Ohio GOP to Pass New "NC-like" Voting Restrictions

[Franzl]

Anyway, full steam ahead with these voting restrictions.

Can you provide any practical argument in favor, except that results that are favorable to your (despicable) ideology will become more probable?

Well, that is a very practical argument (why is my ideology despicable ?). But, I guess it reduces the potential for voter fraud, as well as the number of votes that have to be counted on election day, saving time and (potentially) money.

How practical for you that the voters whose votes won't need to be counted mostly vote the "wrong" way.

[Miles]

Anyway, full steam ahead with these voting restrictions.

Can you provide any practical argument in favor, except that results that are favorable to your (despicable) ideology will become more probable?

Well, that is a very practical argument (why is my ideology despicable ?). But, I guess it reduces the potential for voter fraud, as well as the number of votes that have to be counted on election day, saving time and (potentially) money.

So are you saying that having less people vote is okay if it saves money?

I'm not sure how much time or money counting 270 supposedly fraudulent votes out of 5.6 million would cost you...

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Anyway, full steam ahead with these voting restrictions.

Can you provide any practical argument in favor, except that results that are favorable to your (despicable) ideology will become more probable?

Well, that is a very practical argument (why is my ideology despicable ?). But, I guess it reduces the potential for voter fraud, as well as the number of votes that have to be counted on election day, saving time and (potentially) money.

So you admit you're willing to do what ever it takes to force your agenda on people.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Have the moderators checked this Cassius character's IP?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm fine with requiring an ID to vote (even the Democrats require ID to vote at their conventions), but these restrictions serve no good purpose and likely won't reduce voter fraud whatsoever.

[Alcon]

Anyway, full steam ahead with these voting restrictions.

Can you provide any practical argument in favor, except that results that are favorable to your (despicable) ideology will become more probable?

Well, that is a very practical argument (why is my ideology despicable ?). But, I guess it reduces the potential for voter fraud, as well as the number of votes that have to be counted on election day, saving time and (potentially) money.

Yikes...are you under the belief that there is systematic fraud, or are you OK with inconveniencing massive numbers of people out of voting?  The former is objectively untrue.  The latter is problematic for entirely different reasons...

[Link]

I'm fine with requiring an ID to vote (even the Democrats require ID to vote at their conventions), but these restrictions serve no good purpose and likely won't reduce voter fraud whatsoever.

Convections are out of state or at a minimum out of district.  No one votes for mayor out of state.  You vote where you live which makes substantial voter fraud impractical.  You would have to physically show up in a multitude of places scattered geographically... and not get caught to pull it off.  The system itself renders that kind of thing unworkable.  Conventions on the other hand already have people from all over at them and they are tiny.  It seems like it would be a lot easier to bus in a group of people claiming to be all kinds of random people and not get caught.

[Link]

They're reporting on it, aren't they? I don't see how this is a "ooh the media is so right-wing" thing.

I don't think the media is right wing.  Unlike Republicans just because I don't like the reporting on one particular day I don't cook up crybaby theories.

It's like the lead up to the Iraq War.  Where is the investigative journalism and the hard hitting editorials?  I mean no one can show us a single election that was materially affected by voter fraud but yet all these laws just pop up that disenfranchise Democrats.  In a democracy how is this legal?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

They're reporting on it, aren't they? I don't see how this is a "ooh the media is so right-wing" thing.

They're reporting on it, but much of the attention has gone to non-issues like the Obamacare website.

can we ban this phrase?

[greenforest32]

Not surprised.

I thank God everyday that I live in a state with liberalized voting laws.  The SoS here is pushing for online voter registration and early voting.

Hearing what's going on in these Republican states is maddening in a way I can't really express.  Don't give up, even if you have to jump through flaming hoops and wait for a day straight to vote.  Make your voice heard.

Ritchie is a FF: http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/blog/minnesota-sos-tries-maintain-state%E2%80%99s-reputation-electoral-reforms

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm fine with requiring an ID to vote (even the Democrats require ID to vote at their conventions), but these restrictions serve no good purpose and likely won't reduce voter fraud whatsoever.

Convections are out of state or at a minimum out of district.  No one votes for mayor out of state.  You vote where you live which makes substantial voter fraud impractical.  You would have to physically show up in a multitude of places scattered geographically... and not get caught to pull it off.  The system itself renders that kind of thing unworkable.  Conventions on the other hand already have people from all over at them and they are tiny.  It seems like it would be a lot easier to bus in a group of people claiming to be all kinds of random people and not get caught.

State conventions are in state.  As for conventions being tinier, that would make it harder to commit such fraud, because at conventions, most everybody already know the people there.

[cinyc]

Living in a state where there is no such thing as early voting or same-day registration and nothing but for-cause absentees, my whole view of things is different.  I see nothing wrong with cutting down on the number of early voting days.  Election day should be election day, not election week or election month.  Voting before all the possible facts about the candidates are known is a really dumb idea and shouldn't be done for anything but good cause.   And same-day registration is nothing but an invitation to voter fraud.  There is no easy way to check for duplicate registrations in multiple locations.

Some of the most "progressive" states like Massachusetts and New York have nothing but for-cause absentees, no early voting and no same-day registration.  Yet some here are bashing Ohio for taking baby steps that don't even come close to that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh yes everyone knows Minnesota and Wyoming are such massive vote fraud filled states.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh yes everyone knows Minnesota and Wyoming are such massive vote fraud filled states.

