Last-Minute Ohio Directive Could Trash Legal Votes And Swing The Election

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
The only reason the GOP is pushing ID's is they know they are an endangered species. Conservatism at least the bastard child it has become is losing. Unfortunately they are so deluded about what is happening to their party they cannot possibly fathom that there are just more people that do not agree with them. But then again what do expect from the religious right?




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
The only reason the GOP is pushing ID's is they know they are an endangered species. Conservatism at least the bastard child it has become is losing. Unfortunately they are so deluded about what is happening to their party they cannot possibly fathom that there are just more people that do not agree with them. But then again what do expect from the religious right?


Looking at it logically, I'm curious to understand how one might be opposed to Identification at one's polling place when one is conditioned to understand he or she will be required to present Identification: at an airport to travel, when purchasing an Amtrak ticket, to cash a check at a bank or check cashing store, to open a bank account, to purchase alcohol at a store or at a bar/club, and a plethora of other examples.

If eligible voters are provided the proper amount of time and the necessary resources, why would such a requirement be unjust?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NickDC202
 

Well to start off all of those are voluntary activities. The right to vote is not a voluntary activity is it a natural right. Sorry if that explanation is just too simplistic for you to understand. And while not necessarily opposed to some kind of ID being presented (come Tuesday i will be presenting my bank statement as ID just to piss the Tea party watchers off). If you want to require ID you have to make acquiring it free along with acquiring the supporting documents and have a reasonable period of time in which it goes into effect. What has been done in the lead up for this election was to keep the scary black man out of office.

It is glaringly clear protecting the vote is not the goal of the myriad laws that were passed post 2010. The goal is restricting the vote, look at the 3 hour lines in Ohio and the 7 hour lines in Florida going on, if you need proof of that. There is no legitimate reason to reduce early voting there are many reasons to expand it.
edit on 4-11-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by NickDC202
 

If you want to require ID you have to make acquiring it free along with acquiring the supporting documents and have a reasonable period of time in which it goes into effect.
edit on 4-11-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)


I absolutely agree with this point and, as noted in my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com... I outline a plan that I feel allows for everyone to benefit and State agencies and political parties to innovate.

Thoughts?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx

The right to vote is not a voluntary activity is it a natural right.

The question is: is it a natural right to vote more than once, or in a foreign country?

If the answer to either of those is "no", then it follows that some sort of voter identification system is required.

I will agree with free IDs and with proper time to obtain... but I have a serious problem with the concept that verifying identity is antithetical to a free and fair election. Reason and logic dictates such is necessary to a free and fair election.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Really? Look i will make it simple for you because clearly you are simple. The only people claiming that people are voting more than once are whack job conservatives that are so sure they are right, that cannot understand how anyone could disagree with them. Apparently there must be a crazy amount of people that not only want to but enjoy standing in lines that are 3+ hours long as is the case in Ohio and Florida just this weekend.

Contrary to popular belief people are not voting and then getting back in line in any kind of numbers that will change the outcome of any election. Let alone the risk if they were to get caught. If you vote absentee or early it is already marked in the rolls that poll workers are given the morning of election day. Adolf Hitler may very well be registered to vote in Ohio, I can assure you he will not actually show up to vote. And I will tell you right now if one of you stark raving Tea Party folks bother me on election day you will be getting a 5" heel in your eye.


I could even buy the protecting the vote argument, had it not been accompanied by every conceivable way to shrink the electorate. The fact is the larger the turnout the less likely it is for GOP win. Kind of funny how it is States taken over by the GOP are the ones all of a sudden interested in "protecting" the vote. They know from the top of their party down to the uneducated toothless members that they convince to vote against their own economic interests their party is running out of angry white men.
edit on 4-11-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx

Since you insinuated that it is completely possible for someone to vote multiple times and yet you are unconcerned, I will therefore take that as an answer that you do support voting multiple times and/or voting in countries where one is not a citizen. Very well; you are welcome to your opinion. Mine simply differs.

