Fifteen days out...what is your prediction? How many Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in each?
100 Senators and 435 Representatives.
Only a little more than a third of the Senators are up for re-election and all the Representatives are up.
I guess that after this election and swearing in we will have:
In the Senate
51 democrats, 48 republicans and one write-in independent (Alaska) that will caucus with the republicans.
In the House
215 democrats and 220 republicans
You think Harry Reid will survive this election? Most people have it as a dead-heat.
I stick to my Senate prediction of 51 democrats. I don't have Harry Reid in that number. Frankly, he has been a poor leader for the democrats. They will probably be better off without him.
I have reddened my prediction for the house. I now predict 227 republicans and 209 democrats winning tomorrow. That would be a move of 49 to the other side, much less than the 100 seats that republican talk show hosts keep predicting.
It won't bother me much to have the house be republican. I haven't had a democrat congressmen for most of my life and now President Obama will have somebody to blame.
Well, now that the Democrats have the economy moving towards the right direction. They will start taking the credit. But then again, they managed to tank the world economy before. They will do it again, they just have to find a proper vehicle to do it with.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 01, 2010, 01:47:25 PM
Well, now that the Democrats have the economy moving towards the right direction. They will start taking the credit. But then again, they managed to tank the world economy before. They will do it again, they just have to find a proper vehicle to do it with.
The Democrats haven't moved the economy in the right direction. Free market solutions have done more for what little job growth and growth in sales we are seeing. Every move they have made has been counter-intuitive to what the majority of business leaders say they need to make great strides on jobs and real economic growth.
So far:
-Nothing the government nor the FED has done appears to have loosened up credit markets significantly, if anything, new regs are making it harder to get large lines of credit
-Many small businesses are in a holding pattern on hiring until they have some sort of idea what Obamacare will end up costing them
-The threat of not repealing the Bush-era tax cuts
Real or imagined, the true impact as to how tax cuts and Obamacare will play into expansion plans is irrelevant. What's relevant is the behavior of small business people. If they say they won't hire until they have tax cuts or that they are afraid to hire new employees not knowing ultimately what the fallout from Obamacare can cost them per employee, guess what? They won't hire and won't create jobs. They also won't spend money on new facilities and equipment which bolsters other parts of the economy.
Please point to some policies passed or enacted in the last 22 months which have benefitted small business
other than the construction trades and state level government projects. Consumer incentives like Cash For Clunkers, and the First Time Homebuyer Credit have expired so they are no longer in play. Those, admittedly, were good incentives to modify consumer behavior and get individuals to pump money back into the economy but they no longer exist. We seem to be at a stalemate now.
Small Business Jobs Act, more loans, $12 billion in tax cuts.
Plus the $116 billion in reduced income taxes.
Saving the autos saved some jobs, but we will see where that comes out in a few years.
Evan Bayh sees big dem defeat tomorrow.
Isn't it amazing how these talking heads already know who is going to win tomorrow?
The one sure thing tomorrow will bring is an end to the neverending polls, but I guess we can expect hand wringing and blaming to start (by both sides) to be its replacement.
I'm making a personal pledge to keep the TV and radio off all day tomorrow until 8pm so I can bypass the final round of frantic ads.
I'm making a personal pledge to start drinking tonight and not let up until Wednesday morning. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on November 01, 2010, 04:06:15 PM
I'm making a personal pledge to start drinking tonight and not let up until Wednesday morning. ;D
Now that's something I can believe in! Good luck in your quest.
Quote from: nathanm on November 01, 2010, 04:06:15 PM
I'm making a personal pledge to start drinking tonight and not let up until Wednesday morning. ;D
That's the best bipartisan resolution I've heard yet. I'll join you on that. Can we find a DD to drive us to and from the polls? hic...
D's keep the Senate by a one or two seat margin, and R's take the house with a 20ish seat margin. It's a wave election, but half a wave, and not a whole wave. My sense is that the not-quite-ready-for-primetime-players in the Tea Party have had a very double-edge effect on likely voters, and have turned off as many people as they've engaged. Or rather they've gotten the R base excited again but, despite protestations to the contrary, have alienated the independents. We'll see, though.
