Ohio's rules state that precincts should have no more than 1,400 per precinct.


This really confuses me? Was this law recently changed in the last 10 years? In 2000 and 2004 this law was not followed. I guarantee you.


********Unless they skirt the rules and put like 100 precincts in a single building and then have limited id checkers pushing patrons to their district. I'd bet that's how they skirt the laws. I could dream up a million ways to slow the system down if you wanted to make people wait in a line.

This is a joke. Complete crap. The only way I can possibly see you waiting an hour during early voting is because they have 1 early voting location for the entire county.

I'm sorry, I have zero respect for the whole "we need more early voting" crowd. 28 days is more than enough. 7 days is more than enough. 2 months is a joke and is only there in order to get people who has zero business voting into the polls. If you cannot find a way to vote absentee or within a week of election day then you just don't care about doing your civic duty. That simple. Making it 2 months long is only there to allow each party (although more than likely overwhelmingly 1 party) to find their lazy constituents and get them to the polls to vote. If they are that lazy then maybe you should change your message and find the active people in your community who truly care about the democratic process.

This lazy voter business make me shudder. It's like a code word. I can't stand it. Bottom line.... If we have people waiting an hour to vote things need to change. It's that simple. It's a barrier. No ifs ands or buts.............

I'm sorry. I believe this to the bottom of my bones. It's voter disenfranchisement. Maybe we go to mailing a ballot? I'm open for compromise but I don't want to hear someone is lazy because they don't want to wait in line for an hour. It's bullcrap. You don't start a compromise by saying this is the way it is and your just lazy if it's not convenient. I can't stand it and your dead a** wrong mlb.

How is waiting an hour to vote a 'barrier'? People camp out for weeks for the new iPhone, over night to get great deals on Black Friday or hours to get into a club. None of which is more important than voting. It's all about priorities
On a side note did any one catch President Obama admitting in an interview that these laws will not keep the vast majority of people from voting? Apparently, the scaremongering is working too well and the ID opponents are afraid eligible voters will stay home.

(10-24-2014 09:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm sorry. I believe this to the bottom of my bones. It's voter disenfranchisement. Maybe we go to mailing a ballot?

You can do that now! ABSENTEE BALLOT! It has been an option for decades! I've done it before. It isn't hard. You need to change zero laws in order to absentee. Anybody who claims they cannot get there on election day (or in 7 days) is just straight up lazy! Yes, LAZY. The gov't has bent over backwards trying to make it easy to vote. There is zero excuse at this point for not voting.

Quote:I'm open for compromise but I don't want to hear someone is lazy because they don't want to wait in line for an hour. It's bullcrap. You don't start a compromise by saying this is the way it is and your just lazy if it's not convenient. I can't stand it and your dead a** wrong mlb.

Election day is not until November 4th. You have 11 more days. If you walk in and the line is long, come back the next day. That simple. Just like going to the BMV... don't wait until the last minute to renew, and if the line is bad you can come back later that day or another day. Or the grocery. Or any place for that matter.

I make it a point to vote every election day. I wake up early, get to my precinct, and vote. No matter what. It is my civic duty. I am also informed on the issues so that I can vote intelligently on the matter. If someone doesn't know or care about it enough then they shouldn't vote. Voting down party lines is the biggest problem in this country, IMO.

We are going to have to agree to disagree then.

(10-24-2014 09:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We are going to have to agree to disagree then.

(10-23-2014 11:52 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:22 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:07 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  I voted in NC today. I stood in line an hour longer than in past years. Shortening early voting is having an effect. I had to convince my fiancé not to leave as she was frustrated the line was so long. I know an hour extra doesn't sound like a long time but many people vote in the early voting period to avoid the crowds. Many on here are saying that most people will wait until election day regardless of how long early voting is. That is not the point, the point is that reducing early voting days is increasing wait times. That will most likely decrease the number of early voters which, it appears, is the republicans' goal as most in person early voters are democrats.