How about North Dakota's lack of voter registration?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Living in a state where there is no such thing as early voting or same-day registration and nothing but for-cause absentees, my whole view of things is different.  I see nothing wrong with cutting down on the number of early voting days.  Election day should be election day, not election week or election month.  Voting before all the possible facts about the candidates are known is a really dumb idea and shouldn't be done for anything but good cause.   And same-day registration is nothing but an invitation to voter fraud.  There is no easy way to check for duplicate registrations in multiple locations.

Some of the most "progressive" states like Massachusetts and New York have nothing but for-cause absentees, no early voting and no same-day registration.  Yet some here are bashing Ohio for taking baby steps that don't even come close to that.

With election cycles starting so far in advance, people know basically "all the possible facts", at least as many as would be known by election day that wouldn't also be subject to change a month after the election as well.

[cinyc]

With election cycles starting so far in advance, people know basically "all the possible facts", at least as many as would be known by election day that wouldn't also be subject to change a month after the election as well.

Last-minute scandals come out all the time.  Candidates make gaffes in debates and on the campaign trail.  And campaign commercials change up until election day.

Sorry.  Maybe it's because I've never experienced it, but I just don't see a real need for no-cause early voting.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

With election cycles starting so far in advance, people know basically "all the possible facts", at least as many as would be known by election day that wouldn't also be subject to change a month after the election as well.

Last-minute scandals come out all the time.  Candidates make gaffes in debates and on the campaign trail.  And campaign commercials change up until election day.

Sorry.  Maybe it's because I've never experienced it, but I just don't see a real need for no-cause early voting.

But those scandals are "last-minute" only because you're looking at the issue from the starting point of a one-day election.  Scandals can also happen the week after an election ends; that would tip the scale in favor of extending elections to last past when they do now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So what's the advantage of cutting voting machines? Or reducing voting hours (like the NC bill did) or also banning precincts from letting people vote who were in line when voting closed, basically if you were in line and are next to enter at closing time under that law you don't get to vote. Mind you I am pretty confident there is no way that part of the bill is surviving a court challenge.

[cinyc]

But those scandals are "last-minute" only because you're looking at the issue from the starting point of a one-day election.  Scandals can also happen the week after an election ends; that would tip the scale in favor of extending elections to last past when they do now.

No it wouldn't.  If it happens after election day, no one who has cast a ballot can say they would have voted differently has they known what was known before election day.  If you cast an early vote in October and in early November you leatn that the person you voted for is an embezzling sleazebag, you're out of luck.  You can't change that vote even though there would have been time to vote differently had you waited a bit to cast your ballot.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Please explain to me how reducing the number of voting machines cuts down on fraud and allows for more informed voters. And point to the horrific travesties that have befallen my state because of its same day voter registration.

[cinyc]

So what's the advantage of cutting voting machines?

Saving money, particularly if there are precincts that are sparsely populated that can be combined.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reducing voting hours on election day would also save money, though I don't know why it should be necessary unless polls in certain counties are open earlier or later than polls in other counties, like in New York.  In that case, hours should be cut or raised to be uniform throughout the state.   It's unfair that polls are open longer in the New York City metro than Upstate.  Everyone should have the same number of hours to go to the polls.  However, reducing early voting hours makes sense if you don't think there should be early voting in the first place. 

I have no clue why you'd ban precincts from letting people who are on line vote before the cuttoff.  But I can see why you'd make those people cast provisional ballots just in case an election's close and there's a controversy over whether those people were actually on line on time.

[pbrower2a]

Anyway, full steam ahead with these voting restrictions.

Can you provide any practical argument in favor, except that results that are favorable to your (despicable) ideology will become more probable?

Well, that is a very practical argument (why is my ideology despicable ?). But, I guess it reduces the potential for voter fraud, as well as the number of votes that have to be counted on election day, saving time and (potentially) money.

Preventing people who have the right to vote  from voting through some chicanery is itself electoral fraud because the purpose is to distort the vote. With enough such electoral fraud any flawed candidate can win.

Electoral fraud has helped some people with ideologies that you despise gain and hold power. If it is wrong when Commies do it, it is wrong when conservatives do it.

 

[Marokai Backbeat]

"It saves money" is not a sufficient rationale for why we should reduce the amount of voting machines available to certain precincts on election day. Perhaps it is to a crazy person. And that's not even getting into the can of worms that is the rather politically convenient targets of these "cost saving" measures among states that have decided to cut early voting or limit machine access.

I actually don't disagree with Cinyc in that I would prefer election day be election day and do away with elective early voting, but the reason it exists isn't because people just thought it would be fun, it's because many states have proven time and again that they clearly cannot handle the load of voters on election day when the time comes, and many people of certain demographic groups simply don't have the ability to just go wait hours to vote; thus, they vote early, or with a group of people they want to make an outing of it with.

If we quintupled the amount of voting machines, locations, and election workers, there wouldn't be such a pressing need to spread out the burden of accepting votes over the course of weeks or months. But such would get in the way of "saving money" and we're right back to square one. Certain people in politics simply don't exactly think the expansion of voting access is worth the effort. They come from a certain side.

[IceSpear]

I don't care if it costs a trillion dollars for everyone who wants to cast their vote to be able to do so. I'd imagine most people who believe in democracy feel the same way.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't care if it costs a trillion dollars for everyone who wants to cast their vote to be able to do so. I'd imagine most people who believe in democracy feel the same way.

It doesn't even really cost that much in the grand scheme of it all, is the preposterous thing. The idea that any state saves a meaningful amount of money by just restricting voting access (let me repeat that for dramatic effect: we are discussing restricting voting access just to save cash) is the same logic that says we can balance budgets by tackling "fraud" or taking pennies from Head Start and public broadcasting.