Keeping College Students from Voting

[AGDee]

One of my textbooks last term was titled "The Hacker's Handbook." Since I was traveling for work, I had to haul my textbooks on planes numerous times. I never took that one on the plane or even in my carry on. It went into checked luggage. I didn't want to make anybody suspicious of me in any way. Reverse paranoia? Maybe, but I just read a different text book during my flights.

/hijack (pun intended...lol)

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Very true. Just because it's easy peasey to get on a plane in Boston without photo ID doesn't mean it'll "fly" in other airports. TSA is different in every airport, not to mention their policies change with the wind.

Remember this girl?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/04/...oidered-purse/


Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/04/...#ixzz1hxrqAxkf

I have an example of this as well. I carry Imitrex shots in my purse every time I fly...actually everywhere I go. It's like my form of an epi pen! I have been through security at dozens of airports without a problem before and after an incident at BWI where I was patted down because of these shots. My bag was checked for explosives. I was told that the other TSA agents weren't doing their jobs correctly if this didn't happen every time. Whatever. The agent told me to make things go quicker the next time, I should take the shots out of my bag so that the bag wouldn't be searched, but I would just be patted down. I'll can tell you that I have not followed that advice, and I've never been patted down again. If it happens again, whoop dee do. If they want to make sure I'm not smuggling something incendiary in my shots, that's their prerogative.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Um, excuse me. She didn't carry a gun into an airport. She carried an embroidered depiction of a gun.

Are you saying I shouldn't bring my copy of America's First Freedom magazine because it depicts a gun on the cover?

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I'm not a fan of many TSA procedures, but who the hell thinks it's OK to bring a gun (fake or otherwise) into an airport? If you're traveling, use a different purse.

Yea.

As I said, I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the TSA procedures. I think many of them go overboard. That said, we have known since September 12, 2001 that bringing anything that resembles a gun into an airport will cause an uproar.

If I can't take shampoo or a cigarette lighter onto a plane, what the hell makes her think this would be OK?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by agzg

What about bussing "old people" (I'm trying to figure out why you put "poor people" in quotes) to the polling stations in exchange for a vote?

She probably put it in quotes because the idgits doing this are shortsighted enough to assume ALL blacks, or latinos, or seniors, or whatever group they're targeting, are poor.

[33girl]

So after reading 8 pages of this...what I take away is that this dipshit writing the article for the NYTimes made an issue that really has nothing to do with students, all about students.

Dumb.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

This is the first time I've heard of this.

I'm not a fan of many TSA procedures, but who the hell thinks it's OK to bring a gun (fake or otherwise) into an airport? If you're traveling, use a different purse.

Sheesh.

I agree and think the fashion police should have been called as well but I just wanted to post that to illustrate the inconsistencies many people experience when going through security checkpoints/screenings.

[groovypq]

Originally Posted by 33girl

So after reading 8 pages of this...what I take away is that this dipshit writing the article for the NYTimes made an issue that really has nothing to do with students, all about students.

Dumb.

And yet, my former roommate (who is admittedly quite left-leaning and loathes all things Republican) keeps posting EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE he finds about this, while giving us all dire warning that the Republicans are out to get us.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by The Root Article

Marie Diamond of Think Progress is reporting that Thelma Mitchell, 93, will not be able to vote for the first time in decades because her old Tennessee state ID failed to meet new voter-ID regulations. Mitchell, who cleaned the state Capitol for more than 30 years, was accused of being an undocumented immigrant because she could not produce a birth certificate.

Mitchell, who was delivered by a midwife in 1918, never had a birth certificate. Mitchell told WSMV-TV that she went to a state driver's license center last week after being told that her old state ID from her cleaning job would not meet new regulations for voter identification.

Diamond writes:
A spokesman for the House Republican Caucus insisted that Mitchell was given bad information and should’ve been allowed to vote, even with an expired state ID. But even if that’s the case, her ordeal illustrates the inevitable disenfranchisements that result when confusing voting laws enable state officials to apply the law inconsistently.

