Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: Dims can't win 11/2;will try the old fashion way

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    From New Mexico: [b]Voter ID scuffle coming to a head [/b]

    By Deborah Baker The Associated Press

    [b]SANTA FE - For years, voter identification has been a back-burner issue in New Mexico, a Republican favorite killed by majority Democrats in Capitol committee rooms. [/b]

    Its advance to the front burner comes in a red-hot election year.

    President Bush and John Kerry are locked in a tight race in a state haunted by a number: 366, the number of votes by which Bush lost New Mexico in the last election.

    This year, Democrats and Republicans are determined to leave no voter - none of their own voters, anyway - behind.

    The voter ID dispute to be heard by the state Supreme Court today stems from conflicting interpretations of a 2003 state law requiring some first-time voters to show identification at the polls.

    At the core of the fight is the thousands of New Mexicans who have registered during voter drives at grocery stores, coffee shops, gas stations and malls.

    Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron, a Democrat and the state's top elections official, says the 2003 law does not require those first-time voters to show ID at the polls.

    Chaves County Clerk David Kunko and state District Judge Charles Currier - both Republicans - disagree with her.

    The statute says first-time registrants must provide ID, whether voting at the polls or absentee, if their voter registration forms are "not submitted in person by the applicant."

    Kunko claims that means "in person" at the county clerk's office. A first-time voter who registers anywhere else - even at a motor vehicle or welfare office - would have to show ID in order to vote, under his interpretation. Currier concurred.

    Vigil-Giron says that's misreading the law. "In person" means anyone not registering by mail, she says - including those who register in front of a person at a mall.

    Kunko's interpretation, she argues, conflicts with another section of law, to the effect that voters who showed up at the polls would face stricter ID requirements than those who voted absentee.

    There are other legal issues, too: whether the county clerk is obliged to comply with the secretary of state's directive, for example, and whether the Chaves County ruling was flawed because the secretary of state wasn't made part of the case.

    Kunko says the law is clear and Vigil-Giron's interpretation is "just wrong," so he doesn't have to follow it.

    The voter ID laws, he says, "were enacted to combat election fraud and to protect the integrity of the electoral process."

    The Democratic Party, in documents filed with the court, accuses Republicans of trying to disrupt the presidential election with "false and trumped-up claims" of widespread voter registration fraud.

    They say the GOP doesn't want newly registered voters - nearly 120,000 of them in the past year - to be allowed easy access to the polls. That's because about 44 percent of them registered as Democrats, the party says, while about 24 percent are Republican and 32 percent unaffiliated.

    Democrats also argue that tens of thousands of new voters were told they wouldn't have to show ID unless they registered by mail, and it would be impossible to notify them all of new ID requirements before absentee voting begins Oct. 5.

    And Democrats are falling back on a longstanding argument against voter ID: that it tends to disenfranchise poor, rural, student, Hispanic and Indian voters.

    The challenge to Vigil-Giron's ruling was first brought in Bernalillo County, where Judge Robert Thompson, a Democrat, concluded it would be too disruptive to the election and rule out too many voters to impose the broader ID requirement argued by Republicans.

    GOP challengers had better luck in Chaves County and then in Otero County, where GOP judges upheld their broader interpretation.

    The secretary of state then took the matter to the Supreme Court, citing the need to have the law applied uniformly throughout the state.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRom Wisconsin: [b]Some voter registration forms have city officials concerned By Rob Golub [/b]

    RACINE - City officials have been overwhelmed with more than 2,300 new voter registration forms in recent weeks, and they believe some of the forms are improper.

    Under state law, "registrars" who do not work for government may approach you, ask you to fill out a voter registration form, and turn in the form for you. Mayor Gary Becker feels it's possible people who were paid to register voters by nonprofit groups may have filled out voter registration forms with names from the phone book.

    "There were three different ones turned in from the same registrar, where the names started with `pf' from different sides of town," Becker said. "What are the odds that this guy ran into three different people from different sides of town whose names start with `pf'? There aren't that many of them."

    "There are some peculiarities," agreed Deputy City Clerk Carolyn Moskonas, who has been sending letters to names on incomplete or suspicious forms. "Some of the letters that we've sent out, trying to get more information, have come back marked `no such address' or `nobody by that name lives here.' " Moskonas said her office is investigating the irregularities.

    Becker said the city is weeding out improper voter forms and that the upcoming presidential election will not be affected, not even by one vote. Becker said it seems like inaccurate forms were turned in by workers looking to make some extra money, not influence an election.