Another interesting thing to watch will be the accuracy of the polling to date. A lot of the smaller localities have been polled only once or twice, and using methods that will generate responses from a very specific dataset -- people who own landline phones. I don't think that means the polls as they stand are trending inaccurately, but I do think that there's a lot of data that isn't being captured.
Quote from: we vs us on November 01, 2010, 04:45:05 PM
D's keep the Senate by a one or two seat margin, and R's take the house with a 20ish seat margin. It's a wave election, but half a wave, and not a whole wave. My sense is that the not-quite-ready-for-primetime-players in the Tea Party have had a very double-edge effect on likely voters, and have turned off as many people as they've engaged. Or rather they've gotten the R base excited again but, despite protestations to the contrary, have alienated the independents. We'll see, though.
Another interesting thing to watch will be the accuracy of the polling to date. A lot of the smaller localities have been polled only once or twice, and using methods that will generate responses from a very specific dataset -- people who own landline phones. I don't think that means the polls as they stand are trending inaccurately, but I do think that there's a lot of data that isn't being captured.
As I always say this time of year: "the only poll that matters will be tabulated after 7pm on election day."
Jamie DuPree, KRMG's DC correspondent, was talking about one Senatorial race where a generally more left polling organization had one Senate race in the hands of the Republican by two points. A Rasmussen/Fox poll (obviously considered more right leaning) showed the Democrat has a 2 point advantage.
I will be interested to see if President Obama views this correctly as a repudiation of the policies enacted the last two years and general frustration at the slow turn-around in the economy and uses it as an opportunity to moderate as did President Clinton, or will he throw down the gauntlet and simply waste two years making the GOP look like a bunch of obstructionists?
House goes to R's by 69-71 seats.
Senate remains D by only a single seat. GOP takes Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Obama has done more for the GOP than anyone in history......
Quote from: Breadburner on November 01, 2010, 07:45:15 PM
Obama has done more for the GOP than anyone in history......
It's likely the GOP would have done better.
Except for the kooks called the Tea Partiers.
Christine O'Donnell - case in point.
Quote from: Breadburner on November 01, 2010, 07:45:15 PM
Obama has done more for the GOP than anyone in history......
That's a pretty narrow view.
Reagan? Goldwater? Nixon?
Or how about Carter, or Clinton? Or Hillary, before Obama came along? He's just one more in a long line of Democrats that GOPers have or will come to hate. Because the GOP will hate whichever Democrat is president, no matter who it is or what they've done. They can be liberal, they can be moderate, they can accomplish some of the selfsame goals as the GOP professes to want and in some of the GOP's preferred manners and still they'll be hated. There's simply no winning.
Heh. You could do strike outs and exchange GOPer & Democrat and 1/2 the people will think that's the proper context.
I know conservative Republicans who can admit in hindsight that Clinton was a good President. I don't know a single liberal Democrat who is willing to admit Reagan was a good President.
Please explain that to me or am I simply speaking from conservative victim camp again?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 02, 2010, 12:40:15 AM
Heh. You could do strike outs and exchange GOPer & Democrat and 1/2 the people will think that's the proper context.
I know conservative Republicans who can admit in hindsight that Clinton was a good President. I don't know a single liberal Democrat who is willing to admit Reagan was a good President.
Please explain that to me or am I simply speaking from conservative victim camp again?
I thought on certain things Reagan was a good President. Foreign affairs? Yes. Economics. No.
I agreed with Reagan on immigration issues.
Quote from: Hoss on November 02, 2010, 12:45:44 AM
I thought on certain things Reagan was a good President. Foreign affairs? Yes. Economics. No.
Job growth, GDP growth, a business climate where new industries could thrive: what was bad about that?
If his economic policies were so bad, why is the Obama admin trying to emulate parts of Reaganomics in trying to re-start the economy? Increased deficit spending, tax handouts on some, tax increases on others for starters.
