What problems do you have with the four major tenants of the HR1 Bill?

[independentusa]

The four major tenants of the HR1 bill are as follows:
1. Expanded voter registration
2. Fair redistricting
3.Outlaw voter purging
4.Restore parts of the Voting Rights Act to insure everyone gets to vote.
Mitch McConnell says that this bill is a power grab, do you? If you think it is a power grab, how is it so? It seems to me to make the one thing that makes us a great country easier, the right to vote for our representatives. None of the four seems to be partisan. It seems to me that many politico's want voting to go from a right to a privilege that falls to only those of ones own party.

 

[trouble13]

The four major tenants of the HR1 bill are as follows:
1. Expanded voter registration
2. Fair redistricting
3.Outlaw voter purging
4.Restore parts of the Voting Rights Act to insure everyone gets to vote.
Mitch McConnell says that this bill is a power grab, do you? If you think it is a power grab, how is it so? It seems to me to make the one thing that makes us a great country easier, the right to vote for our representatives. None of the four seems to be partisan. It seems to me that many politico's want voting to go from a right to a privilege that falls to only those of ones own party.

How is fair redistricting defined?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[washunut]

The four major tenants of the HR1 bill are as follows:
1. Expanded voter registration
2. Fair redistricting
3.Outlaw voter purging
4.Restore parts of the Voting Rights Act to insure everyone gets to vote.
Mitch McConnell says that this bill is a power grab, do you? If you think it is a power grab, how is it so? It seems to me to make the one thing that makes us a great country easier, the right to vote for our representatives. None of the four seems to be partisan. It seems to me that many politico's want voting to go from a right to a privilege that falls to only those of ones own party.

What does #3 mean? Dead people never come off the voter rolls. How about if you move to a different district? How about college kids who register where their school is and move when they graduate etc.

#1 Not sure what pelosi is calling for here.

 

[independentusa]

How is fair redistricting defined?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Non-partisan redistricting, not aimed at either party gaining an advantage. Basically making it one man one vote again. In Wisconsin in 2018 one party got 55% of the vote, but got only 34% of the legislative positions due to redistricting that favored one party. It basically did away with the one man one vote. It can and has been done. In 1990, the county I lived in used a computer generated redistricting plan for its supervisor districts that eliminated all political input. No one could complain and the districts were all of one population size, but did include areas of like interest such as cities and towns. I know how it worked as I was part of the people who were involved in running the program.The plan was accepted without comment. If a county can do so, a state can do so.

 

[independentusa]

What does #3 mean? Dead people never come off the voter rolls. How about if you move to a different district? How about college kids who register where their school is and move when they graduate etc.

#1 Not sure what pelosi is calling for here.

It means that a state can not just purge people off the rolls without cause and will have to notify those who are purged from the rolls for any reason. And in reality, if someone dies, without Id how can someone vote for them? What the House and you can say Pelosi is saying, let the people vote and what comes, comes. In Virginia alone the present Governor, who was in charge of voting in that state before the election of 2018, purged something like 1.4 million people off of the rolls in the last two years before the election and did not notify them that they had been purged. Do you think 1.4 million people died during that two years?

 

[washunut]

Non-partisan redistricting, not aimed at either party gaining an advantage. Basically making it one man one vote again. In Wisconsin in 2018 one party got 55% of the vote, but got only 34% of the legislative positions due to redistricting that favored one party. It basically did away with the one man one vote. It can and has been done. In 1990, the county I lived in used a computer generated redistricting plan for its supervisor districts that eliminated all political input. No one could complain and the districts were all of one population size, but did include areas of like interest such as cities and towns. I know how it worked as I was part of the people who were involved in running the program.The plan was accepted without comment. If a county can do so, a state can do so.

Not sure what the bill says. Mt state is about 60/40 in favor of democrats. Yet democrats hold 100% of the federal house of representative states. Are you saying this bill would call for 40% of our representatives would be republican.

 

[Bullseye]

The four major tenants of the HR1 bill are as follows:
1. Expanded voter registration
2. Fair redistricting
3.Outlaw voter purging
4.Restore parts of the Voting Rights Act to insure everyone gets to vote.
Mitch McConnell says that this bill is a power grab, do you? If you think it is a power grab, how is it so? It seems to me to ma the one thing that makes us a great country easier, the right to vote for our representatives. None of the four seems to be partisan. It seems to me that many politico's want voting to go from a right to a privilege that falls to only those of ones own party.

All of it. A
desperate attempt to make election fraud even easier.


1. To register as a voter you have to be a US citizen, by "expanding" registration you create more opportunities for cheating.
2. What defines "fair"? The party in power?
3. So voter rolls just keep growing, ad infinitum? Making sure voter rolls match current voters is important.
4. Which parts?