    Becker said many of the registrations are legitimate and he's glad to have them, even if it has created a burden for the Racine City Clerk's office.

    Other city departments have pitched in to help the overwhelmed City Clerk's office go through the voter registration forms. Moskonas said one city worker found his own name and supposed signature on a form he had never filled out.

    The city has hired a part-time temporary worker to help with the voter registration forms and other election tasks.

    The Racine City Clerk's office has at least a dozen different stacks of voter registration forms on desks around the office. Stacks contain forms with addresses not in the city, without sufficient proof of identification, and even some duplicates.

    The Journal Times called the names on several forms, taken from two stacks containing suspicious voter registration forms. The results were mixed.

    In separate interviews, Curtis Scaife and Stefanie Anderson both said they filled out a form at the request of a registrar and they intended to register to vote.

    "Nothing fishy happened," Scaife said.

    For some other names, however, the phone number on the form rang with no answer, or the number was disconnected, or the name was not in the phone book.

    Lisa Seay, reached by phone, said she never filled out a voter registration form, even though a form had been turned in with her name, address, an incorrect birthday for her, and, supposedly, her signature.

    "I've never registered to vote," she said.

    Seay said she plans to register to vote before the presidential election but she is certain she has not yet registered.

    Are you interested in registering to vote? Racine residents can do so at the Racine City Clerk's office, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave. You can also register on Election Day at the polls. It's important to bring proof of where you live.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRom New York: [b]Probe of voter registrations[/b]

    BY GLENN THRUSH
    STAFF WRITER; Staff writer Bryan Virasami contributed to this story.

    September 27, 2004

    [b]Jimmy Meng's bookstore in Flushing may double as headquarters of his State Assembly campaign, but it's never been home to the 10 Asian-Americans who listed the commercial building as their residence on voter-registration cards.[/b]

    The city Board of Elections is investigating 191 questionable registrations to see if that may have an impact on Meng's Democratic primary victory, including the 10 people who claimed the Meng-owned building as their abode.

    The probe has cast a pall over Meng's historic Sept. 15 primary victory, which all but assured the Taiwanese businessman, 61, of election in November as the first Asian-American state legislator.

    "We don't know who these people are; they never worked for my father, they never lived here, and they don't work for the campaign," said Grace Meng, the candidate's daughter and campaign manager. The building, 135-29 Roosevelt Ave., houses Meng's bookstore and campaign offices.

    Meng defeated incumbent Barry Grodenchik by about 500 votes in a district that had been redrawn to favor an Asian-American candidate.

    Grace Meng said the campaign knew about the 10 voters before the primary and "tried to contact them and tell them not to vote."

    The effort failed, she said.

    It isn't known yet how many of the registrants actually cast ballots, but Meng's building isn't the only address that city investigators are checking.

    On Election Day, Steven Richman, general counsel for the Board of Elections, said he'd already found possible irregularities involving 48 other voters at two other addresses.

    Only three of the 32 people registered at a two-family house on Geranium Avenue appear to live in the house. Investigators also found none of 16 people registered at a Kissena Boulevard apartment building living there, Richman said.

    Grodenchik's supporters haven't contested the election, but they have given the board a list of 436 registered voters whose addresses are the same as those for various businesses.

    "It's not going to have an effect because we didn't win by, like, 1 percent, we won by, like, 10 percent, almost a landslide in a multi-candidate race," Grace Meng said.

    Staff writer Bryan Virasami contributed to this story.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    Wonder where this is coming from??

    [b]A Despite Kerry's lagging polls, the Democrats still plan to win this November.
    09/27/04 | Newsmax Staff[/b]

    How?

    Perhaps by the old fashioned way: stealing the election.

    That's the word from a top Republican strategist in Washington who tells NewsMax the Democrats have put an unusual amount of resources into "voter turnout" efforts.

    NewsMax's Insider Report reported weeks ago that the 527 groups supporting Kerry, and backed by the likes of billionaire George Soros, were earmarking most of the $160 million they have raised toward voter registration and "get out the vote" efforts.

    Approximately two-thirds of the 527 money - or a $100 million - will go toward these efforts.

    Republicans believe many of these voter registration efforts open up the door for qualified and multiple voting schemes on Election Day.

    Worse, the 527's are now claiming they will spend three times what has been previously reported to "get out the vote."

    One pro-Kerry group, America Votes, told the New York Times that its backers - "labor unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, community organizations - will spend $300 million on registration and turnout in swing states, a sum that dwarfs the $150 million in public financing the two candidates together will receive for the entire fall campaign."

