Dem unveils automatic voter registration bill

[Zyphlin]

On first glance, I have absolutely no issue with the written puprose of this law

i'm not sure why all citizens aren't just automatically registered when they are 18. that would make the most sense, and would remove a step. perhaps we could do it through Social Security. they know exactly how old everyone is.

Agree entirely. Everyone has a SSN number. I don't see why we couldn't get a system that somehow ties it to that. You turn 18, your status for being allowed to vote basically goes from "No" to "Yes".

You do understand that universal registration would mean Republican leaners would also be automatically registered to vote.

Couldn't be any more nonpartisan.

So did you read his post and try to understand it, or just see buzzwords in his statement and argued against it based on a stereotype.

His argument of it's partisanship was not about the actual bill itself, but rather the reason for it. His argument was that most people that want to vote already can register for vote with great ease. His assertion seems to be that few, if any, individuals who want to vote would actually be actively stopped from doing so because they have to fill out a form.

His claim of "partisanship" was based around his belief that this bill is political theater....a frivilous and empty gesture...with a purpose of depicting Republicans as an evil group of people trying to "hold down" minorities groups by keeping them from voting and presenting the Democrats as some kind of figure fighting for the little guy. His assertion of partisanship was on the notion that said political purpose of the bill was a greater motivation for it's creation than any honest desire to register those who want to be registered but have had problems doing so.

 

[Zyphlin]

Except that there are states that have laws that specifically state that the DMV cannot ask for citizenship status of applicants. In spite of current law stating that, essentially, no one is allowed to knowingly help illegal aliens. Yet the laws are designed specifically to let illegal aliens get drivers licenses. Yet Obama & Co. have proven time and again to not go after states that do this, they only go after states that make laws that hinder illegal aliens.

Now that is a possible problem....

If a state refuses to ask about an individuals citizenship status when they register at the DMV, and they take no steps to verify an individuals citizenship status when someone registers at the DMV, then that states DMV should not be automatically registering individuals to vote.

Again, this is why I'd rather see this tied to SSN's. While those can still be manipulated via fraud, I'd imagine it's less so. Once a person hits 18, their SSN is able to be used to vote.

 

[d0gbreath]

Personally, as my state has no voter registration process, I'm sure you folks wonder how elections survive without registration. But we survive.

I did not know that Fiddy. I was too young to vote when we lived in Minot.

We are supposedly living in the information era. My life is currently being tracked by so many different entities, that I lost track somewhere north of 100.

It would seem to make modern computer data base sense that all Americans 18 and older could be auto-registered to vote, with enough processing power left over to beat the Grandmaster chess champion of the world.

Everything about our lives as citizens is being transfered to clouds and data bases. It's high time voter registration went that route too.

 

[humbolt]

Uh what? Registering to vote does not equate to the action of voting......

Heh. Right. Just like owning a gun does not equate to the action of shooting...oh wait, that air tight logic doesn't transfer. I wonder why.

 

[tech30528]

My sister is allowed to vote in Wisconsin although she actually lives in Equador. She has a professional visa to be in Equador and only spends a couple of weeks here in the states visiting. Doesn't seem right to me. If she was a citizen of Equador she would be required to vote there, voting is manditory. Not that it much matters, their government does whatever it wants regardless of the will of the people.

 

[justabubba]

My sister is allowed to vote in Wisconsin although she actually lives in Equador. She has a professional visa to be in Equador and only spends a couple of weeks here in the states visiting. Doesn't seem right to me. If she was a citizen of Equador she would be required to vote there, voting is manditory. Not that it much matters, their government does whatever it wants regardless of the will of the people.

don't see the problem
that same objection would deny military and state department personnel/spouses the right to vote because they are assigned to live out of country

 

[JasperL]

:roll: everyone who is eligible to vote is already eligible.

If you can't be troubled to fill out a card, then I'm betting that your knowledge is roughly equivalent to your level of passion. No one should stop you from voting... but you shouldn't.

The last thing we need is more low-information voters making decisions based off who seems nicer in that one ad that one time they saw on that one show, or who their sisters-hairdresser told them they liked, or that bumper sticker they thought was funny.

What's hilarious is this is the mainstream GOP position summarized by Paul Weyrich in the 80s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

"As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

But if someone suggests the photo ID efforts, shortening early voting hours, cutting registration off earlier, etc. are designed to keep the voting populace down, and not to address non-existent voter fraud, right winger say, WHO US!!!????

Partisan move by the Democrats is obvious. The intent of this is to try to keep the black community involved in a post-Obama era by constantly ginning up stories about Them Evil Republicans Out To Keep You From Voting :roll:

No need to gin anything up - all they need to do is quote GOPers making the same comments you made above, and note that GOPer oppose any process to make voting more convenient or registration easier.