I should point out that
  • I am not a Tea Party supporter.
  • I am not a Republican.
  • I will not cast a ballot for either Obama or Romney come Tuesday.
  • I have no intention of impeding your right to vote once in the country where you have citizenship.
  • Irrational anger at perceived threats is not a healthy lifestyle.

As for the long lines... this confuses me. My state manages to vote on one day without ridiculously long lines. This in itself indicates to me that perhaps there are more votes being cast than the rolls indicate there are voters in each district?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 

Under the U.S. Constitution and how our nation was founded, voting is absolutely *NOT* a natural right. It never has been. The 'right' to vote has been a developed and gradually expanded privilege over time. It's still a privilege, as more than one thing can have that taken from you without due process in it's own right. If you are convicted of a felony, for instance...the right to vote goes away with everything else. It's not considered double punishment on the same crime because it's not considered something requiring due process to take from you.

Additionally, when our nation started, the 'right' to vote was anything but universal. It was never a right. Some may think by the history of modern culture, it was racially set. That is also wrong. In the start, Land Ownership was among the requirements to vote and it was the biggie. The logic of that era of time was that those without a direct stake in the effect of laws and leadership should have nothing to do with determining it.

Over time and process of legislation, voting had evolved into what amounts to a right, and that's true enough. Though, for the reason cited first above and others, "right" is still the wrong word, even today.

....in terms of Rights, what would that have to do with ID anyway? I DO have the absolute right to due process and a fair hearing in a court of law. In the exercise of that right I *WILL* be demanded to prove my identity several times. Starting at the courthouse door just to enter the building (in some locations) and absolutely upon entering the Courtroom, should anyone deem that step necessary. I won't be given a choice. This isn't opinion, it's relating what is done in an American Courtroom....and that is exercising black/white rights as written in the Big Document itself.

Nothing personal on this...but it's a HUGE pet peeve of mine these days that everything people want, think they need or just really desire...is now a RIGHT. Well, no. They aren't rights.

There are rights granted us by our Creator, so the paper says...and that Document outlines those rights. Individually. Specifically. If the right isn't in there? It DOES NOT EXIST AS A RIGHT. Period. Full Stop....and there isn't an asterix in the Constitution for footnote references.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well I can't help it you live in a Republican police state where you can't even go to court without an ID. The fact is here in Ohio this is not true. So we will just mark your little Hitler's utopia in places to to not visit. Second I am sorry but which is it do you have God given rights or not? You have me confused because first you say you do, and then you turn around and say that if it isn't enumerated in a list created by men 200 years ago you do not. Let us never mind the fact that few of these men were themselves of questionable morality to begin with. The right to vote is in fact a natural God given right because it is the right to self determination it is a part of your self awareness. But that is enough for now I kind of like you sometimes, but really I already know Id be better off talking to a Neanderthal.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 

We have a core difference in approach. I'm reading the Constitution for what it says. You're intepreting it for what you believe it says. If you can find for me where the right to vote for all citizens it enumerated within the rights of that document, I'll call it a right with a Capital R. Until then, it's a (r)ight with a little r and while a critcal and core part of our society, it's not a Right as that term is defined by the laws of our system.

I don't know everything about Ohio but I do know the Constitution and that is what we're talking about here.

What isn't the same by the way? Are convicted felons permitted to vote in Ohio, automatically and without question? Is that right to vote NOT part of what is suspended upon a felony conviction in your state? Some DO restore that right to felons, but I'm not aware of any state that has attempted to simply remove the issue entirely.

If not...then your state is like my "little hitler's utopia" as you put it. (Damn...can you tone down the hyperbole just a hair? There isn't an audience to applaud the zingers here) Your voting "right" is as much a "right" as it is in the other 49 states. It can be taken and it can be taken without due process of it's own. That does make one hell of a difference....by LAW....not personal opinion or interpretation. RIGHTS cannot simply be 'taken' at will and without that due process.