    NewsMax has also reported that only a handful of states were being targeted for this avalanche of cash, notably Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

    However, Republicans believe this will lay the groundwork not for a Democratic electoral victory on November 2nd, but for election theft on November 2nd.

    NewsMax reports were confirmed this Sunday in the New York Times, which headlined its story "A Big Increase of New Voters in Swing States."

    The paper said, " A sweeping voter registration campaign in heavily Democratic areas has added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, a surge that has far exceeded the efforts of Republicans in both states, a review of registration data shows."

    As it turned out in 2000, Bush won Florida by less than a 1000 votes, and Ohio by about 30,000 votes.

    Republicans have been shy about raising the voter registration and fraud issue because of the race issue; Democrats have been quick to say the Republicans are "racist" for challenging voter registration efforts in minority and inner city areas.

    But the Times notes that's exactly where the Democrats have been focusing their resources.

    The paper reported: "The analysis by The New York Times of county-by-county data shows that in Democratic areas of Ohio - primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods - new registrations since January have risen 250 percent over the same period in 2000. In comparison, new registrations have increased just 25 percent in Republican areas.

    "A similar pattern is apparent in Florida: in the strongest Democratic areas, the pace of new registration is 60 percent higher than in 2000, while it has risen just 12 percent in the heaviest Republican areas."

    Of course, the Kerry campaign says it has nothing to do with the 527 efforts, but they appear to be happy with the results.

    "We know it's going on, and it's a very encouraging sign," Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, told the Times. He added that these efforts "could very much be the difference" for Kerry.

    Steve Rosenthal, the head of another 527 group - Americans Coming Together, or ACT - told the Times, "I think what's happening on the streets, below the radar, is what's going to make the big difference on Election Day." Rosenthal claimed that by Election Day the 527 groups will have registered two and a half million new voters.

    A chart in the Times showed that the Democrat registrations are outpacing Republicans in Ohio and Florida by five times or more.

  2. #2
    If you want to vote, you should have to show a valid ID and proof of Citizenship. To do any less is to taint the value of our supposedly [u]most[/u] valuble right as Americans.

  3. #3
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,105
    How in the hell does having to show ID "disenfranchise" the poor, undereducated, rural etc. ?! What a pathetic attempt to try to enable widespread voter fraud.

    Anyway, those folks have no problem coming up with ID when they need to get themselves a fifth of Night Train.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,497
    I have no problem with needing to show ID to Vote. There is no reason for anyone not to have an ID. You need it for so many things now, including cashing checks, Buying Tobacco Products....

    You cant close on a house without 2 forms of ID. Even if you don't drive, every state has non driving photo ID's available.

  5. #5
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Sep 27 2004, 08:56 PM
    [b] "We know it's going on, and it's a very encouraging sign," Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, told the Times. He added that these efforts "could very much be the difference" for Kerry.

    Steve Rosenthal, the head of another 527 group - Americans Coming Together, or ACT - told the Times, "I think what's happening on the streets, below the radar, is what's going to make the big difference on Election Day." Rosenthal claimed that by Election Day the 527 groups will have registered two and a half million new voters.

    A chart in the Times showed that the Democrat registrations are outpacing Republicans in Ohio and Florida by five times or more. [/b][/quote]
    So why exactly are you against efforts to register new voters? Could it be that they&#39;re mostly people who&#39;ll vote Democratic? It sure would be a lot more convenient for you if these people just stayed home on election day and minded thier own business...right? <_<

    It seems to me that the more people who participate in the electoral process the better off we&#39;ll all be.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by valleyjet+Sep 28 2004, 10:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (valleyjet @ Sep 28 2004, 10:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Sep 27 2004, 08:56 PM
    [b] "We know it&#39;s going on, and it&#39;s a very encouraging sign," Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, told the Times. He added that these efforts "could very much be the difference" for Kerry.

    Steve Rosenthal, the head of another 527 group - Americans Coming Together, or ACT - told the Times, "I think what&#39;s happening on the streets, below the radar, is what&#39;s going to make the big difference on Election Day." Rosenthal claimed that by Election Day the 527 groups will have registered two and a half million new voters.

    A chart in the Times showed that the Democrat registrations are outpacing Republicans in Ohio and Florida by five times or more. [/b][/quote]
    So why exactly are you against efforts to register new voters? Could it be that they&#39;re mostly people who&#39;ll vote Democratic? It sure would be a lot more convenient for you if these people just stayed home on election day and minded thier own business...right? <_<

    It seems to me that the more people who participate in the electoral process the better off we&#39;ll all be. [/b][/quote]
    I have no objection to legal "get out the vote" drives, etc.

