Voting Early

[GreenSalsa]

I am going to vote by absentee ballot (Living in California, voting in North Carolina).

I think the only effect that early voting has is to clear the lines of people who have already made up their minds.

[Surf n Turf]

See – If you voted early, you would have missed this “clarification” from Obambi.
He really meant to say – You now have to work to receive his WELFARE program.
Remember this is from ABC – who is in the tank for BHO.

This will surely change opinions that Obambi is a socialist, who is driven to redistribution of wealth, punishing achievement, and rewarding sloth.
SnT

Obama Tweaks Tax Plan to Rebut McCain
ABC News October 21, 2008 9:21 PM
Facing criticism from John McCain that his tax plan constitutes "welfare," Barack Obama recently added a work requirement to one of his proposals.
"They started saying this was welfare," said Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that for the last two percent we'll simply add a work requirement."
Goolsbee discussed the change to Obama's universal mortgage credit while debating McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin at the Council on Foreign Relations on Tuesday.
Goolsbee referred to the number of non-working Americans who would benefit from the original understanding of Obama's plan as an insignificant "sliver" when compared to the much larger number of working Americans who would benefit from Obama's plan.
Although the number of non-working beneficiaries would have been just a "sliver" under the original understanding of Obama's plan, Goolsbee said the Democratic nominee's economic team decided to add a work requirement to it in order to block McCain from being able to characterize any aspect of his plan as "welfare."
"When did this change? I'm just curious," an incredulous Holtz-Eakin asked Goolsbee.
"About two weeks ago," replied Goolsbee, adding that when the proposal was announced in September 2007, 98 percent of its benefits went to workers.
The work requirement on Obama's universal mortgage credit was never announced publicly, prompting Holtz-Eakin to suggest that it was just made up for purposes of the CFR debate."I think they just made it up," Holtz-Eakin told ABC News. "They will say anything in the moment. This is like trying to pin Jello to the wall."
During a Tuesday conference call with reporters, Holtz-Eakin mocked Goolsbee's claim that Obama could have changed his plan two weeks ago in response to McCain attacks that did not start until after Obama met with Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher nine days ago.
"What we saw today was just another example of the Obama campaign being willing to say potentially anything in order to avoid the tough questions of the moment," said Holtz-Eakin.
Goolsbee told ABC News that he was not exactly sure when the conversation among Obama economic advisers took place. He said it's possible that it did not take place until a week ago when McCain started hammering Obama on the issue. Goolsbee said it was also possible that it happened earlier since some conservative columnists were criticizing Obama on this point before the Republican nominee started making the line of attack himself.
Goolsbee argued that his Tuesday reference to adding a work requirement referred not to a change in policy but rather a change in what the Obama campaign was making explicit.
"Our thing has never been welfare," said Goolsbee. "It was always our intention that there was a work requirement."
Asked how the Obama campaign made its work requirement on the mortgage credit explicit before Tuesday, Goolsbee said, "We made it explicit among ourselves," adding that he thinks Obama economic adviser Jason Furman might have made this point to reporters in recent interviews conducted on background. Goolsbee suggested that one of the reasons why the Obama campaign did not previously feel a need to make its work requirement explicit is that the refundable tax credits which exist in current U.S. tax law -- the Earned Income Tax Credit, the child credit, and the health coverage for displaced workers credit -- are all tied to either current work (in the case of the first two) are recent work (in the case of the third)
Goolsbee correctly noted that Obama's other refundable tax credits were clearly tied to work. An individual must work in order to qualify for Obama's making-work-pay credit, an individual must have earnings from a job in order to benefit from Obama's saver's credit, parents must work in order to benefit from Obama's refundable child care tax credit, and college students must perform community service in order to benefit from Obama's college tax credit.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...alters-ta.html

[afchic]

I sent in my absentee ballot last week. Live in CA vote in CO. I think early voting is good, and for one specific point, no one is reporting the results on the news as far as exit polling. I think there is something to be said for people in the West not voting because what is being reported in exit polling in the East.