Got to the polls at 6:55. Line into the parking lot. Took 22minutes to get in and an additional 10 minutes to vote. When I left cars were lined up about 1/4 mile down the road, and the lot was full. It was a festive environment.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 02, 2010, 07:58:46 AM
Got to the polls at 6:55. Line into the parking lot. Took 22minutes to get in and an additional 10 minutes to vote. When I left cars were lined up about 1/4 mile down the road, and the lot was full. It was a festive environment.
We had a full parking lot and 2 lines inside. I was number 61 at about 7:20. Took me about 15 minutes total.
I miss working with some people just for the precious things that come out of their mouths (keyboards). Just got an IM from the little Obama-maniac that used to work down the hall from me at my previous job. She has a masters degree, and has been out of work for 8 months.
"So what's all the voting about today?
Me: It's the midterm elections.
"Do we get a new president or something?"
Me: No.
"Rock-Me-Obamadeus!"
Me: Uh-huh. Don't you at least watch the news?
"Nope!! All bad news."
Me: Good. Than you won't be canceling my votes.
"Votes?? You get more than one??"
. . .It continues.
Yes, Gaspar, there are in fact morons surrounding us on all sides. I'd say that perhaps we need more civics classes in school, but the people who need them most would just sleep through them just like they do now with the one they get.
Quote from: nathanm on November 02, 2010, 02:23:12 PM
Yes, Gaspar, there are in fact morons surrounding us on all sides. I'd say that perhaps we need more civics classes in school, but the people who need them most would just sleep through them just like they do now with the one they get.
I fear that too many Americans get their news from the daily show.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 02, 2010, 02:43:10 PM
I fear that too many Americans get their news from the daily show.
I would argue though that it's better than getting their info from Glenn Beck...
Quote from: Gaspar on November 02, 2010, 02:43:10 PM
I fear that too many Americans get their news from the daily show.
Better than getting it from some of our (not so) fine news outlets. Stewart has a lot of conservatives on his show, so viewers get exposed to most of the spectrum of political thought in our country. On some networks, one is exposed mostly or exclusively to one particular point of view, even if you watch it every waking hour.
He's much more anti-stupid than he is pro- any particular political point of view, although he definitely has a center-left point of view. Or, compared to Oklahoma politics, he's a radical communist.
Oh yes, Glenn Beck, the one promoting a company that rips people off. Great place to get news, Hoss.
Quote from: nathanm on November 02, 2010, 03:14:56 PM
Better than getting it from some of our (not so) fine news outlets. Stewart has a lot of conservatives on his show, so viewers get exposed to most of the spectrum of political thought in our country. On some networks, one is exposed mostly or exclusively to one particular point of view, even if you watch it every waking hour.
He's much more anti-stupid than he is pro- any particular political point of view, although he definitely has a center-left point of view. Or, compared to Oklahoma politics, he's a radical communist.
Oh yes, Glenn Beck, the one promoting a company that rips people off. Great place to get news, Hoss.
Compared to Oklahoma politics he is an Elitist because he can read.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 02, 2010, 08:10:38 AM
We had a full parking lot and 2 lines inside. I was number 61 at about 7:20. Took me about 15 minutes total.
The poll workers in my precinct (North Heights Church of Christ) reported very high voter turn out.
Quote from: guido911 on November 02, 2010, 03:37:01 PM
The poll workers in my precinct (North Heights Church of Christ) reported very high voter turn out.
Joy Lutheran on 91st and Yale has been packed since open, and the little Bethany church to the south of my office on 66th and Sheridan has been packed all day too. I've never seen anything like it. ;D
I went to my polling place for an early lunch (about 11am). I had my crib sheet for the state questions of how I planned to vote, and got my ballot and finished within 5 minutes. I was number 165 (Precinct 040; Eastwood Baptist Church).
I am wearing three "I voted" stickers. When people stare at me, I say, "I'm covering all the bases."
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 02, 2010, 04:24:29 PM
I am wearing three "I voted" stickers. When people stare at me, I say, "I'm covering all the bases."