    I do, however, disagree with the notion that more people voting is a good thing per se. I know two women (well, they are both 21 years old) who intend to vote for Bush because he&#39;s "cuter." I&#39;d rather they didn&#39;t vote, actually. Because if people like this start voting, politicians will be forced to cater to them even more so than they do now, and that is a bad thing, IMO.

    I think the voting age should be raised to thirty. Or maybe 25.
    But 18 is simply too damn young.

  7. #7
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Sep 28 2004, 10:55 AM
    [b] I know two women (well, they are both 21 years old) who intend to vote for Bush because he&#39;s "cuter." [/b][/quote]
    Ha ha&#33; :lol:

    Classic...who could argue with this logic&#33;&#33;

    BTW...as long as there&#39;ll be popular elections there&#39;ll be "get out the vote drives" they go hand in glove.

    Power to the People&#33;&#33;&#33;

  8. #8
    For good measure here&#39;s an example of Bush&#39;s own get out the vote drive.

    BTW...I didn&#39;t know that Bush only speaks to invitation only audiences, did you? I wonder why that is?

    September 28, 2004
    STRATEGY
    [b]Supporters Get Incentive Plans at Bush Rallies[/b]
    By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

    Want to see the president when he comes to your town? Get in line - to make phone calls for his campaign.

    President Bush&#39;s campaign aides say they have hit on a novel way to recruit volunteers for his get-out-the-vote army. Anyone wanting to attend one of Mr. Bush&#39;s campaign rallies, anywhere in the country, has to get a ticket first. And anyone wanting a ticket, or a coveted spot up front, can improve his chances by putting in a few hours at a phone bank, canvassing Republican homes or putting up lawn signs.

    Campaign rallies may be as old as politics itself, but in this year of earliests, firsts and most-expensive-evers, the Bush campaign has taken this most basic form of communication to a new state of the art, by pressing audiences to work as foot soldiers, before, during and immediately after Bush events.

    The tactic points up a stark difference between the presidential campaigns: while Senator John Kerry is using his rallies and forums to try to reach undecided voters and to close the deal with standoffish Democrats, Mr. Bush is packing his audiences with supporters who must identify themselves as such in questionnaires and whipping them into brigades ready to blitz crucial districts to get every last voter to the polls.

    Kerry aides scoff at the invitation-only audiences and what they say is the shanghai-ing of volunteers. "We don&#39;t require oaths of allegiance, and we don&#39;t take people captive," said Tom Shea, director of the Kerry campaign in Florida, after turning out close to 10,000 people for a rally in Orlando last Tuesday where, he said, 700 people signed up to help.

    But Donald P. Green, a professor of political science at Yale and the author of "Get Out the Vote&#33; How to Increase Voter Turnout," said Mr. Bush&#39;s strategy was inspired. "There&#39;s a basic principle in experimental psychology, that the hand teaches the heart," Professor Green said. "You&#39;ve now made phone calls for George Bush; that helps solidify your commitment to the campaign. If you weren&#39;t enthusiastic and committed already, you might be now."

    At a rally in Bangor, Me., last Thursday, Katrina Waite had driven nearly two hours and then waited seven more under a sweltering sun to see the president. The reward for her early arrival? A spot way in back, atop a flatbed truck, where she downed cups of water fetched by her two children to stave off the heat.

    Ms. Waite said her mother had earned a spot up front. "She did three hours of phone calling to get it," she said, peering to try to pick her mother out in the crowd.

    If Mr. Bush likes to call his retail politicking "fertilizing the grass roots," the volunteer recruitment can create a kind of hothouse effect.

    When Laura Bush came to Maine a few weeks ago, for example, scores of people were persuaded to stick around and make calls from a phone bank in the basement of the building where she spoke.

    And when Mr. Bush concluded an hourlong "Ask President Bush" event in Hudson, Wis., not long ago, the 1,500 people who attended were directed toward a giant tent set up with tables, chairs and telephones, and encouraged to make calls for a few hours.

    "In this campaign, we&#39;ve taken advantage of every opportunity to engage people," said Randy Bumps, the campaign&#39;s Maine director.

    The campaign began engaging potential recruits as soon as the Bangor rally was scheduled, a week earlier. Those who wanted tickets were required to apply for them, filling out forms stating their home and e-mail addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, willingness to volunteer and whether they supported the president.

