Read up on the history of the US and the answer is transparent. Come on, you know the dichotomy of federal and state rights. The fact that individuals can change their residency solves the transient problem. I think it would be safe to state that both of us acknowledge that the system is far from perfect. We may have different views but if the politicians can work out a system that is fair and ensures integrity, I don't think either of us have objections.
State rights has/will come into play with Obamacare. And let's not forget the immigration issue with Arizona.
*laugh* You mean Supreme Court rulings that crushed the state's rights proponents? The US's status as a "Federation" was already on life support but it was pretty much killed by the Civil War. State's rights is a completely meaningless term today.
Do you guys share that high chair you sit on or is it a high table/bar that you gather at? Going through life with blinders will not get you far.
The post to which you responded "if you say so" renders your latest post one of the most unintentionally funny posts I've seen in quite awhile. It's the fact that you don't see why that's so that makes it funny.
Here is the difference. If I have an alternate view, I express it. If any of you see it different, then I am wrong, stupid, idiot, ignorant, etc. If any of you think that the use of cyber bullying is going to deter me or shut me down, it is not going to work. For someone to dismiss that state rights are irrelevant clearly shows how narrow a view they have. If you guys want to create a forum for liberals only so that you can please yourselves in your little world, then go do it. I won't bother you there. But as long as this forum is about politics & current events and is not exclusive, then grow up and actually debate instead of acting like smug you know whats (this way I don't get another note from the super mod). Now there are some around here who actually make a good debate. And then there are some who think they know it all. Guess what, you don't.
You advance an argument. Your argument's weaknesses get pointed out. Suddenly, you're an independent thinker with an alternate viewpoint and the people countering your posts are cyber-bullies who can't tolerate differing opinions. This is what provokes responses of frustration. You want a debate, but you want your opinions to be beyond reproach, impervious to facts and evidence. It doesn't work that way outside the alternate universe of Free Republic and Newsmax.
Actually, the weaknesses are coming from the counter arguments that some of you have posted. For instance, Scott Walker was very close to eliminating 2,000 registered voters according to some around here. All he did was start a process to verify those registrations. And even the 198 that have been noted after Homeland Security scrubbed the database with theirs, there is no certainty that all of those will be removed. Florida has a system of due process that reviews those records. We have states that require some form of identification to vote. Automatically the response here is that votes will be suppressed. Yet, a study has shown that Georgia's ID law has increased voting registration among minorities. Some here do not understand the difference between residency and domicile. Nor do they understand that some states allow individuals domiciled in the state to vote without requiring residency. Other states do require residency. Some here do not appreciate that voting is local in nature. When I go to my polling booth in November, it is not only for the Office of the President but also for Senate, House of Representatives, local judges and state/county questions. So it is not so simple that a student down the road attending the University of Maryland campus can register just for the sake of voting for the President. Some here are confused about state laws concerning absentee ballots. In general, if you are not going to be in town on election day, you can use an absentee ballot. Attending college away from home, in state or out, fits that description. There is no need to have a special exception for college students although some states have that provision as part of their laws. Some here think that the primary reason that an individual who has not obtained citizenship in our country but has registered and/or voted is to commit a fraud. That makes a lot of sense. They probably are not aware that there are municipalities that allow non-US citizens to register and vote in their local elections. Depending upon the point of view, some here believe that some organizations involved with the practice of mass registration do so because they are good, while others do so for evil purposes. Don't fool yourselves, those organizations are out to get votes for their cause. Did I miss anything else? If some of you are frustrated because you do not have the full comprehension of the complexity of voting laws, I can't help you.
No it doesn't. Many poor are transient because they were evicted or followed jobs. Your expectation is that these people, while having a valid photo ID, does not ALWAYS correctly identify the physical address (yet has name, weight, eye color, DOB, signature, etc.). That is for the ones that had an ID in the first place. Each time they move, there is an expectation that they pay for a new ID. To vote, that would be considered a poll tax.
Yes, there is that expectation and it has nothing to do with voting. When I was in the Army, I was not required to change my residency due to my military orders. But if I wanted to, I could. I did that when I purchased a home in Virginia. As part of my requirement to become resident, I registered my vehicle with Virginia and changed my driver's license. I was still in the Army at that time and could have elected to continue as a Maryland resident. But since I was going to pay real estate property tax, might as well have made the change. When I sold my place in Virginia and bought a place in my old neighborhood in Maryland, I had to make the changes again. When an individual changes residency, they are declaring that their location is permanent in nature. That may change down the road and the person will then go through the process of changing residency. Now I could decide to spend a few months at my sister's place in South Carolina. That is what is considered being transient. I am not moving to South Carolina. Just spending some time there. If that time happens to fall in November, it does not give me the right to register in South Carolina for the convenience of voting. But that is what absentee ballots are for. Generally, one declares residency at the state where they will be domiciled for six months or more. Older folks who are snow birds will usually take residence in a state that may give them a lesser tax burden. Florida is a good location as it does not have a state income tax for individuals. I am with you concerning the high fees associated with a driver's license and vehicle registration. My state rips me and my fellow residents off. And we do not have a voter ID requirement. In the states that have enacted voter ID requirements, supposedly people can get them for free. Some have done a good job at it, others a lousy job. Those doing that lousy job deserve all criticism and should be required to fix the problem.
This is the problem. Many states are trying to pass similar laws, yet they are incosistent. Here in Memphis, it is very easy to move between 3 states, each having different voting laws (truthfully I have not checked Miss nor Ark). But, here in Tenn, just as when I was living in Florida, they checked the address.
You didn't even know what Florida's voter registration requirements are. You don't know who our governor is (hint: not Scott Walker). You didn't know that states' rights ended with the Civil War (or the Nullification Crisis; the Civil War was the subsequent temper tantrum). You know nothing, Nothing, NOTHING!!!
Lulz http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444752504578024903833678698.html GOP: we're in ur state de frodding ur elec shun http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57522694/voter-registration-fraud-claims-singe-gop/
Most of the Option 2 ID are photo-capable now and those that aren't are either being modified or phased out. Many polling stations won't accept Option 2 if there is no photo ID that is accompanying with. As for Option 3, it may very well go out the door given the challenge at the Supreme Court regarding the results in Etobicoke Centre. Sadly, that may have an effect on Liberal and NDP voters (rather ironic since its a Liberal leading the challenge). Proper voter ID is just part of the evolutionary process.