McConnell says bill that would make Election Day a federal holiday is a ‘power grab’

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2019, 06:39 PM)Dill Wrote: So very unlikely. You would be talking about a miniscule number of votes.

One bad thing about Gerrymandering is that when lines are redrawn to concentrate voters of one party together, a result is that they no longer have to play to the center, but to the farther extreme of the party.  That has also happened over the last 30 years, resulting in a concentration of "extremists" in Congress, extreme because they are more fearful of being primaried in their districts than being defeated by an opponent from the other party.  Being "Cantored" they call that now.  
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/05/08/sarah-palin-says-paul-ryan-will-soon-cantored/D7lzhecJnCfGEvrYWQ8BQJ/story.html

Oh don't get me wrong I'm 100% against Gerrymandering. 

What's the main argument against purging rolls?

[fredtoast]

(01-31-2019, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Without Voter caging you can have voters that never actually lived in a district or has since moved out of that district still voting in that district. 

Don't you have to show proof that you live in a district before you can register to vote there?

[GMDino]

(01-31-2019, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh don't get me wrong I'm 100% against Gerrymandering. 

What's the main argument against purging rolls?

To me it's that they don't purge much at all.

Was it Florida that said there was something 15,000 to be purged and when it was all said and done they ended up purging 100?

Looked it up...it went from 180,000 to 85.

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/theres-good-reason-question-texas-voter-fraud-claims

I admire the diligence to keep them up to date, it's just the OUTRAGE when the large number is announced and all the politics around it.

[Dill]

(01-31-2019, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh don't get me wrong I'm 100% against Gerrymandering. 

What's the main argument against purging rolls?

In principle, there is nothing wrong with purging rolls. E.g., why leave a name on if someone has been dead for 10 years or moved to another state 5 years ago?

The problem is that purging can be weaponized to shave percentage points of one party's vote count, if "neutral" laws and timing can affect a target demographic.  E.g., just before an election pass a law that a voter has to have a street address with a number, as was done in ND, and you can reduce Democratic voter turn out by 3+%.  Might be able to do that in Montana or SD, too.

Also you could pass a law requiring that names have to match "exactly" on all state documents.  E.g., if your driver's license says "Bfine32" but you signed your voter registration "Bfine 32," that's a discrepancy and your registration will be pulled until it is corrected--but probably not till after the election.  You could also require a voter id card be based upon a birth certificate. That could knock thousands off the rolls in some southern states like Mississippi.

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2019, 08:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't you have to show proof that you live in a district before you can register to vote there?

Sure a water bill or something. I may own the property and not reside there.

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2019, 09:11 PM)Dill Wrote: In principle, there is nothing wrong with purging rolls. E.g., why leave a name on if someone has been dead for 10 years or moved to another state 5 years ago?

The problem is that purging can be weaponized to shave percentage points of one party's vote count, if "neutral" laws and timing can affect a target demographic.  E.g., just before an election pass a law that a voter has to have a street address with a number, as was done in ND, and you can reduce Democratic voter turn out by 3+%.  Might be able to do that in Montana or SD, too.

Also you could pass a law requiring that names have to match "exactly" on all state documents.  E.g., if your driver's license says "Bfine32" but you signed your voter registration "Bfine 32," that's a discrepancy and your registration will be pulled until it is corrected--but probably not till after the election.  You could also require a voter id card be based upon a birth certificate. That could knock thousands off the rolls in some southern states like Mississippi.

This is why I said it should be done in a bi-partisan/ non-targeting manner.

IMO a level of responsibility should come with a vote. 

[GMDino]

(01-31-2019, 09:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure a water bill or something. I may own the property and not reside there.

I also don't think there are thousands (million if you believe DJT) that are going through all the trouble of signing up to fraudulently vote.  What would be the point?  Some grand scheme to steal elections?  The sheer number of people it would take makes it likely it is is unorganized and that it would likely be found out if it was.


And I doubt any of the illegals are registering where they own property but live elsewhere.   

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2019, 09:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: I also don't think there are thousands (million if you believe DJT) that are going through all the trouble of signing up to fraudulently vote.  What would be the point?  Some grand scheme to steal elections?  The sheer number of people it would take makes it likely it is is unorganized and that it would likely be found out if it was.


And I doubt any of the illegals are registering where they own property but live elsewhere.   

Never said anything about illegals. To be honest with the process of Gentrification I have no idea why the liberal would be against voter caging. 

[Millhouse]

How would making it a federal holiday be easier for people to vote that don't work for the government and banks? I'm pretty sure everyone in the private sector would still have to show up for work. Or do the Dems want to make it like Christmas where everything shuts down except for gas stations?

Also its funny it also would require tax returns for just the Pres and VP. Guess they dont have the balls to include all federal elected officials like themselves.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Step 1: Make a bill that includes multiple things packaged together. One that most people agree on, and then multiple that your side wants but the other side doesn't, knowing in advance that it will never get passed.