(Incidentally...are you this verbally abusive to everyone you debate....or do I just piss you off in a special kind of way?)
edit on 5-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Actually yes if you are felon in the State of Ohio you have the right to vote as long as you are not in prison. You still have to go out and renew your registration but there is nothing stopping you from doing so. The folks at the DMV are more than happy to register you when you renew or change the address on your license. The only State that allows inmates to vote is Vermont. Well you are special, but I am just especially moody lately.
edit on 5-11-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
This is going to be my last post for this thread, in a reply to TheRedneck.

When it comes to some of the claims I made in a post I made yesterday. I didn't clarify my points enough, so that is what I am going to. I'm only going to provide links. There's just too much to post here, most of the post are just Google searches.

To get a better understanding of what Christian Dominionism is. Leah Burton on her blog lays it out for all to understand: "What IS Dominionism?"

Wikipedia entry on Christian Reconstruction
American Theocracy Who is Trying to Turn America Into a Theocracy?

Pro-life/Anti-Abortion/War on Women:
pro life and bible
Proof of the GOP War on Women
war on women christian right
origins of pro-life movement

Christians rights of conscience and bullying:
christian right bully
rights of conscience christian right

School Vouchers and religious schools:
school voucher christian right
states with school vouchers

DOMA:
DOMA christian right bible

Creationism:
creationism religious instruction
creationism in the classroom

LGBT discrimination
christian right lgbt discrimination
lgbt discrimination in the workplace
gay discrimination in the workplace cases
lgbt discrimination in the workplace christian right

I can go on and on.
edit on 5-11-2012 by ssj2gohan83 because: accidentally hit post
edit on 5-11-2012 by ssj2gohan83 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ssj2gohan83

Well, I would hope that you could continue... this is a point that really needs to be addressed.

From your first link:

Dominionism is an umbrella term that harbors many divergent franchise groups claiming a foundation in Christianity”.


I like the last part, as it appears to me to be fairly accurate: "claiming a foundation in Christianity." Anyone is free to claim any religion they like in this country, whether they obey the tenets of that religion or not. I could walk around saying I am a "Methopresbybaptist" if I wanted to. But what one claims is not the same as what one does.

I make no bones about the fact I claim to be a practicing Christian. I follow the examples set forth by our Lord Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. I may fail at areas, but I do try. Now, in my reading of the Bible, the dominion granted by God over the earth applied to all humans, not to Christians only. There weren't any Christians even in existence at that time, for how does one follow someone who has not yet been born? More importantly as it applies to politics, I follow Jesus' example when he said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." In other words, Jesus was unconcerned about the politics of the time, just as I am spiritually unconcerned about politics. My only concern about politics is secular and moral.

In this case, I believe all citizens not hampered legally by proper legislation (felons, for instance, as Wrabbit points out above) are entitled to one and only one vote. That is democracy. Without some form of verification as to identity and/or citizenship at least, that entitlement is unobtainable. It becomes a simple matter to vote in multiple districts, in multiple states, or to vote despite not being a citizen without legal restrictions on suffrage. If someone votes illegally or multiple times, it actually removes a portion of my right to have an equal vote among the legal voting population, because my single vote is then made inferior to the votes of those breaking the law by virtue of the increased amount of votes cast.

There is nothing religious or spiritual about wishing my rights under secular law to be upheld.

Logically, while I do not in the least dispute that there followers of this "Dominionism" you speak of, I do not see where a position taken by them equates to everyone taking a similar stance being one of them. If A is a subset of B, it does not follow that all B are also A.

I would love to continue debating this topic with you, but I cannot accept that logical fallacy. The debate would have to be couched in the assumption that there are those (including myself) who are not bringing religion into a secular argument.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx

Actually yes if you are felon in the State of Ohio you have the right to vote as long as you are not in prison. You still have to go out and renew your registration but there is nothing stopping you from doing so. The folks at the DMV are more than happy to register you when you renew or change the address on your license.

