Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
What is the reasoning behind primary caucuses having leaner restrictions?
|
Maybe because it's a state level election that is for a political candidate, not necessarily an elected position. |
A primary (and a caucus) is not an election -- it's a nomination process, where the party is choosing its nominees to run for election. While a state determines who is registered to vote, a party (at least under the laws of many if not most states) generally determines which registered voters may participate in its nomination process.
SWTXBelle, thanks for the explanation. I follow now.
As for this:
Quote:
|
Part of the problem is the inability to measure voter fraud. We hear about it only when it is discovered, but under the current system even finding it can be problematic. Unless there is a complaint, there will be no investigation. Unless it is obvious, who is going to invest the time and money into investigating it? Is the potential for voter fraud there? If so, how do we prevent it? So to me the basic question is - Given that in order to vote we have some basic requirements (age, residency, citizenship, criminal status), is requiring id as a means of establishing that requirements are met too much to ask? Obviously, many think it is. Time and the courts will tell.
|
Where I live, parties and candidates invest
lots of resources having observers at the polls ready to challenge any voter they even think might not be eligible to vote. Voters are regularly challenged. I bet the same thing happens in Texas. I'm not at all sure the problem is undiscovered and undiscoverable.
Here's the thing: I'm not opposed to photo IDs per se. But I am opposed to dishonest discussion. If someone is promoting photo IDs for the purpose of combatting voter fraud, then I think it's more than reasonable to ask how extensive the voter fraud is (or isn't) and whether photo IDs will make any difference. Otherwise, at best we're adding a layer of red tape for elections officials that makes no real difference, and at worst we're keeping some people from voting who are eligible to vote. I'll admit it: I'm the skeptic who, when I hear someone warning of massive voter fraud and saying we must have photo ID to prevent it (and stirring up the populace to think voter fraud is epidemic), wonders where the evidence is and wonders what the real agenda is.
Well, actually I don't wonder what the real agenda is. I think it's pretty clear: Suppress the votes of people not likely to vote for "us," whoever "us" may be.
)
Hybrid Mode