 

[JasperL]

To say nothing of people voting in more than one state. Just another attempt to get votes from the ineligible. It won't become a law.

That's 180 degrees wrong. The point is when someone moves, their voting registration is shifted, from the old location to the new. The notification would go to both parties, removed from the former residence, added to the new residence.

If you want to vote in more than one state, the stupid, inefficient current policy works great. When I moved from NC, I didn't bother to cancel my registration - no reason to make the call or the trip. If I'd wanted, it would have been simple to cast absentee ballots for years. Automatic updating through DMV would end that - NC is notified as soon as I hand in my NC DL for a TN DL.

Makes sense, which is why the GOPers oppose it.

 

[JasperL]

His argument of it's partisanship was not about the actual bill itself, but rather the reason for it. His argument was that most people that want to vote already can register for vote with great ease. His assertion seems to be that few, if any, individuals who want to vote would actually be actively stopped from doing so because they have to fill out a form.

His claim of "partisanship" was based around his belief that this bill is political theater....a frivilous and empty gesture...with a purpose of depicting Republicans as an evil group of people trying to "hold down" minorities groups by keeping them from voting and presenting the Democrats as some kind of figure fighting for the little guy. His assertion of partisanship was on the notion that said political purpose of the bill was a greater motivation for it's creation than any honest desire to register those who want to be registered but have had problems doing so.

No, he was clear:

If you can't be troubled to fill out a card, then I'm betting that your knowledge is roughly equivalent to your level of passion. No one should stop you from voting... but you shouldn't.

The last thing we need is more low-information voters making decisions based off who seems nicer in that one ad that one time they saw on that one show, or who their sisters-hairdresser told them they liked, or that bumper sticker they thought was funny.

He doesn't want this bill because it would make registration easy - low info voters wouldn't have to make the effort to register, and he hopes they won't so they can't vote.

 

[fmw]

That's 180 degrees wrong. The point is when someone moves, their voting registration is shifted, from the old location to the new. The notification would go to both parties, removed from the former residence, added to the new residence.

Oh goodie. Let's create yet another incompetent federal government bureaucracy. Beyond stupid.

 

[justabubba]

Oh goodie. Let's create yet another incompetent federal government bureaucracy. Beyond stupid.

why would it have to be incompetent?

would we not want to wait and evaluate its accomplishments - or lack of them - before writing it off as incompetent?

 

[Zyphlin]

He doesn't want this bill because it would make registration easy

This is a strawman. My post was not in any way dealing with whether or not he "wanted" the bill or not. My post was singularly about your claim of it being "non-partisan", which was said in response to a post of his talking about the partisanship. Concerning the partisanship of the bill, he stated:

Partisan move by the Democrats is obvious. The intent of this is to try to keep the black community involved in a post-Obama era by constantly ginning up stories about Them Evil Republicans Out To Keep You From Voting :roll:

Republican voters also being registered in no way, shape, or form addresses the reasonings as to why he said this was a "partisan move", and thus your attempted counter to his comment by saying it was "non-partisan" was wholey inaccurate as it did not address his argument in the least.

Whether or not it registered republicans as well as democrats is irrelevant to what his argument about partisanship was. His argument about it's partisanship wasn't concerning who it was registering, but the political motivations for WHY the bill was being pushed.

 

[Excon]

Everyone should be against this.

Voting is a State issue, not a Federal one.

 

[cpwill]

why would it have to be incompetent?

would we not want to wait and evaluate its accomplishments - or lack of them - before writing it off as incompetent?

Did you see where it said "federal government" before the "bureaucracy"?

 

[cpwill]

What's hilarious is this is the mainstream GOP position summarized by Paul Weyrich in the 80s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

"As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

:raises eyebrow: are you really sure that you want to make the argument that filtering out low-information, low-motivation voters disadvantages democrats?

"Vote Democrat: Proudly Representing the Lazy and Stupid Since 1828"

?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The Selective Service system is a Federally run program. Elections are run by the state. That may inconvenient for your ideas to "improve" things, but that is the way our governments were set up.

The way elections are ran are done by the states, yes usually by the Secretary of States offices... But federal elections are different in regulation and implementation that state election laws...

Except that there are states that have laws that specifically state that the DMV cannot ask for citizenship status of applicants.

Federal law trumps state laws.

In spite of current law stating that, essentially, no one is allowed to knowingly help illegal aliens. Yet the laws are designed specifically to let illegal aliens get drivers licenses. Yet Obama & Co. have proven time and again to not go after states that do this, they only go after states that make laws that hinder illegal aliens.

