GOP Wants to Deny Voting Rights

The problem of the GOP is that college students overwhelmingly are likely to be liberal/democratic/indie/green/ or gawd help us, anti Tea Party.

That's a very broad generalization you make about Republicans. But I agree that the rationale behind the initiative is insidious.

I wonder how members of the Young Republicans organisations at campuses around the US feel about this initiative.

In a recent speech to a tea party group in the state, [New Hampshire] House Speaker William O'Brien described college voters as "foolish." "Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he said, in remarks that were videotaped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students, he said, lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings."

Click to expand...

What a tosser. I'm more liberal at 50 than I was at 18.

I guess I'm missing the problem... absentee ballots are easy to get.

Satori1977 said:

I am not saying all GOP feel this way, but according to the article, many do.

Click to expand...

Well, that *is* what you said, but it's a semantic thing - I also know what you meant. I'm not unsympathetic, either. I do the semantic hair-splitting thing a lot.

If political parties really didn't want people to vote their feelings, they wouldn't play on voter fears. Claiming emotion as a reason to disenfranchise younger voters - or to make it more difficult for them to vote - is disingenuous. Anything that is intended to inhibit a citizen from voting is insidious, full stop.

Given that college students are (a) presumably inclined to reason for themselves, being in college and all [yes, I understand the flimsiness of this premise], and (b) that college students *are* inhabitants of that state for three-quarters of that year, it's difficult to see this proposal as anything other than grandstanding or cynical maneuvering.

At least he had the decency to be bald-faced about it.

poetinahat said:

That's a very broad generalization you make about Republicans.

Click to expand...

Not really. You need to reside in this country to truly understand the political winds here right now.

Nor is this anything new. The Republican Party for decades has pushed to restrict voter registration/participation, dating back into Civil Rights days (when a lot of Southern Republicans were, by name only, Southern "Democrats").

Let's face it, you don't really want icky people helping to decide political leadership, do you? Best let the proptertied, the prosperous, the successful, the righteous, make those decisions, right?

blacbird said:

Not really.

Click to expand...

Yes, really. But, as per my previous post, that was an issue with semantics, not the overall intent or content, and I don't think it should divert the thread any further.

Satori1977 said:

Full article here

I don't have much problem with having to show proof of citizenship, but trying to make it harder for college students to vote is going to far.



In this country, 18 year olds have the legal right to vote. Claiming that they are foolish kids because they don't vote the way you want them to just childish. Instead of trying to get people to see their side of issues, Republicans would rather cheat and steal votes, getting people to blindly follow them anywhere. Maybe they need to look up the word democracy.

Click to expand...

Democracy is quite simple - it's where you vote on issues rather than on representatives, as we do in the Republic of the USA.

Actually, with all its Propositions and things, California is the closest thing we've got to a democracy in the USA. A lot of people really liked that until the 2008 Election in which California's Proposition 8 actually passed and became part of the State Constitution. You want majority rule, you got majority rule.

I hadn't heard of this college thing before, but then I went to college in-state, 20 miles from home (I should have gone far, far away, but that's for a different thread in a different forum).

Maybe I listen to "The Wrong People" but I've heard it's the democrats who cheat and steal votes by getting people into vans and busses and driving them around to different counties on election day in areas that have election-day registration and no voter ID requirements, thus each person casts a vote in each of several counties. And I heard in at least one big city up north you don't even have to breathe to be able to vote.

The Voter ID law was in the legislature in Georgia a few years ago (ISTR it passed), and many on the mailing list of my old UU congregation were discussing the arguments against it and how to stop it, how some counties didn't even have places where you could get a drivers license (which would also issue a State-approved Picture ID to those without drivers licenses). I mentioned that we could organize volunteers to take such people to offices in neighboring counties to get their official state ID's so they could vote, but no one responded, apparently that wasn't considered an acceptable solution.

But reading the article, it looks like that O'toole guy was being just a little bit too honest in expressing his opinions. We sure can't have that in out politicians.

Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he said, in remarks that were videotaped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students, he said, lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings."

Click to expand...

We don't like how they vote, so let's disenfranchise them.

What a f--ing patriot.

poetinahat said:

I wonder how members of the Young Republicans organisations at campuses around the US feel about this initiative.

Click to expand...

Well here's the other evil side of politics--campuses currently seem to be dominated (in a bad way) by either one side of the other, so much so that it's being discussed on academic listserves in terms of swapping campus visits so that there's more visible variety and options and asking-of-questions. There are campuses that don't have the Young Republicans--for any number of reasons--for instance.

