is happening in this country and it isn't just college students either. This was first done in the 60's and worked very well on college compasses. It has continued and no one has ever been prosecuted for it. Go to some college hangouts immediately before and on the night of an election and listen to the conversations. "Snow Birds" have done this for years in both local and Federal elections!
The only way to get anywhere near a fair election anymore is what some states have resorted to and that's Voter ID's! They then should be correlated to what your home state is according to IRS records. That would be a hurdle for the federal government to vote on! Otherwise all elections are suspect!


Sorry, I was actually addressing the actual proposals being discussed in this thread. Fine tuning some things in order to prevent legitimate issues sounds like a wonderful discussion to have but what has been suggested here is the vast denial of voting rights in the hopes that it may somehow fix some issues as a side effect. I cannot get behind that kind of broad denial of voting rights on such flimsy grounds as personal annecdotes.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join