How does reducing the number of days but keeping the same total number of hours for early voting make it harder for people to vote? If anything, it should make it easier by providing different options for voters.

I can tell you, from my experience, that wait times are longer. Maybe it's just my polling place (which is overwhelmingly democratic) but the wait was longer.
My question to you is this: if the state is still offering the same number of hours, why change anything at all? Many people have pointed to budgets, but without running the numbers one would think the budget would be the same if the polling areas are open the same number of hours. What other reason could a republican general assembly have for reducing the number of early voting days.

I don't know. Maybe they thought it would work better. I don't think Ohio has the same requirement, so in their case, there actually could be budget savings. This also highlights a common problem in these kinds of discussions--the tendency to treat all of the changes as if they are equivalent.

Fewer days with longer hours should make early voting more accessible to people on different schedules. But early voting is just something done to make things easier--changes to early voting don't disenfranchise anyone. Fourteen states have absolutely no early voting, and many of those are states that have traditionally been dominated by Democrats.

Ohio changed their laws to try and stop Obama from getting elected.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-24-2014 10:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Ohio changed their laws to try and stop Obama from getting elected.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

You should be a spokesman for the Obama administration.

There isn't a talking point they puke up that you don't swallow and lick off the floor in absolute glee.

(10-24-2014 09:42 AM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How is waiting an hour to vote a 'barrier'? People camp out for weeks for the new iPhone, over night to get great deals on Black Friday or hours to get into a club. None of which is more important than voting. It's all about priorities

It's no where near a barrier. It's all about laziness, and as you pointed out, priorities. More than anything, it's an excuse.

(10-23-2014 11:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What if one of those days is Saturday?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I have no problem with any opening up of voting to make it more accessible....as long as you can prove you are a legal voter by showing proper identification. I fully support Saturday and early voting.

(10-24-2014 09:42 AM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How is waiting an hour to vote a 'barrier'? People camp out for weeks for the new iPhone, over night to get great deals on Black Friday or hours to get into a club. None of which is more important than voting. It's all about priorities
On a side note did any one catch President Obama admitting in an interview that these laws will not keep the vast majority of people from voting? Apparently, the scaremongering is working too well and the ID opponents are afraid eligible voters will stay home.

It is not a barrier. My time though is better served doing something else than standing in a line for an hour to cast a ballot. The right to vote for the king turds of schit mountian is nothing to get particularly excited about or proud of.

Just curious if the CCES report changes anyone's mind, in particular those of you who say "there isn't enough voter fraud" to change elections?

TownHall followup (The link to the CCES report is in the article)

The example I've used regular is the Franken win in Minnesota (as the article notes, that was vote #60 that stopped any filibuster on Obamacare in the Senate) but they threw another one in the report that I wasn't aware of:

Quote:Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

And this is just from the people they talked to that -admitted- to voter fraud. Now how many were there that voted illegally and didn't admit to it?

(10-25-2014 06:29 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 09:42 AM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How is waiting an hour to vote a 'barrier'? People camp out for weeks for the new iPhone, over night to get great deals on Black Friday or hours to get into a club. None of which is more important than voting. It's all about priorities

It's no where near a barrier. It's all about laziness, and as you pointed out, priorities. More than anything, it's an excuse.

So I voted today and did my own 1 person study.
I wasn't sure where to go so I pulled into the local community services building. I stated my stop watch after I put the car in park. It was the wrong building but they directed me to where I needed to go to. I got back into my car and drove across the street to the other buildin. Unfortunately, I had to go around the block 2x's to find a parking spot. I walked passed 3 buildings before entering the correct one. I spent some time flirting with the lady behind the desk and then was given a form to fill out. It took about 5 minutes to fill that out, including a special code as to why I needed to vote early. She asked for my photo ID and after it was verified took me to the voting machine where I cast my ballot. I returned to my car and stopped my stop watch.
Rounded time to nearest minute :38 minutes. Is that too much of a burden on a citizen to vote?