I'm delighted by this--and worried about increasing emphasis on voting-with-a-party, rather than looking at all options.

A number of campus papers sound like they're cheering on a sports team, rather than looking at alternative responses from all sorts of parties to specific issues.

Time for the pachyderms to pack it in, IMHO.

Elephants will travel many miles to end up at the 'elephant graveyard. They in most cases know when it is their time and will travel to elephant graveyards if they are able.

in the article i read, it pointed out that many poorer african-americans will also be affected by this type of legislation as many of them do not have drivers licenses or passports nor could they afford to get them. so for republicans it seems to be an attempt to kill two birds with one stone. (I'm sorry, I can't link to the article, it's on my internet provider home page, it was an AP article though)

It also quoted this "

• Numerous studies have shown that the type of voter fraud that New Hampshire Republicans are supposedly targeting is all but non-existent in the United States. In what's considered the most comprehensive study into the issue, Barnard College political scientist Lorraine Minnite concluded last year that extensive, intentional voter fraud is a myth.
• "There's lots more noise here than there is reality, there is lots more smoke than there is fire," Justin Levitt, an associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said in an interview Tuesday.
• "From what I've seen of these new bills, they're not really aimed at fraud. There's nothing illegal that's been alleged. That students vote wrong does not seem a legitimate basis for electoral reform. That seems not only crazy, but dangerous."

The GOP always does proportionately better when voter turnout is light than it does when voter turnout is heavy. 2008 and 2010 are perfect examples of this.

Voting also tends to be higher among younger people when it's a presidential election year, though I think that may also happen among the rest of the voting population.

blacbird said:

The GOP always does proportionately better when voter turnout is light than it does when voter turnout is heavy. 2008 and 2010 are perfect examples of this.

Click to expand...

Bingo. I think that the GOP is getting a little nervous about 2012. There doesn't seem to be a clear nominee to challenge Obama, and as such, perhaps they're looking into stuff like this to try and cover their asses.

Long live the two-party system!

tiny said:

I guess I'm missing the problem... absentee ballots are easy to get.

Click to expand...

I think this sums it up. I had to absentee vote the entire time I was in the military, it was never a hassle or difficult.

Prozyan said:

I think this sums it up. I had to absentee vote the entire time I was in the military, it was never a hassle or difficult.

Click to expand...

Good for you.

blacbird said:

The GOP always does proportionately better when voter turnout is light than it does when voter turnout is heavy. 2008 and 2010 are perfect examples of this.

Click to expand...

BjornAbust said:

Bingo. I think that the GOP is getting a little nervous about 2012. There doesn't seem to be a clear nominee to challenge Obama, and as such, perhaps they're looking into stuff like this to try and cover their asses.

Click to expand...

Ummm...turnout was up in 2010, compared to 2006. Not a real good example to pick. Much less a "perfect" one.

Really, it's the wrong way to look at it, imo. Far too general to be meaningful. Instead, try this: the Dems do better among groups less likely to turnout, like youths and minorities. So when those groups do turnout, the Repubs do proportionally worse. Based on picking the right limiting year, of course.

But then again, it can all kinda fall apart with specific contests.

tiny said:

I guess I'm missing the problem... absentee ballots are easy to get.

Click to expand...

How easy or hard absentee ballots are to get is meaningless. It's about republicans trying to make voting harder on college students, because they vote for the wrong party. Regardless of the plan's ability to work, it's wrong to try this.

So they want to require proof of citizenship to vote, make people actually vote in the state where they have their legal residence, and expect new voters to actually take the trouble to register before the day they're allowed to vote.

Damn them! It's the end of democracy representative republic as we know it!

Or is this just about another politician saying something stoopid? Because we know that's just a fact of life.

goddamn fascists

next thing you know the fascists at the bank will deny my right to turn checks into cash.

next thing you know the fascists at the car rental place will deny my right to travel.

next thing you know the fascists at the theater will deny my right to pick up tickets, that i paid for, at will-call.

next thing you know the fascists at the library will deny my right to just walk out with books.

get an ID and register in time to vote in accordance with local laws, kids. it's not that big of a deal. if you're so politically involved, you should be able to muster the organizational skills and self-motivation to have your shit together.

as for the asshole calling you foolish, fuck him.

but also remember that many good liberals on your side routinely refer to rural voters as low-info mouth-breathers who vote god and guns and against their self-interest.

politics ain't bean-bag.