I too am wearing three. When people ask me, I say "I'm a Democrat from Chicago." ;)
I drove by the graveyard after voting this morning and put stickers on all of the grave stones, several other motorists were confused and thought they were in Ohio.
I passed a fleet of Harrah's buses leaving the parking lot from my polling place ;)
The tally machine at my voting place showed nearly a thousand and that was at mid-afternoon. I think turn out may be greater than expected this time around.
Quote from: Ed W on November 02, 2010, 05:16:55 PM
The tally machine at my voting place showed nearly a thousand and that was at mid-afternoon. I think turn out may be greater than expected this time around.
Do you think the state questions got most of the people out or do you think they are that energized by the state offices?
No one mounted a serious challenge to Coburn or Sullivan and I was more than happy to vote for my incumbent state rep, she's done a great job.
If nothing else that bozo Alan Grayson is gone.
Conan points out the problem in absolute terms; "my representative" is great - it's all the others that those other people should vote out.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 02, 2010, 11:07:19 PM
Conan points out the problem in absolute terms; "my representative" is great - it's all the others that those other people should vote out.
I have no clue what you are smoking, but you really should share.
FWIW, "my representative" is a Democrat. I chuckle when I think of Michael Bates calling her the most liberal member of the Oklahoma House. I have yet to find anything terribly liberal about her.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 02, 2010, 11:40:05 PM
I have no clue what you are smoking, but you really should share.
FWIW, "my representative" is a Democrat. I chuckle when I think of Michael Bates calling her the most liberal member of the Oklahoma House. I have yet to find anything terribly liberal about her.
You ARE talking about MBates...he likely thought Reagan was more liberal than Ted Kennedy...
I know I voted for Sullivan just because I didn't want to worry about him driving around at 2:15am with me in Tulsa.
Quote from: Ed W on November 02, 2010, 05:16:55 PM
The tally machine at my voting place showed nearly a thousand and that was at mid-afternoon. I think turn out may be greater than expected this time around.
The voters of Oklahoma have only had the ability to vote against "the gays". This is the first time they got a chance to pass a meaningless bill calling out Muslims.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 09:02:43 AM
The voters of Oklahoma have only had the ability to vote against "the gays". This is the first time they got a chance to pass a meaningless bill calling out Muslims.
Just wait until we get around to banning skinny people, vegans, and cat lovers!
Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 09:02:43 AM
The voters of Oklahoma have only had the ability to vote against "the gays". This is the first time they got a chance to pass a meaningless bill calling out Muslims.
We got to express our hatred of brown people too with the voter ID and English as the official language questions. It was really kind of a grand slam.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 10:46:14 AM
We got to express our hatred of brown people too with the voter ID and English as the official language questions. It was really kind of a grand slam.
I was thinking about that. I'm Irish so I don't get very tan. Some of my friends though...they might get kicked out of the state next summer.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 10:46:14 AM
We got to express our hatred of brown people too with the voter ID and English as the official language questions. It was really kind of a grand slam.
I'm guessing it won't be too long before both of those will be challenged in the courts.
Quote from: Townsend on November 03, 2010, 10:57:20 AM
I was thinking about that. I'm Irish so I don't get very tan. Some of my friends though...they might get kicked out of the state next summer.
I'm going to have to start wearing sunscreen and quit trying to transact my business with the state in Sanskrit.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 10:58:27 AM
I'm going to have to start wearing sunscreen and quit trying to transact my business with the state in Sanskrit.
I thought it was the papyrus scrolls that really gave you away....
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 10:57:33 AM
I'm guessing it won't be too long before both of those will be challenged in the courts.
Can anyone explain to me what's so terribly wrong about checking someone's ID when they vote? Do we really want inelligible people voting in elections, or people who have not registered to vote?
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 10:57:33 AM
I'm guessing it won't be too long before both of those will be challenged in the courts.
And there's the grumble. We are going to spend alot of money defending this stuff.