Interesting... so the right to vote in Ohio already can require ID, then?

And if felons in prison cannot vote, that as well is a limitation on their 'right', is it not? How do we know someone doesn't use their name and vote for them, despite the law stating they have no vote while incarcerated, unless we require some form of identification?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Not really because there are plenty of other places you can register to vote. There is no ID required to register to vote. As to the incarcerated not being able to vote. Your registration is cancelled when you enter the facility as part of your punishment. As to whether I personally feel it right or wrong is of no consequence. At best it is fair, once you are released you may register to vote and are free to continue voting even if you are on probation or parole. Ohio does require some Identification but there are several forms of it you can use. Don't like it either but at least it is more fair than other States have it. And it does address the people that have the most to worry about as your SS or other Government Check is an acceptable form of ID. Given that if it were too restrictive it would have been struck down by Statewide referendum. The same reason they waited until just before this election to start trying to mess with early voting. They did it to keep the citizens from having time to get it on the ballot.

edit on 5-11-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx

Well, I got a few minutes free and did a little digging. It looks to me like they did nothing wrong. From Ohio Code, Title 35, §3509.19:

(C)(1) A board of elections that receives a voter registration application and is satisfied as to the truth of the statements made in the registration form shall register the applicant not later than twenty business days after receiving the application, unless that application is received during the thirty days immediately preceding the day of an election. The board shall promptly notify the applicant in writing of each of the following:

(a) The applicant’s registration;

(b) The precinct in which the applicant is to vote;
(c) In bold type as follows:

“Voters must bring identification to the polls in order to verify identity. Identification may include a current and valid photo identification, a military identification, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document, other than this notification or a notification of an election mailed by a board of elections, that shows the voter’s name and current address. Voters who do not provide one of these documents will still be able to vote by casting a provisional ballot. Voters who do not have any of the above forms of identification, including a social security number, will still be able to vote by signing an affirmation swearing to the voter’s identity under penalty of election falsification and by casting a provisional ballot.”

The notification shall be by nonforwardable mail. If the mail is returned to the board, it shall investigate and cause the notification to be delivered to the correct address.


In simple terms, everyone who registers to vote or updates their registration in Ohio receives notice that ID is required to vote.

I also looked at the 'offending' document in the OP link... it is addressed in Ohio Code, Title 35, §3505.181, Section 2:

(6) If, at the time that an individual casts a provisional ballot, the individual provides identification in the form of a current and valid photo identification, a military identification , or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document, other than a notice of an election mailed by a board of elections under section 3501.19 of the Revised Code or a notice of voter registration mailed by a board of elections under section 3503.19 of the Revised Code, that shows the individual’s name and current address, or provides the last four digits of the individual’s social security number, or executes an affirmation that the elector does not have any of those forms of identification or the last four digits of the individual’s social security number because the individual does not have a social security number, or declines to execute such an affirmation, the appropriate local election official shall record the type of identification provided, the social security number information, the fact that the affirmation was executed, or the fact that the individual declined to execute such an affirmation and include that information with the transmission of the ballot or voter or address information under division (B)(3) of this section. If the individual declines to execute such an affirmation, the appropriate local election official shall record the individual’s name and include that information with the transmission of the ballot under division (B)(3) of this section.


The individual voting is required, should they be unable or unwilling to provide acceptable ID, to execute an affirmation of their eligibility. Now, I ask you, which is more appropriate: to expect each individual to write such an affirmation themselves, or to have forms available to be filled out so that there will be no legalities concerning wording which could block their votes from being counted?

Also, this section concerns provisional (unverifiable) ballots... all provisional votes are subject to be rejected anyway should there be indication of potential fraud.