I was asked a question by my military advisor Professor yesterday on what would be the single issue I would enact to make election day less of a circus, and ensure that people got out and voted. I said a media blackout. Can you imagine what would happen if people didn't have a clue as to how others were voting in other states based on exit polling? I say black it out and wait until the morning after to report the winner when all polls have closed and all votes have been counted.

JMHO

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by afchic

Can you imagine what would happen if people didn't have a clue as to how others were voting in other states based on exit polling? I say black it out and wait until the morning after to report the winner when all polls have closed and all votes have been counted.

JMHO

I couldn't agree more, have thought this for years. Pretty much since I was able to vote.

[Red Flag 1]

Originally Posted by afchic

I sent in my absentee ballot last week. Live in CA vote in CO. I think early voting is good, and for one specific point, no one is reporting the results on the news as far as exit polling. I think there is something to be said for people in the West not voting because what is being reported in exit polling in the East.

I was asked a question by my military advisor Professor yesterday on what would be the single issue I would enact to make election day less of a circus, and ensure that people got out and voted. I said a media blackout. Can you imagine what would happen if people didn't have a clue as to how others were voting in other states based on exit polling? I say black it out and wait until the morning after to report the winner when all polls have closed and all votes have been counted.

JMHO

Yup!

Exit polls are just polls. They are not fact. Media, all of them, seem to make predicted wins on some "fluffy" data. There is potential for this "fluff" to influence voters on the left coast. I really think the more rabid dims will vote no matter what, at the peril of the non-dims .

For those hanging on the media "analysis", look to the Bush/Gore election cycle.

My $.02.


RF 1

[Lanyard]

Sdiver knows here in Colorado we will have the longest Ballot in 50 years and likely the greatest turnout ever. I will vote next week.

I have learned a little trick to help multiply my vote a little.* Since I live in a liberal bastion here in Denver I will try to find as many Democrats as I can and offer them the following line. "You are a Democrat and I'm a Republican. I have a lot of work on the 4th and may not be able to get down to the polls in time, how about I wont vote if you wont vote. Our votes cancel each other out so it will not make a difference in the final outcome." I repeat as often as possible and then cast my ballot. This used to work quite well before we had mail in ballots and early voting. My personal best was 13 Democrats in one year.






*This should this be read as entertainment only in case it is construed as Voter Fraud by the Colorado Election Commission.

I dropped my mail-in ballot off at the Supervisor of Elections Office this morning... so it can't get "lost in the mail".

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Lanyard

Sdiver knows here in Colorado we will have the longest Ballot in 50 years and likely the greatest turnout ever. I will vote next week.

I have learned a little trick to help multiply my vote a little.* Since I live in a liberal bastion here in Denver I will try to find as many Democrats as I can and offer them the following line. "You are a Democrat and I'm a Republican. I have a lot of work on the 4th and may not be able to get down to the polls in time, how about I wont vote if you wont vote. Our votes cancel each other out so it will not make a difference in the final outcome." I repeat as often as possible and then cast my ballot. This used to work quite well before we had mail in ballots and early voting. My personal best was 13 Democrats in one year.


*This should this be read as entertainment only in case it is construed as Voter Fraud by the Colorado Election Commission.

How do you know those 13 Dems didn't do the same, thinking you wouldn't cast your ballot? I don't know about you, but even if I don't agree with who someone chooses as a candidate, I still think they should be voting. It is the duty of every able bodied adult in this country to vote. At least that is how I was raised.

[The Reaper]

I must be missing something.

In order to exercise my uninfringable 2nd Amendment rights to buy a firearm, I must apply in person with at least one photo ID, and submit to a background check, and a waiting period. According to the Dims, these are all good things, and should be even more restrictive, if possible, to keep those who cannot be trusted with firearms from obtaining them.

On the other hand, to exercise my Constitutional right to vote, I do not need ID, proof of residency, competence, a visit to a polling place, or in many cases, human DNA or a heartbeat, and that is a good thing, again as seen by Dims.

Why are two Constitutionally guaranteed rights seen so differently by a party?

I do not want illegal aliens, multiple voting, non-residents, underage minors, felons, those deemed mentally incompetent, addicts, straw-men, or fraud in either buying guns, or casting votes. A similar case could be made for alcohol purchases.