You're doin' fine Oklahoma.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 11:00:15 AM
Can anyone explain to me what's so terribly wrong about checking someone's ID when they vote? Do we really want inelligible people voting in elections, or people who have not registered to vote?
One of the major issues is having to buy a state ID. Paying to vote is a no-no.
The other issue is that per the new rules, you don't have to have an ID. You just have to sign a paper saying you are who you say you are. Guess what we were doing before.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 11:00:15 AM
Can anyone explain to me what's so terribly wrong about checking someone's ID when they vote? Do we really want inelligible people voting in elections, or people who have not registered to vote?
Did you not notice that they look your name up in the big book before letting you vote? If you're ineligible, you don't get to vote (or you get to vote a provisional ballot that will then be thrown out because you weren't registered or were otherwise ineligible)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 10:46:14 AM
We got to express our hatred of brown people too with the voter ID and English as the official language questions. It was really kind of a grand slam.
Are you saying that brown people are the only people incapable of getting a voter ID and learning English?
Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 11:04:22 AM
Did you not notice that they look your name up in the big book before letting you vote? If you're ineligible, you don't get to vote (or you get to vote a provisional ballot that will then be thrown out because you weren't registered or were otherwise ineligible)
Uh, Duh no I didn't notice that since I had to sign it ::)
"Hello, I'm Smith (flip to page in big book), Tim uh Tom, oh yeah the election board has me by my middle name 'George'"
I could have walked in to any number of precincts and pulled that off yesterday with no one being any the wiser. Pick a common last name, or even tell the worker: "Let me look it up, my last name is complicated" then find an obscure last name where the line had not been signed yet. You'd run a slight risk of that voter coming in while you were there, but it would be a simple scam.
I've not been so much as asked for my voter card in 26 years that I can recall. I might have at one precinct I used to vote at many years back but I've not been asked in at least 20 years I can think of.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 03, 2010, 11:05:01 AM
Are you saying that brown people are the only people incapable of getting a voter ID and learning English?
Just repeating the
libtard special liberal talking points ;)
Townsend, I don't buy the "poll tax" argument of needing a state-issued photo ID to vote, especially the way this question was written. Any adult without a driver's license needs one to cash a check, do banking transactions, or use a debit or credit card with some businesses. Here's the text of the bill. They will even accept in lieu of a photo ID your county voter card which is free. That's about as easy as you can make it. This would allow someone to use a military ID, conceal carry permit, or any other photo ID you might already carry.
"This measure amends statutes relating to voting requirements. It requires that each person appearing to vote present a document proving their identity. The document must meet the following requirements. It must have the name and photograph of the voter. It must have been issued by the federal, state or tribal government. It must have an expiration date that is after the date of the election. No expiration date would be required on certain identity cards issued to person 65 years of age or older.
In lieu of such a document, voters could present voter identification cards issued by the County Election Board.
A person who cannot or does not present the required identification may sign a sworn statement and cast a provisional ballot. Swearing to a false statement would be a felony.
These proof of identity requirements also apply to in-person absentee voting. If adopted by the people, the measure would become effective July 1, 2011."
Excerpt from the TW voter's guide to the election:
SQ 746
Subject: Voter identification
Summary: This measure would change state statutes to require voters to present government-issued photo identification or a county voter registration card at the polls.
I don't remember ever paying for a voter registration card.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 11:00:15 AM
Can anyone explain to me what's so terribly wrong about checking someone's ID when they vote? Do we really want inelligible people voting in elections, or people who have not registered to vote?
I never said there was. I actually voted FOR the measure. I always have my ID and voter card out at every election when I walk up to the table, because on occasion, I have been asked for it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 03, 2010, 11:15:35 AM
Excerpt from the TW voter's guide to the election:
SQ 746
Subject: Voter identification
Summary: This measure would change state statutes to require voters to present government-issued photo identification or a county voter registration card at the polls.
I don't remember ever paying for a voter registration card.
As I recall from reading the full measure, it requires a photo ID. I guess that means that the election boards will be on the hook for producing registration cards with photos.
It's OK, there's no reason homeless people, who are very likely to lose any ID they have, should get to vote.