Example: We propose to make a bill that stops harvesting organs from orphans, raise my pay, make the other side have to give me their lunch money, and the two people I don't like right now have to wear giant foam poop hats.
- - - - - - - - - -

Step 2: The other side rejects it, and provides some quote pointing out what you are doing.

Example: This is a stupid bill, a foam poop hat? Why would I want that?
- - - - - - - - -

Step 3: Use that quote and spread it all over the internet making it seem like it was said about the one reasonable thing and only the reasonable thing.

Example: Other side turns down plan to protect Orphans from organ harvesting, says "Why would I want that?"
- - - - - - - - -

Step 4: People read the headline, as people do, and spread it online. Outrage ensues.

Example: Did you hear about the other side? They don't want to protect orphans from organ harvesting! Those monsters! Click like and repost, please.
- - - - - - -

Step 5: You.... win? Prepare for Step 1 again.

[fredtoast]

(01-31-2019, 09:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure a water bill or something. I may own the property and not reside there.

But you can only vote once.

[fredtoast]

(01-31-2019, 09:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Never said anything about illegals. To be honest with the process of Gentrification I have no idea why the liberal would be against voter caging. 

Liberals oppose it because it is not an issue.  People are not giving up votes on their own representation in mass in order to influence votes in other districts where they don't live.  This is just a lame attempt to justify voter ID which suppresses the vote of the poor.

[*bfine32*]

(02-01-2019, 12:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Liberals oppose it because it is not an issue.  People are not giving up votes on their own representation in mass in order to influence votes in other districts where they don't live.  This is just a lame attempt to justify voter ID which suppresses the vote of the poor.

Not sure if it's "lame" or not but I've freely said I'm in favor of proving who you are before you can pull the lever.

Never have been sure how voter ID suppresses the poor. Poor folks don't have ID's?

[*bfine32*]

(02-01-2019, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But you can only vote once.

In a perfect world.

[Au165]

(02-01-2019, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Never have been sure how voter ID suppresses the poor. Poor folks don't have ID's?

ID's have a fee associated with them which in effect is a voting tax. If we decided to provide these ID's without any fee whatsoever then it wouldn't be a tactic for voter suppression. I'd get behind a fee free ID card that can be gotten in multiple places in each voting district if that is the proposal. 

[GMDino]

(02-01-2019, 04:49 PM)Au165 Wrote: ID's have a fee associated with them which in effect is a voting tax. If we decided to provide these ID's without any fee whatsoever then it wouldn't be a tactic for voter suppression. I'd get behind a fee free ID card that can be gotten in multiple places in each voting district if that is the proposal. 

And if they offered them in more than one place that is hard to get to.

Somehow elected officials always find a way to make getting something as hard as possible.

[fredtoast]

(02-01-2019, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Never have been sure how voter ID suppresses the poor. 

We have been over it probably a dozen times.  There have been articles explaining it and even a list of Republicans who have admitted that it suppresses voting among the poor.

No need to repeat it again.  I am not wasting my time on a person who refuses to accept facts.

[BmorePat87]

(02-01-2019, 05:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We have been over it probably a dozen times.  There have been articles explaining it and even a list of Republicans who have admitted that it suppresses voting among the poor.

No need to repeat it again.  I am not wasting my time on a person who refuses to accept facts.

Accurate

[*bfine32*]

(02-01-2019, 04:49 PM)Au165 Wrote: ID's have a fee associated with them which in effect is a voting tax. If we decided to provide these ID's without any fee whatsoever then it wouldn't be a tactic for voter suppression. I'd get behind a fee free ID card that can be gotten in multiple places in each voting district if that is the proposal. 

(02-01-2019, 05:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: And if they offered them in more than one place that is hard to get to.

Somehow elected officials always find a way to make getting something as hard as possible.

How about free IDs offered at polling stations. If they can get there to vote, they can get their to obtain a free picture ID

(02-01-2019, 05:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We have been over it probably a dozen times.  There have been articles explaining it and even a list of Republicans who have admitted that it suppresses voting among the poor.

No need to repeat it again.  I am not wasting my time on a person who refuses to accept facts.

(02-01-2019, 05:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Accurate

Nobody asked you to waste your time. I just cannot rap my head around a belief that you should not be required to prove you are who you are when you vote and I have 0 idea why that would be a partisan issue. But "even if a list of Republicans" stated it then it must be an undisputable fact.

[Au165]

(02-01-2019, 05:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How about free IDs offered at polling stations. If they can get there to vote, they can get their to obtain a free picture ID

As long as hours to get them are pretty wide ranging i.e. not middle of the day only. One of the disproportionate things of lower class workers and middle class is lower class often has less flexibility in their work schedules.

If that's the case, sure I am in.