Thoughts?

TR

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I must be missing something.

In order to exercise my uninfringable 2nd Amendment rights to buy a firearm, I must apply in person with at least one photo ID, and submit to a background check, and a waiting period. According to the Dims, these are all good things, and should be even more restrictive, if possible, to keep those who cannot be trusted with firearms from obtaining them.

On the other hand, to exercise my Constitutional right to vote, I do not need ID, proof of residency, competence, a visit to a polling place, or in many cases, human DNA or a heartbeat, and that is a good thing, again as seen by Dims.

Why are two Constitutionally guaranteed rights seen so differently by a party?

I do not want illegal aliens, multiple voting, non-residents, underage minors, felons, those deemed mentally incompetent, addicts, straw-men, or fraud in either buying guns, or casting votes. A similar case could be made for alcohol purchases.

Thoughts?

TR

TR,my thoughts are +1

GB TFS

[Sigaba]

Sir--

My understanding is that the current practice of not verifying voter eligibility centers around the protection of the secrecy of the ballots. If someone knows that a person voted, to say nothing of where that person voted, a group can use that information to intimidate voters. For example, if a manager knows that a group of his workers live in a precinct and that precinct supported a measure or a candidate that management does not like, that group could be punished at the work place.

As for establishing qualifications for voting, as I recall a certain political party made a practice of holding voters to requirements they could not possibly meet at that time. (Of course, that party now acts as if it had nothing to do with that practice or the practices before it which entirely disenfranchised millions of Americans.)

I wonder if there a way that voter eligibility could be established and verified by one organization while another organization administers the elections.

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I must be missing something.

In order to exercise my uninfringable 2nd Amendment rights to buy a firearm, I must apply in person with at least one photo ID, and submit to a background check, and a waiting period. According to the Dims, these are all good things, and should be even more restrictive, if possible, to keep those who cannot be trusted with firearms from obtaining them.

On the other hand, to exercise my Constitutional right to vote, I do not need ID, proof of residency, competence, a visit to a polling place, or in many cases, human DNA or a heartbeat, and that is a good thing, again as seen by Dims.

Why are two Constitutionally guaranteed rights seen so differently by a party?

I do not want illegal aliens, multiple voting, non-residents, underage minors, felons, those deemed mentally incompetent, addicts, straw-men, or fraud in either buying guns, or casting votes. A similar case could be made for alcohol purchases.

Thoughts?

TR

Originally Posted by ksgbobo

I will do the early voting this Friday here in Jax, FL. The lines have been long for early voting, and I cannot imagine how long they will be on Nov 4, so I will be voting early. Republican down the ballot

Why didn't you opt for a mail-in ballot? You can apply online, and choose to receive ballots for up to 2 years of elections. No lines! I believe there's still time to request one.

Duval County

http://www.duvalelections.com/items.aspx?id=28

State of Florida

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/voting/absentee.shtml

[Paslode]

I went in to vote yesterday.

I filled out a form with name and address, and signed it. Walked up a lady, handed her the form, was told no ID required and was pointed in the direction of the voting booth.

From what I could tell, I would wager that anyone knowing my name and address could have voted for me.

Far too easy if you ask me.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Paslode

I went in to vote yesterday.

I filled out a form with name and address, and signed it. Walked up a lady, handed her the form, was told no ID required and was pointed in the direction of the voting booth.

From what I could tell, I would wager that anyone knowing my name and address could have voted for me.

Far too easy if you ask me.

They'll allow that in Texas, too...but then they follow through afterwards to check and see whether your vote stands as cast or will be disqualified. I would guess they'll do that where you're living, too.

Richard's $.02

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Sir--

My understanding is that the current practice of not verifying voter eligibility centers around the protection of the secrecy of the ballots. If someone knows that a person voted, to say nothing of where that person voted.....

That is wrong. Most voter information is on line nowdays. In NC you can do a voter search by name of the state or individual counties. With the name you can get where they vote and their voter history.

No ID allows people to voter under false names.

One of these days somebody is going to show up on election day and find out somebody else early voted for them.