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 11:17:24 AM
I never said there was. I actually voted FOR the measure. I always have my ID and voter card out at every election when I walk up to the table, because on occasion, I have been asked for it.
I've never met you. Do you speak with a Spanish accent?
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 03, 2010, 11:20:30 AM
I've never met you. Do you speak with a Spanish accent?
Nope. Several people on here will attest to that.
Do you speak with an 'Okie' accent? Should it matter?
Show me the reason for the law. Show me the examples of voter fraud that would be solved by requiring me to show a government issued ID.
They don't exist. This was just another trick to make voters afraid.
This wasn't about voter fraud...it was about voter obstruction.
To elaborate, I'm all for protections that don't make it harder for someone who is legitimately entitled to vote from exercising that right. I would, for example, have no problem with having someone who does not have ID sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that they are who they claim to be and taking a digital fingerprint or photograph of that person, which could then be used at other precincts to verify that that particular person has not previously voted.
Also: Purple thumbs. If it works for Afghanistan, why not here? ;)
Also: What RM said. This is yet another solution in search of a problem.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 03, 2010, 11:23:46 AM
Show me the reason for the law. Show me the examples of voter fraud that would be solved by requiring me to show a government issued ID.
They don't exist. This was just another trick to make voters afraid.
This wasn't about voter fraud...it was about voter obstruction.
I am a registered voter. Why should I be afraid to show ID?
Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 11:26:26 AM
Also: Purple thumbs. If it works for Afghanistan, why not here? ;)
I don't want purple. I want orange.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 03, 2010, 11:28:04 AM
I don't want purple. I want orange.
That won't work. You could claim you'd been eating Cheetos therefore giving you to chance to vote again.
;D
Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 11:26:26 AM
Also: Purple thumbs. If it works for Afghanistan, why not here? ;)
No way...I ain't no Afghani...
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 11:23:03 AM
Nope. Several people on here will attest to that.
Do you speak with an 'Okie' accent? Should it matter?
I think it's fading after nearly 40 years but I speak with an Eastern Pennsylvania (but not PA Dutch) accent.
The impression I get from much that is written is that only voters with a Spanish accent will be profiled.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 03, 2010, 11:23:46 AM
Show me the reason for the law. Show me the examples of voter fraud that would be solved by requiring me to show a government issued ID.
They don't exist. This was just another trick to make voters afraid.
This wasn't about voter fraud...it was about voter obstruction.
That's an over-reaction.
I don't have the time to look up the existing laws, but I'm assuming since we are issued voter ID cards after registering to vote that it's a requirement they be presented upon demand at the polls as it is now. Poll workers are simply lax in performing the duty of checking.
Would you scream at your poll worker they were obstructing your vote if you were asked to present your voter ID card (which is the bare minimum ID required by SQ 746)?
What would keep me from voting in a precinct in which I don't belong? That's actually thrown one or two city council elections in the past, people still voting in a precinct they used to live in. That is not fair to the candidate nor the citizens of that district.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 11:30:37 AM
I don't have the time to look up the existing laws, but I'm assuming since we are issued voter ID cards after registering to vote that it's a requirement they be presented upon demand at the polls as it is now. Poll workers are simply lax in performing the duty of checking.
Why'd they have to go so much farther? Why not enforce this?
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 03, 2010, 11:30:29 AM
I think it's fading after nearly 40 years but I speak with an Eastern Pennsylvania (but not PA Dutch) accent.
The impression I get from much that is written is that only voters with a Spanish accent will be profiled.
Which is likely why the law will be challenged in the courts and probably overturned, if it encourages racial profiling or is found to have that effect.
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 11:29:00 AM
That won't work. You could claim you'd been eating Cheetos therefore giving you to chance to vote again.
;D
Ever eat blackberries? ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 03, 2010, 11:33:04 AM
Ever eat blackberries? ;D
Yup. Blueberries are almost worse.
I wonder if this will be repealed once someone realizes they lost the blue hair vote.