    And in the days before the rally, supporters were enticed to make calls for the campaign with promises of a spot closer to the president, according to many in the crowd.

    Mr. Bumps said the "excitement" generated by the president&#39;s visit meant that the campaign for the first time met its weekly goal of 20,000 phone calls to Mainers.

    Asked whether opponents of Mr. Bush&#39;s were welcome, Reed Dickens, a national campaign spokesman, said the policy was to reward Mr. Bush&#39;s most eager supporters first when allocating the "limited number" of tickets.

    Even so, space is rarely scarce at rallies for Mr. Bush. Only about 4,000 of the 9,400 people given tickets to the Bangor event showed. (Mr. Bumps insisted that undecided voters were welcome, but if there were any at the rally, they did a good job of faking their enthusiasm for Mr. Bush.)

    The invitation-only policy - and its application by what Bush campaign officials call overzealous organizers at the local level - has given rise to repeated instances across the country where rallygoers were asked to sign affidavits of support to get tickets.

    And Mr. Kerry, at his own events, has taken to mocking Mr. Bush&#39;s policy. "No one here had to sign a loyalty oath to get in, right?" he said last Tuesday in Jacksonville, Fla.

    Another result is a recurring cat-and-mouse game with those who want to taunt Mr. Bush. With rare exceptions, including the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who heckled Mrs. Bush in New Jersey, few have made it past the screening process. But in Bangor at least a dozen hecklers got in, which Mr. Bumps chalked up to the fact that it was Mr. Bush&#39;s first stop in Maine of the campaign.

    One protester, Michael Thorne, 51, said he had come partly out of anger that Mr. Bush closed his rallies to the public. "He&#39;s my president, too," he said.

    This was after Mr. Thorne had yelled "No more lies&#33;" during Mr. Bush&#39;s speech, been quickly surrounded by half a dozen campaign aides heatedly yelling "Four more years&#33;" and been hustled out of the rally with several others wearing anti-Bush T-shirts by security guards and police officers.

    The Kerry campaign, mindful that Mr. Kerry still has Democrats to convince and swing voters to reach, has opened his rallies to the public. At the Orlando rally, for example, thousands of tickets were given away to constituents like labor unions and environmental groups, but tickets were not required, and thousands more people showed up after the rally was advertised on local radio stations the day before.

    Kerry aides expressed surprise at the Bush campaign&#39;s focus on core Republican voters apparently at the expense of undecided or swing voters, and they said that the Kerry campaign was courting both dedicated Democrats and middle-of-the-road voters.

    "It&#39;s like going to Disney World, only instead of the cartoon character saying you have to be this tall to ride, they have a picture of Rush Limbaugh saying you have to be this right-wing to get in," Mr. Shea said.

    But Bush aides say that chasing swing voters may be a waste of time. "We believe that the number of undecideds or independent voters is smaller this election than ever before," said Mr. Dickens, the campaign spokesman.

    The Bush campaign may be packing its audiences with die-hard supporters, he said, but it is holding its events in swing districts where every extra enthusiastic volunteer can make a difference.

    Even those loyal audience members have their limits, however. Christian Morris, 23, a member of the Bush campaign staff, was rebuffed several times as she mingled in the Bangor crowd trying to sign up volunteers before Janelle Vigue, 17, accosted her and offered to enlist.

    Ms. Vigue said she had her own reasons for wanting a glimpse of the political process. "I want to run for president some day," she said.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,753
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Sep 28 2004, 10:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Sep 28 2004, 10:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by valleyjet@Sep 28 2004, 10:41 AM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Sep 27 2004, 08:56 PM
    [b] "We know it&#39;s going on, and it&#39;s a very encouraging sign," Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, told the Times. He added that these efforts "could very much be the difference" for Kerry.

    Steve Rosenthal, the head of another 527 group - Americans Coming Together, or ACT - told the Times, "I think what&#39;s happening on the streets, below the radar, is what&#39;s going to make the big difference on Election Day." Rosenthal claimed that by Election Day the 527 groups will have registered two and a half million new voters.

    A chart in the Times showed that the Democrat registrations are outpacing Republicans in Ohio and Florida by five times or more. [/b][/quote]
    So why exactly are you against efforts to register new voters? Could it be that they&#39;re mostly people who&#39;ll vote Democratic? It sure would be a lot more convenient for you if these people just stayed home on election day and minded thier own business...right? <_<

    It seems to me that the more people who participate in the electoral process the better off we&#39;ll all be. [/b][/quote]
    I have no objection to legal "get out the vote" drives, etc.