Having a fair and honest election system is critical. Making it "easier" should be the goal. Ensuring only those allowed to vote actually vote.

 

[trouble13]

Non-partisan redistricting, not aimed at either party gaining an advantage. Basically making it one man one vote again. In Wisconsin in 2018 one party got 55% of the vote, but got only 34% of the legislative positions due to redistricting that favored one party. It basically did away with the one man one vote. It can and has been done. In 1990, the county I lived in used a computer generated redistricting plan for its supervisor districts that eliminated all political input. No one could complain and the districts were all of one population size, but did include areas of like interest such as cities and towns. I know how it worked as I was part of the people who were involved in running the program.The plan was accepted without comment. If a county can do so, a state can do so.

The reason I asked is that I am all for non partisan lines being drawn and basically gridding the state into equally populated districts but I have not seen any of them do that yet.

What the term seems to mean recently is if you have 60% of 1 party and 40% of another party in the state. It should be distracted in a way that reflects that represenitively.

While I will not argue that it's worse than the crazy gerrymandering we currently have I would also argue it's not really any better either.

Districts should not be drawn based on how many registered voters live in a given area.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

It means that a state can not just purge people off the rolls without cause and will have to notify those who are purged from the rolls for any reason. And in reality, if someone dies, without Id how can someone vote for them? What the House and you can say Pelosi is saying, let the people vote and what comes, comes. In Virginia alone the present Governor, who was in charge of voting in that state before the election of 2018, purged something like 1.4 million people off of the rolls in the last two years before the election and did not notify them that they had been purged. Do you think 1.4 million people died during that two years?

Personally and this is just my opinion but I dont understand the need for voter registration. Why not allow anyone with a valid government I'd present it at the poll and vote. What is the purpose of making people register?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Not sure what the bill says. Mt state is about 60/40 in favor of democrats. Yet democrats hold 100% of the federal house of representative states. Are you saying this bill would call for 40% of our representatives would be republican.

Yes that's the basic gist of it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[independentusa]

Not sure what the bill says. Mt state is about 60/40 in favor of democrats. Yet democrats hold 100% of the federal house of representative states. Are you saying this bill would call for 40% of our representatives would be republican.

I do not know how your state is set up, but if it is by districts, then yes, the GOP should have had near 40% of the legislators. This does not apply in states that have winner take all presidential elections or in Senate votes where there are no districts.

 

[independentusa]

All of it. A
desperate attempt to make election fraud even easier.


1. To register as a voter you have to be a US citizen, by "expanding" registration you create more opportunities for cheating.
2. What defines "fair"? The party in power?
3. So voter rolls just keep growing, ad infinitum? Making sure voter rolls match current voters is important.
4. Which parts?

Having a fair and honest election system is critical. Making it "easier" should be the goal. Ensuring only those allowed to vote actually vote.

I do not know where you live, but most states require you to have ID when you register initially. One state is using those who have valid driver IDS to be registered without having to do so personally. As far as fair, it means that neither party should be involved in redistricting. It can be done via computer as was done in my county in 1990. Voter roles can be looked at and cleaned of those no longer alive or who have registered elsewhere. The problem is that in several states the voter rolls seem to be purged of those who the party in power sees as voting for the other party. IN at least one state over 1.4 million people were purged by the man who controlled the rolls over a two year period and then that man then for another position. And those purged were not notified that they had been removed so it was too late for them to register when they went to vote. In my state they passed voter ID rules so strict that even Veteran ID's could not be used. They made it almost impossible for students to vote until the courts forced them to do so. that is not making it easier for those to vote who are qualified to vote, but harder. In the election before this one over 200,000 qualified voters could not vote because of the strict voter ID laws, including a 94 year old lady who had voted every year since she was 21.

 

[eohrnberger]

All of it. A
desperate attempt to make election fraud even easier.


1. To register as a voter you have to be a US citizen, by "expanding" registration you create more opportunities for cheating.
2. What defines "fair"? The party in power?
3. So voter rolls just keep growing, ad infinitum? Making sure voter rolls match current voters is important.
4. Which parts?

Having a fair and honest election system is critical. Making it "easier" should be the goal. Ensuring only those allowed to vote actually vote.

You point of 'fair redistricting' is spot on. I think what is meant and / or missing 'until Democrats always win all elections'.

I think there's already reasonable procedures, notification and process protecting voters who are on the voting rolls.
So that's a solution in search of a problem.

I do believe that 'Expanded voter registration' might be a pitch to give non-citizens the right to vote in elections. There are a number of leftist cities who have already done this.

Given the questionable process we've seen in the 2018 midterms, I think it fair to say that there needs to be greater vigor and diligence given to make sure that people who are voting do in fact have the right to vote, i.e. a US citizen.