It's actually not a requirement. You just have to show up and sign the book, according to the laws on the books. (before today, anyway)
It amazes me that as other states are doing enlightened things like same day registration and the like, we and the southerners are regressing. Yes, in several states (I was just reading about Iowa) you can just show up with a photo ID and proof of address (if your photo ID doesn't have it) and get registered on the spot. If you don't have those things, you do have to register in advance, though. No stupid closed registration period like we have here in Oklahoma, though.
BTW, in Oklahoma it's perfectly legal to vote at your old precinct for one election after you move. It's what you're supposed to do if you forget to update your registration. You have to show up with your registration card, declare that you've moved, sign a change of address form, and vote. There have been a couple of OK Supreme Court cases hinging on that fact, actually.
The question voted on last night does nothing to change that.
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 11:32:50 AM
Which is likely why the law will be challenged in the courts and probably overturned, if it encourages racial profiling or is found to have that effect.
I think the law does not encourage profiling, just stupid paraniod people.
Yes, I know that just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 03, 2010, 11:36:44 AM
I think the law does not encourage profiling, just stupid paraniod people.
Yes, I know that just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.
Say that out loud. Speak clearly into the stapler.
The judge in California that overturned Prop 8 had an interesting core defense of her action that I'm surprised doesn't get used more by conservatives to judge the value of some of these state questions.
The core argument was simply that, based on the existing evidence, the state has no compelling interest in further restricting the existing environment (in this case, further restricting the rights of Gays to marry).
I think it's instructive here, too. Is there evidence that voter fraud is distorting local voting? Unless it can be proven that there's a compelling reason to further regulate the existing environment, why bother adding more? Imagined or negligent threats don't count. It should be provable, measurable and we should act accordingly.
I don't think there's ever been any proof that another law -- or somehow reiterating current law with a second law -- will improve the quality of our voting process. I actually don't think there's any proof that the system is being abused as it's currently run. Is it?
As long as they have free, easily accessible state photo ID's. I don't mind showing it at the polls.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 12:30:58 PM
As long as they have free, easily accessible state photo ID's. I don't mind showing it at the polls.
Just hope you don't lose it or get mugged on the way to the polls.
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 11:29:00 AM
That won't work. You could claim you'd been eating Cheetos therefore giving you to chance to vote again.
;D
Or a guest on Jersey Shore. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 12:43:37 PM
Just hope you don't lose it or get mugged on the way to the polls.
I hear people en-route to the polls in Oklahoma are mugged all the time. Especially when exiting the subway station to the polling place.
Yet one good reason for there to be a fee for a state ID or driver's license. It helps the irresponsible keep tabs on their wallet so they aren't shelling out $20 every month for a replacement. Voting should require some responsibility.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 02:24:12 PM
I hear people en-route to the polls in Oklahoma are mugged all the time. Especially when exiting the subway station to the polling place.
Yet one good reason for there to be a fee for a state ID or driver's license. It helps the irresponsible keep tabs on their wallet so they aren't shelling out $20 every month for a replacement. Voting should require some responsibility.
It doesn't bother me if they ask for ID when I vote. Actually I usually have it ready if they do since they tend to check here in AZ. The other reason is after all of the hoops I had to go through after having my identity stolen I don't mind proving that I am who I say I am.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 02:24:12 PM
I hear people en-route to the polls in Oklahoma are mugged all the time. Especially when exiting the subway station to the polling place.
Yet one good reason for there to be a fee for a state ID or driver's license. It helps the irresponsible keep tabs on their wallet so they aren't shelling out $20 every month for a replacement. Voting should require some responsibility.
Then it is against the 24th Amendment to me if that is the only option.
*correction, didn't notice the voter ID card exemption, although I think voter ID cards would be the single simplest thing to counterfeit if you wanted to*
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 02:24:12 PM
Voting should require some responsibility.
Put that in the Federal constitution and you can bring back the poll tax.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 02:41:22 PM
Then it is against the 24th Amendment to me if that is the only option.