    I do, however, disagree with the notion that more people voting is a good thing per se. I know two women (well, they are both 21 years old) who intend to vote for Bush because he&#39;s "cuter." I&#39;d rather they didn&#39;t vote, actually. Because if people like this start voting, politicians will be forced to cater to them even more so than they do now, and that is a bad thing, IMO.

    I think the voting age should be raised to thirty. Or maybe 25.
    But 18 is simply too damn young. [/b][/quote]
    [quote][b] do, however, disagree with the notion that more people voting is a good thing per se. I know two women (well, they are both 21 years old) who intend to vote for Bush because he&#39;s "cuter." I&#39;d rather they didn&#39;t vote, actually. Because if people like this start voting, politicians will be forced to cater to them even more so than they do now, and that is a bad thing, IMO.

    I think the voting age should be raised to thirty. Or maybe 25.
    But 18 is simply too damn young.[/b][/quote]



    I disagree I think the voting age should stay right where it is. I&#39;m 19 years old and I know that people my age get the stereotype as not giving two s%&#036; but that is not everyone. There are many many people like myself who do care about this election and are planning on going out and voting. I discuss politics with several of my friends and the election is a huge deal among the students here at FSU. It is unfair to cast a generalization towards kids my age because a couple people vote for somebody because they&#39;re cute or don&#39;t vote at all. There are scores of people who are 30, 40, 50 years old who still dont vote. Either they don&#39;t care or for whatever reason. There are many issues that my generation is concerned about. Namely the war in iraq, and education. I think many people will be surprised come November in the amount of young people voting this year.

  10. #10
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Mavrik+Sep 28 2004, 05:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Mavrik @ Sep 28 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by jets5ever@Sep 28 2004, 10:55 AM
    [b] [quote]Originally posted by valleyjet@Sep 28 2004, 10:41 AM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Sep 27 2004, 08:56 PM
    [b] "We know it&#39;s going on, and it&#39;s a very encouraging sign," Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, told the Times. He added that these efforts "could very much be the difference" for Kerry.

    Steve Rosenthal, the head of another 527 group - Americans Coming Together, or ACT - told the Times, "I think what&#39;s happening on the streets, below the radar, is what&#39;s going to make the big difference on Election Day." Rosenthal claimed that by Election Day the 527 groups will have registered two and a half million new voters.

    A chart in the Times showed that the Democrat registrations are outpacing Republicans in Ohio and Florida by five times or more. [/b][/quote]
    So why exactly are you against efforts to register new voters? Could it be that they&#39;re mostly people who&#39;ll vote Democratic? It sure would be a lot more convenient for you if these people just stayed home on election day and minded thier own business...right? <_<

    It seems to me that the more people who participate in the electoral process the better off we&#39;ll all be. [/b][/quote]
    I have no objection to legal "get out the vote" drives, etc.

    I do, however, disagree with the notion that more people voting is a good thing per se. I know two women (well, they are both 21 years old) who intend to vote for Bush because he&#39;s "cuter." I&#39;d rather they didn&#39;t vote, actually. Because if people like this start voting, politicians will be forced to cater to them even more so than they do now, and that is a bad thing, IMO.

    I think the voting age should be raised to thirty. Or maybe 25.
    But 18 is simply too damn young. [/b][/quote]
    [quote][b] do, however, disagree with the notion that more people voting is a good thing per se. I know two women (well, they are both 21 years old) who intend to vote for Bush because he&#39;s "cuter." I&#39;d rather they didn&#39;t vote, actually. Because if people like this start voting, politicians will be forced to cater to them even more so than they do now, and that is a bad thing, IMO.

    I think the voting age should be raised to thirty. Or maybe 25.
    But 18 is simply too damn young.[/b][/quote]



    I disagree I think the voting age should stay right where it is. I&#39;m 19 years old and I know that people my age get the stereotype as not giving two s%&#036; but that is not everyone. There are many many people like myself who do care about this election and are planning on going out and voting. I discuss politics with several of my friends and the election is a huge deal among the students here at FSU. It is unfair to cast a generalization towards kids my age because a couple people vote for somebody because they&#39;re cute or don&#39;t vote at all. There are scores of people who are 30, 40, 50 years old who still dont vote. Either they don&#39;t care or for whatever reason. There are many issues that my generation is concerned about. Namely the war in iraq, and education. I think many people will be surprised come November in the amount of young people voting this year. [/b][/quote]
    I agree with Jets5. 30 is a good age for voting rights IMO.