Quote:In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, Justice John Paul Stevens, hardly a member of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, acknowledged “flagrant examples of such fraud” throughout the nation’s history and observed that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real” but also that “it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Quote:A new study by two Old Dominion University professors...... found that 6.4% of all noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2% voted in the 2010 midterms.

Quote:Since 80% of noncitizens vote Democratic,.... the authors concluded that these illegal votes were “large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.” Those that might have been skewed by noncitizen votes included Al Franken ’s 312-vote win in the Minnesota race for the U.S. Senate. As a senator, Mr. Franken would cast the 60th vote needed to make ObamaCare law.

Conclusion: Obamacare wouldn't have passed without voter fraud.

Link

(10-28-2014 07:23 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, Justice John Paul Stevens, hardly a member of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, acknowledged “flagrant examples of such fraud” throughout the nation’s history and observed that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real” but also that “it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Quote:A new study by two Old Dominion University professors...... found that 6.4% of all noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2% voted in the 2010 midterms.

Quote:Since 80% of noncitizens vote Democratic,.... the authors concluded that these illegal votes were “large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.” Those that might have been skewed by noncitizen votes included Al Franken ’s 312-vote win in the Minnesota race for the U.S. Senate. As a senator, Mr. Franken would cast the 60th vote needed to make ObamaCare law.

Conclusion: Obamacare wouldn't have passed without voter fraud.

Link

This is by far my biggest concern. I have no interest in supressing the black vote or the vote of poor people, period. I have a lot of interest in supressing the vote of non-citizens.

Given that we have, what, 50 million illegals in the country at this point. It is not okay that they participate in the electoral process, and I'm willing to bet that more than "just a small amount" do.

If we get to the point where we believe the electoral process isn't legitimate - the whole system collapses.

The only people really against needing an ID to vote are the one's that want to continue to "game the system" because they think "their candidate" will garner more illegal votes.

(10-28-2014 08:05 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:23 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, Justice John Paul Stevens, hardly a member of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, acknowledged “flagrant examples of such fraud” throughout the nation’s history and observed that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real” but also that “it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Quote:A new study by two Old Dominion University professors...... found that 6.4% of all noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2% voted in the 2010 midterms.

Quote:Since 80% of noncitizens vote Democratic,.... the authors concluded that these illegal votes were “large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.” Those that might have been skewed by noncitizen votes included Al Franken ’s 312-vote win in the Minnesota race for the U.S. Senate. As a senator, Mr. Franken would cast the 60th vote needed to make ObamaCare law.

Conclusion: Obamacare wouldn't have passed without voter fraud.

Link

This is by far my biggest concern. I have no interest in supressing the black vote or the vote of poor people, period. I have a lot of interest in supressing the vote of non-citizens.

Given that we have, what, 50 million illegals in the country at this point. It is not okay that they participate in the electoral process, and I'm willing to bet that more than "just a small amount" do.

If we get to the point where we believe the electoral process isn't legitimate - the whole system collapses.

The only people really against needing an ID to vote are the one's that want to continue to "game the system" because they think "their candidate" will garner more illegal votes.

I thought it was 11 million.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

If North Carolina was trying to suppress the early vote, it didn't seem to work.

Quote:More North Carolina voters cast their ballots early this year than did in the last mid-term elections, according to State Board of Elections figures released Sunday. A new election law limited the number of early voting days but increased the total hours.

Roughly 1.1 million people voted by mail or in person at polling stations by the end of early voting on Saturday, up 20 percent from 961,000 in 2010, the board of elections said.

http://wunc.org/post/more-people-vote-ea...m-election

Of course, it is virtually impossible to draw meaningful information by simply comparing two elections, and this case is no different, but the dire consequences that opponents insist will follow these types of changes are sure hard to find. Among the factors the article neglects to consider is that the longer hours worked better for more people and simply the growth of the state, as well as the simple fact that North Carolina has gotten larger since 2010 (not 20% larger, of course, but larger nonetheless).