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/93-year-...enied-voter-id

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/93-year-...enied-voter-id

A spokesman for the House Republican Caucus insisted that Mitchell was given bad information and should’ve been allowed to vote, even with an expired state ID.

What election was she denied her right to vote? It's my understanding that the TN voter ID law went into effect only YESTERDAY.

[DrPhil]

http://joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/articl...south-carolina

http://easley.patch.com/articles/s-c...eceased-voters

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

http://joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/articl...south-carolina

http://easley.patch.com/articles/s-c...eceased-voters

Being a Carolinian, I saw this on the local news last night. There were also a significant number of votes (I don't remember the number they gave) from people who had moved out of state who "voted".

For those who said that it needs to be proven that a problem exists before legislating against it, does this qualify as a problem? Especially taking into account that Iowa was won by a MUCH smaller margin than this represents?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

For those who said that it needs to be proven that a problem exists before legislating against it, does this qualify as a problem? Especially taking into account that Iowa was won by a MUCH smaller margin than this represents?

I don't understand why people say that there isn't any proof that this is going on. Even though there hasn't been a nationwide "audit" of voters (at least that I know of) a quick Google search will bring up page after page of investigations and actual convictions in pretty much every state so....what gives?

I'd like to know what the number of voters who don't have a photo ID is. I just find it hard to believe that someone is going to take the time to register to vote, show up to a polling location on November 8th to cast a vote, yet have never been able to get to a DMV to get a state issued ID. Yes I know I'm being very cynical here but our nations voting turnout have always left a lot to be desired and the disenfranchised, the poor and young adults traditionally don't vote with or without ID laws in place.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Being a Carolinian, I saw this on the local news last night. There were also a significant number of votes (I don't remember the number they gave) from people who had moved out of state who "voted".

For those who said that it needs to be proven that a problem exists before legislating against it, does this qualify as a problem? Especially taking into account that Iowa was won by a MUCH smaller margin than this represents?

The Iowa "election" was a caucus and not an election. No one won anything other than the right to say they "won" the Iowa caucus. The number of voters is very small compared to the number of registered voters in the state and the results of the caucus don't even translate to real live delegates. It's like comparing apples and bowling balls.

Also, stating that out of state people voted, you don't know how many, but it was "significant" is pretty much a meaningless statement. Statistics allow us to quantify want is actually "significant" so that when you hear a number that may or may not sound impressive, someone can actually scientifically tell whether or not it is. Random numbers mean shit.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

For those who said that it needs to be proven that a problem exists before legislating against it, does this qualify as a problem? Especially taking into account that Iowa was won by a MUCH smaller margin than this represents?

I'd imagine that you don't have much experience with caucuses - this is a good thing, because caucuses suck balls, but the very nature of it basically invalidates the comparison.

Also, the issue isn't that voter fraud doesn't exist, but rather that it would have to be pretty widespread to justify literally disenfranchising people.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The Iowa "election" was a caucus and not an election. No one won anything other than the right to say they "won" the Iowa caucus. The number of voters is very small compared to the number of registered voters in the state and the results of the caucus don't even translate to real live delegates. It's like comparing apples and bowling balls.

Also, stating that out of state people voted, you don't know how many, but it was "significant" is pretty much a meaningless statement. Statistics allow us to quantify want is actually "significant" so that when you hear a number that may or may not sound impressive, someone can actually scientifically tell whether or not it is. Random numbers mean shit.

I've never been in a state that caucused, so no, I don't know the specifics. However, the point remains the same, regardless of how you want to nitpik the details - according to the local news, enough dead and out of state "voters" to make a statistically significant difference "voted" in a recent South Carolina election. The Republican race is very tight. Small amounts of dead voters could change the outcome. Does that constitute a big enough problem to "disenfranchise people"? Where do we draw the line? Do we have to have an election where it is proven after the fact that the fraudulent votes in fact would have changed the election to actually say we have a problem?