    Sorry Mav, but most kiddies almost accross the board lack the maturity and life experience required to cast an intelligent vote. Children under 30 tend to vote out of blind ideology, not cold hard real world facts based on actually getting out in the world, working, and living. That&#39;s why the youth vote almost always goes Democrat heavy. Lots od so-called ideals, very little reality.

    Of course, there are exceptions, and you may indeed be one. But I am more than willing to eliminate you (the .001% exception) to get rid of the worthless, uniformed, ideological worthlessness of most under-30 voters.

    And btw, since I am only 29, that would include me as well.......for now.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    Isnt it amazing in this country how we feel that 18 is a sufficent age to choose our countrys leaders, but not OK to have a beer? Really goes to show how much our leaders value voting...

    I&#39;m 19 and I dont agree they should change the age limit. Sure, there are a lot of immature idiots who dont know whats going on, but there are many older adults who are just as uneducated. In fact, most of the kids who are so out of touch with politics wont vote, as opposed to many older adults who tend to vote more despite being less educated.

    I mean I know a lot of people who over 30 and dont have a clue, so its not like the majority of adults are raising the bar for electoral education.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Not drinking a few beers at 18 rather than 21 doesn&#39;t confer any great wisdom on anyone. It makes no difference, except to allow some idiots like Jeanne Pirro in Westchester to criminalize what we all did as teens and young adults in college(Ms. Pirro is the Republican Westchester County, NY DA/dragon lady who has never met a camera she could pass, and sleeps with a convicted felon, her husband; Ms. Pirro thinks we should give some dumb kid with a six pack a criminal record, as does the NJ state attorney general, Dem Peter Harvey). All the states were cowed by Congress (with the threat of withholding highway funds)and MADD to up the drinking age to 21 and lower the blood alcohol level for DWI from .10% to ,08%. And frankly, neither made much sense scientifically. .08% is reached with about 3 or 4 beers or glasses of wine with dinner and most people aren&#39;t at that point impaired. And as to 21, has that stopped even a single person from drinking? The better course would be to teach teens to be responsible and not drive if they&#39;re going to drink, which they will on occasion.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,753
    [quote][b] agree with Jets5. 30 is a good age for voting rights IMO.

    Sorry Mav, but most kiddies almost accross the board lack the maturity and life experience required to cast an intelligent vote. Children under 30 tend to vote out of blind ideology, not cold hard real world facts based on actually getting out in the world, working, and living. That&#39;s why the youth vote almost always goes Democrat heavy. Lots od so-called ideals, very little reality.

    Of course, there are exceptions, and you may indeed be one. But I am more than willing to eliminate you (the .001% exception) to get rid of the worthless, uniformed, ideological worthlessness of most under-30 voters.

    And btw, since I am only 29, that would include me as well.......for now. [/b][/quote]







    I understand your point, but IMO I disagree. If I can join the military and fight for my country, how am I not able to vote? So I could possibly learn to fly a million dollar fighter jet or drive a tank or fire artillery rounds at a specific target, yet I lack the maturity to vote? That doesn&#39;t make sense. There are thousands of 18 and 19 year olds in the military over in Iraq who obviously think they are mature enough to vote.


    Simply put, If i can die for my country, there&#39;s no way in hell i shouldn&#39;t be allowed to vote.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Mavrik, I hear you. I completely understand. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Your point about the military is pretty good, though. It has a powerful emotional appeal which I acknowledge and I would probably even fully agree with you if a draft or conscription still existed or was ever implemented again in the future. But if the military is strictly comprised of volunteers, then, really, these two issues have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Surely you see that, no?

    Yes, you would then be old enough to fight and die for your country, yet not old enough to vote. The major issue would be that you would CHOOSE to fight and die for your country, which changes the equation. No one is forcing you to join the military....

    I am not 30 years old yet, so I would be excluding myself. There are some 12, 15 and 17-year olds who have the maturity and intelligence to vote. I&#39;d like to think that I fit that description when I was those ages.... 16 year olds drive cars and can consent to sexual relations and can even get married in some states. Hell, the age of consent is 14 in some states...there are tons of analogies one can make. A line has to be drawn somewhere and anywhere it IS drawn, capable people will be excluded and feel righteously indignant about it.

    In any event, the age restriction thing is really a secondary point - my major point is that I simply disagree with the notion that higher voter turnout is necessarily a good thing. If I had my way, less people would vote. The less, the better, IMO.

