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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

But if you learn in December that the guy you voted for was a sleazebag, don't you think you would want to change your vote.  Your argument seems based entirely on arbitrariness.  If the fact that candidate X is a sleazebag comes out in October, you think that the voter should be forced to have the opportunity to change his mind about the candidate, but if the fact that candidate X is a sleazebag comes out in December, you're saying that the voter is out of luck.  In order to achieve what you want, wouldn't a better solution be to start campaign seasons years in advance, so that all potential scandals would be divulged?  Under such a scenario, early voting would have little-to-no impact on this "problem" that you raise.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Someone might register before achieving full citizenship on the assumption that citizenship at the time of the election is good enough -- just as it is possible for someone to register at age 17 so long as one turns 18 on or before Election Day. We should all know about that.

I don't know if it is the case everywhere, but in South Carolina, not only can 17 year olds register, they can vote in primary elections so long they will be 18 when the corresponding general election is held.

This is true in IL starting this year.

Michigan has this rule as well.  It makes sense to me.