*correction, didn't notice the voter ID card exemption, although I think voter ID cards would be the single simplest thing to counterfeit if you wanted to*
If someone wanted to counterfeit one, it would be quite simple. It would make fraud more difficult as you need to know precinct, addresses, poll number, etc. The idea is keeping people from voting who have no right to, like non-citizens, people voting out of precinct, or serial voting from one poll to the next. If it weren't illegal, I'd do a serial voting spree and video it just to see how many times I could vote in a day as I described earlier, it would not be difficult to do that 20 times at a minimum, based on the lax ID process I've observed.
Granted, Oklahoma is such a red state there's very little incentive for voter fraud here.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 02:41:22 PM
Then it is against the 24th Amendment to me if that is the only option.
*correction, didn't notice the voter ID card exemption, although I think voter ID cards would be the single simplest thing to counterfeit if you wanted to*
The Supremes have already held that voter id laws are not per se unconstitutional.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-28/politics/scotus.voter.id_1_voter-impersonation-voter-id-laws-voter-fraud?_s=PM:POLITICS
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 03:45:20 PM
The Supremes have already held that voter id laws are not per se unconstitutional.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-28/politics/scotus.voter.id_1_voter-impersonation-voter-id-laws-voter-fraud?_s=PM:POLITICS
Which is why I said it wasn't unconstiutional because they do allow for free identification cards. It wasn't clear but that was what my correction was trying to say.
From the article
"state provides a free voter ID card, issued through the Bureau of Motor Vehicles"
What if the state requires a state-issued ID for anyone over the age of 18 who does not possess a valid driver's license?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 02:24:12 PM
Voting should require some responsibility.
I zeroed in on this like nathan did. There's a reason that there's no bar to exercising the franchise. It's the most essential form of speech in our country, and all of our speech is free.
Quote from: we vs us on November 03, 2010, 04:13:56 PM
I zeroed in on this like nathan did. There's a reason that there's no bar to exercising the franchise. It's the most essential form of speech in our country, and all of our speech is free.
No, I'm approaching this more from a stand point that it's a responsibility to vote, it shouldn't be dumbed down and made so convenient to the point it encourages fraud. That's one reason I don't like mail in balloting with the exception of those serving in the military.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 04:29:54 PM
That's one reason I don't like mail in balloting with the exception of those serving in the military.
What if you're away on business for several months? I'd be pissed if that took my right to vote away.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 04:29:54 PM
No, I'm approaching this more from a stand point that it's a responsibility to vote, it shouldn't be dumbed down and made so convenient to the point it encourages fraud. That's one reason I don't like mail in balloting with the exception of those serving in the military.
Really? How about people who are physically unable to drive to the polling place, or their condition is as such that it makes it quite difficult to do so (absentee/mail in balloting)?
My mother does this. Is that a suitable exception? There are times when I can't take her to the ballots, but she prefers mailing them in anyway.
It's also difficult to for her to walk long distances. Does this make her a second class citizen?
It just burns me when people assume that just because you vote absentee means you're trying to job the system (before you get all in a tiff Conan, that burn is not directed toward you, but I have heard people say similar...'if you're not in the military you should be required to be present when voting').
Grrrrr....
I'm out of town regularly - including this election - and I vote by mail regularly.
Sounds like a desire for the continuation of the Murdoch/Rove doctrine of voter disenfranchisement started in a big way in 2000.
Hoss, I actually thought about your mother as I was writing that. You didn't ruffle my feathers, I understand your situation. I said I don't like mail in balloting but certainly I can see where it's a matter of convenience bordering on necessity in situations like your mother's.
I start getting worried though when party leaders are encouraging more people to mail vote. What's their reasoning for this, if they don't see some sort of advantage to it? I think it's ripe for corruption. It makes me uneasy when you hear a statement like: "the secretary of state is holding 3000 mail in ballots". I also don't like 100% paperless balloting.
Not sure why it bothers me so much must be the radiation the black helicopters are beaming into my house.
Biggest danger we have to worry about now is the election board plans to replace the ballot counting machines we have now. We have a great system that I fully expect to be completely destroyed.