To be honest, this sounds more and more like just another "I wanna win at all costs" excuse to demonize the other side.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I'm not in the habit of ducking out the back door and playing like I was never there if I'm wrong......even if it's a hell of a lot easier and likely, no one would much care either way. I'd know and I'd still care. That's enough. So I bring this and I'll be off the thread.

This is what appears today on the Voter information page of the Ohio Secretary of State.


Ohio law requires that every voter, upon appearing at the polling place to vote on Election Day, to announce his or her full name and current address and provide proof of the voter's identity.

The forms of identification that may be used by a voter who appears at a polling place to vote on an Election Day include:

A current and valid photo identification card issued by the State of Ohio or the United States government; or
A military identification ("military ID"); or
An original or copy of a current utility bill; or
An original or copy of a current bank statement; or
An original or copy of a current government check; or
An original or copy of a current paycheck; or
An original or copy of a current other government document, other than a voter registration acknowledgement notification mailed by the board of elections, that shows the voter’s name and current address.
Source

and here is a list, state by state of voting law regarding convicted Felons. I guess it's been a few years since I checked. I honestly had no idea we'd gone to letting any manner of convicted felon vote. 2 states even allow them to vote from inside their prison cell by absentee ballot.


State by State law on Felony voting rights

I'm so disgusted right now I'm almost without words. Why do I bother to vote and defend the process to anyone? Hell, I can be 10 different people tomorrow. I simply need to get the name right to an address within the district the polling place is in...then run off a utility bill from my printer. Sheesh... I simply need to hold up the bogus document, point to the name I typed in and say I'm me! It says so right here! Now gimmie my ballot!

(sigh)

Whats the point? I won't fraud the system but I already know my sense of honesty and doing the right thing is a subject of humor to others. really...why bother?



Kelionyx, I honestly don't know about the Right status now. I found legal opinion both directions and outside the official confusion? Everyone has an opinion and no one much agrees. The media demands it's a right..absolute. No question and almost universally. Outside the media? Well... I stopped on the 4th search and several pages per try in conflicting opinions. Better men than I can sort this one out and it explains why court cases have been running for at least the last several elections, back into the early 90's when I started voting.

I know the definitions of Right vs. Priv. and how those two are defined and contrasted. Then again....I know the definition of war, as one example too. It takes a Declaration....just don't tell any leader that. They absolutely know it doesn't.


Regardless... I'm too heartsick on every level after reading this material and what I sorted through to get it. I came back only from the obligation to finish my post string, even though or especially, that I turned out to be in error on at least some of it. I do not lose well, but I don't hide or deny either.

Take care here.
edit on 5-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Well it all depends.really there is a reason in-person voting fraud is rare. The consequences of doing it are painfully high if you get caught. Add to this you would need someone really committed to doing it. Take Ohio for example I fully expect to be in line for at least two hours tomorrow, it is a pretty long ballot we have good weather and it is a Presidential election. You would not only have to have someone not only willing to put the time in to create the documents they need to do it, but also the inclination to stand in that line multiple times. Seems to me that is alot of effort to put in especially when you consider that the Republican Party seems to feel they are just too lazy to get a job to begin with. It is a ridiculous argument.

Most cases of shenanigans when it comes to voting are people getting paid to register people. Pretty much self-explanatory there will always be those geniuses that figure out they can go home for a few hours and make their quota by inventing people to register and get paid for it. Or they occur at the counting end of it, it isn't the make believe people standing in line more than once. There is no real incentive to vote more than once. Hell you can't get 60% of the population to vote at least once. It is a make believe argument made up by those that cannot comprehend that as time has went on fewer and fewer want any part of their whacked out religious utopia.

As to the whole Felons voting issue. It is quite simple you either believe once a person serves their sentence they should try go on with their life or you don't. There is more harm done by disenfranchising felons than there ever will be in letting them try to live their life as a full legal citizen. By denying them the right to vote you just give them one more reason to go back to their life of crime. It is a large part of what is wrong with criminal justice system to begin with.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join