 

[Xelor]

The four major tenants of the HR1 bill are as follows:
1. Expanded voter registration
2. Fair redistricting
3.Outlaw voter purging
4.Restore parts of the Voting Rights Act to insure everyone gets to vote.
Mitch McConnell says that this bill is a power grab, do you? If you think it is a power grab, how is it so? It seems to me to make the one thing that makes us a great country easier, the right to vote for our representatives. None of the four seems to be partisan. It seems to me that many politico's want voting to go from a right to a privilege that falls to only those of ones own party.

Red:
I think it's more a "power give" than a power grab. The measures of the bill attempt to increase citizens' ability to exercise the power of their votes. And, frankly, I think that's a good thing. The more citizens who vote, the better, AFAIC.

 

[Xelor]

What does #3 mean? Dead people never come off the voter rolls. How about if you move to a different district? How about college kids who register where their school is and move when they graduate etc.

#1 Not sure what pelosi is calling for here.

Blue + Red:
Read the bill: H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019


Blue:
Pelosi isn't the bill's sponsor; thus one can hardly say that she is specifically the Representative calling for anything. Mrs. Pelosi is a co-sponsor, so, yes, she's "all aboard" with its provisions.

 

[Xelor]

Non-partisan redistricting, not aimed at either party gaining an advantage. Basically making it one man one vote again. In Wisconsin in 2018 one party got 55% of the vote, but got only 34% of the legislative positions due to redistricting that favored one party. It basically did away with the one man one vote. It can and has been done. In 1990, the county I lived in used a computer generated redistricting plan for its supervisor districts that eliminated all political input. No one could complain and the districts were all of one population size, but did include areas of like interest such as cities and towns. I know how it worked as I was part of the people who were involved in running the program.The plan was accepted without comment. If a county can do so, a state can do so.

Red:
That's not what the measures aim to accomplish.

The non-partisan redistricting provisions aim to create a party-impartial redistricting process and body that will draw districts so that Republicans and Democrats aren't "clustered/dispersed" whereby the vast majority of voters affiliated with one or the other party are in one or two districts but the rest of the voters affiliated with that same party are so dispersed so thinly that their votes don't matter.

That said, your description of the impact of gerrymandering is adequately accurate.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The four major tenants of the HR1 bill are as follows:
1. Expanded voter registration
2. Fair redistricting
3.Outlaw voter purging
4.Restore parts of the Voting Rights Act to insure everyone gets to vote.
Mitch McConnell says that this bill is a power grab, do you? If you think it is a power grab, how is it so? It seems to me to make the one thing that makes us a great country easier, the right to vote for our representatives. None of the four seems to be partisan. It seems to me that many politico's want voting to go from a right to a privilege that falls to only those of ones own party.

I've read the bill. Here's some things I disagreed with it.

1: In the expanded voter registration part there was a section that forbid law enforcement from going after anyone that was automatically registered and then went to admit that they were not eligible to be registered. One the surface that seems like a good thing right? After all, they shouldn't be gone after for a simple mistake. Problem being is that when such a person gives the reason that reasoning may be because they are here in the US illegally. Which turns this into a protection for people here illegally. There was no reason to put that section in as law enforcement would not have gone after anyone here legally and was automatically registered. It was purely to help illegal immigrants. I'm sure that some will disagree with that.

2: I don't mind the fair redistricting, but I think its a waste of time. There is no such thing when done by humans. And since that section mentions nothing about using some sort of computer software to do it but instead a "council", its definitely a pipe dream.

3: I disagree with the requirement to keep someone on the voter polls when they do not answer back after the government has noticed that they have not voted for awhile and sent them a notice to contact them or they will be purged. Usually when someone is purged due to this its because they no longer live in the area. Besides, another part of the bill makes sure that they could vote regardless if they were on the voter rolls or not. By mandating that everyone be allowed to vote regardless if they meet the State requirements to vote or not. Speaking of which....

4: As said above, it mandates that States allow people to vote regardless if they meet State requirements to vote or not. This is an end run around against States that require an ID to vote. IE: It over rides States attempts to make sure that only citizens vote.

5: Something that is not a part of what you listed: It requires the President and Vice President to show Congress AND the public their tax records. I would have no problem with it if it was just required to be shown to Congress. (as long as there were securities in place to make sure that information did not get into public hands) But tax forms are private for a reason. The IRS can't even disclose to people if their social security numbers are being used in multiple locations around the US. That's how private its supposed to be. Also, it of course does not require the same of those in Congress. Even though they actually make laws and regulations and the things that they're concerned about with the President and Vice President would actually apply to them far more than the President and Vice President. Just another example of "good for them, but not for us because we're better" mentality.

 

[Helix]

i'm for ending all gerrymandering and removing any obstacles that make it more difficult to vote.