    BTW - every single year we hear about how important the 18-24 year old vote is and how the young people are energized and how "this time" things will be different and more people will vote. So far, it has never happened. We&#39;ll see how it goes this year. If even close to 50% of people between 18-24 vote in the election I&#39;ll be very, very surprised.

  15. #15
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Sep 29 2004, 08:08 AM
    [b] In any event, the age restriction thing is really a secondarty point - my major point is that I simply disagree with the notion that higher voter turnout is necessarily a good thing. If I had my way, less people would vote. The less, the better, IMO.

    [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;m pretty sure the people who ran the old soviet politburo felt the same way. ;)

    [SIZE=4]POWER TO THE PEOPLE&#33;&#33;&#33;[/SIZE]

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by valleyjet+Sep 29 2004, 08:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (valleyjet &#064; Sep 29 2004, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jets5ever[/i]@Sep 29 2004, 08:08 AM
    [b] In any event, the age restriction thing is really a secondarty point - my major point is that I simply disagree with the notion that higher voter turnout is necessarily a good thing. If I had my way, less people would vote. The less, the better, IMO.

    [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;m pretty sure the people who ran the old soviet politburo felt the same way. ;)

    [SIZE=4]POWER TO THE PEOPLE&#33;&#33;&#33;[/SIZE] [/b][/quote]
    Dude, I am not talking about doing anything to restrict eligible voters or any form of tyranny like that. I am simply stating that I would prefer it if people stayed home on election day, since uninformed votes, to me, are annoying. I&#39;d rather less total people vote, but that the precentage of votes cast by informed people rise. Because, IMO, more total people means a higher percentage of less informed votes being cast.

    When in doubt, make a communist, fascist or nazi dig at a conservative. Put a winking smiley-face next to it, and you can accuse said conservative of "over-reacting" even when he knows you are likely serious.

    At least have the courage to post under your real name, Tailgators.

  17. #17
    5ever you just keep on barking up that same old tree... don&#39;t ya?

    I&#39;ve pm&#39;d you about that topic but its just pointless I guess.

    Anyway...I&#39;m really rooting for you at this difficult time.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by valleyjet[/i]@Sep 29 2004, 08:32 AM
    [b] 5ever you just keep on barking up that same old tree... don&#39;t ya?

    I&#39;ve pm&#39;d you about that topic but its just pointless I guess.

    Anyway...I&#39;m really rooting for you at this difficult time. [/b][/quote]
    I appreciate the kind words Valleygators. I do. And, frankly, I thought the decision to ban you was premature and unfair. Seriously.

    Yeah, I probably over-reacted. Sorry.

  19. #19
    Cool... but now bact to the matter at hand.

    Why not strive for both a well informed and a large registered voter population. I don&#39;t think that they have to be mutually exclusive.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by valleyjet[/i]@Sep 29 2004, 08:45 AM
    [b] Cool... but now bact to the matter at hand.

    Why not strive for both a well informed and a large registered voter population. I don&#39;t think that they have to be mutually exclusive. [/b][/quote]
    They don&#39;t have to be, but they are presently. That is why I feel the way I do. If I felt that the general population was becoming more informed, I&#39;d be less afraid of a very high voter turnout.

    The problem, IMO, is that people don&#39;t think when they vote, or do most anything else. Rather, they "feel" or they "emote" and can&#39;t distinguish the difference between thinking and feeling. They think that any feelings or emotions that they have are valid or correct simply due to the fact that they exist. This is dangerous. Our youth are coddled these days, relative to generations ago...in education, by the PC culture, by the loss of shame as a useful societal tool, by the loss of personal responsibility and climate of instant gratification that exists. Instead of disciplining brats, we dope them up. Instead of calling out bad parenting, we rationalize it and defend it, instead of blaming kids with bad grades for laziness, we attack their teachers, instead of working through rough patches in marriages, we get quickie divorces and use the kids as a way to inflict pain on a former spouse...instead of reading books, we watch DVDs. Instead of excercising, we play Xbox. Instead of learning arithmatic, we use calculators....I could go on....

    I can&#39;t even tell you how appalled I get when I read some emails at work. People literally do not know basic grammar or possess basic spelling skills. College-educated people&#33; This is not some personal email that one sends quickly, without reviewing, or some message board people sneak on to. No, this is "work" email. It&#39;s embarassing.

    (Yeah, I am babbling...I&#39;ll stop&#33;)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us