Well you would know that:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg77.pdf

Heh. Right. Just like owning a gun does not equate to the action of shooting...oh wait, that air tight logic doesn't transfer. I wonder why.

Uh what?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

The way elections are ran are done by the states, yes usually by the Secretary of States offices... But federal elections are different in regulation and implementation that state election laws...


Federal law trumps state laws.


Well you would know that:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg77.pdf


Uh what?

There are no Federal Elections.

 

[JasperL]

:raises eyebrows: are you really sure that you want to make the argument that filtering out low-information, low-motivation voters disadvantages democrats?

"Vote Democrat: Proudly Representing the Lazy and Stupid Since 1828"
?

Good point. Lots of idiots in my area vote Republican, and they're utterly misinformed. Even the college grads know a lot of stuff that is false cause they get it from Rush or Fox News..... I'll concede the error..

But it's also true that democrats do typically (if the voters are informed) appeal to those at the bottom, the poor, and who aren't as likely to be politically engaged, including young people who the republicans OPPOSE being automatically registered from their DMV info when they reach voting age, because young people also vote democratic as a rule.

But the point is the Weyrich comments are the GOP position, and the photo ID requirements, shortening voting hours, shortening registration, making voter registration drives all but illegal, are all attempts to drive down the voting population to help Republicans, and don't have a thing to do with voter fraud. So the GOP efforts are to make registration more time consuming and difficult and to make voting more inconvenient if you can't easily take 3 hours off in the middle of the day on Tuesday, etc. Your comments confirm all of that, but you won't connect the dots between your desire to drive down the voting population and recent GOP efforts to do just that.

 

[Master PO]

Read more @: Dem unveils automatic voter registration bill

I think this is a start. I do think there should be universal registration to vote, but I think you should be registered when you enter in the Selective Service System, not because I agree with "the draft" but because I think its a more efficient way to get individuals registered. But none the less I can throw my support behind this bill, even though with the current situation it would be lucky to even get a hearing. [/FONT][/COLOR]

unconstitutional action!

the federal government has no such authority.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

There are no Federal Elections.

There are federal elections, however the states implement said the elections. And there are federal election laws as well....

 

[JasperL]

This is a strawman. My post was not in any way dealing with whether or not he "wanted" the bill or not. My post was singularly about your claim of it being "non-partisan", which was said in response to a post of his talking about the partisanship. Concerning the partisanship of the bill, he stated:



Republican voters also being registered in no way, shape, or form addresses the reasonings as to why he said this was a "partisan move", and thus your attempted counter to his comment by saying it was "non-partisan" was wholey inaccurate as it did not address his argument in the least.

Whether or not it registered republicans as well as democrats is irrelevant to what his argument about partisanship was. His argument about it's partisanship wasn't concerning who it was registering, but the political motivations for WHY the bill was being pushed.

If it's not about which voters would be mostly registered, then why not oppose the bill on its merits. I didn't see a merit based reason mentioned. Or if there is no practical reason to oppose it, support making it easier to register. Then by 2016 there is no issue because the parties would agree that streamlining the process is a good thing, and this bill can pass 80-20 or something in the Senate and breeze through the House.

Bottom line is GOPers will oppose it because they don't WANT more people registered or voting for partisan reasons. Their consultants know this, advise them of this fact and their (nearly) every recent act when addressing voting rule changes confirms it. When given a choice between easier and harder they pick harder. More time to register or less, they pick less. Longer or shorter days/hours at the early voting/polls, they pick shorter. More or fewer places to register, fewer.

If it's partisan to want more people registered and voting then yes, this bill is partisan. And it's partisan to want fewer people registered and voting.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

unconstitutional action!

the federal government has no such authority.

Oh please. :roll:
"but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

 

[AliHajiSheik]

There are federal elections, however the states implement said the elections. And there are federal election laws as well....

There are federal election laws, there are no federal elections.

 

[Fenton]

Read more @: Dem unveils automatic voter registration bill

I think this is a start. I do think there should be universal registration to vote, but I think you should be registered when you enter in the Selective Service System, not because I agree with "the draft" but because I think its a more efficient way to get individuals registered. But none the less I can throw my support behind this bill, even though with the current situation it would be lucky to even get a hearing. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Lol.. .

Whats next ?

Oh let me guess, automatic voting !!

If you fail to vote a vote will be cast for you depending on your location, age, gender and just how desperate the Democrat party has become.

 

[Excon]

Oh please. :roll:
"but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

No, this is reserved for the States.