Clinton to call for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide

[Statistikhengst]

Clinton to call for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide - The Washington Post

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to call for an early voting period of at least 20 days in every state.

Clinton will call for that standard in remarks Thursday in Texas about voting rights, her campaign said. She will also criticize what her campaign calls deliberate restrictions on voting in several states, including Texas.

The former secretary of state's address at historically-black Texas Southern University in Houston comes as Democrats pursue legal challenges to voting rule changes approved by Republican legislatures in several states.

Clinton and her allies claim the changes are aimed at narrowing the electorate in ways that benefit Republicans.

“This is, I think, a moment when we should be expanding the franchise,” Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said in an interview. “What we see in state after state is this effort by conservatives to restrict the right to vote.”

Once again, Clinton acts, which will force the GOP to react.

This has been going on for quite a while, now.

Discuss. Is this a good idea, or a bad one?

Democratic candidate Clinton is talking about a 20-day early voting period NATIONALLY.

Foxfyre (who else) said that Clinton has no new ideas. It'll be interesting to see what she is going to find wrong, evil, or sneaky about letting more people vote.

Not a new idea. I wonder why she didn't recommend this for her own state?

She is no longer in Congress and it is a novel idea.

Novel maybe to the extent it is unconstitutional, takes yet another states right away, and shifts ever more power to the federal government.

It is never unconstitutional to propose anything.

That is "malarky".

Not only that, there are tons of federal election laws on the books, none of which are specifically in the Constitution.

Are they "unconstitutional" as well?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You know what is most disturbing about this whole thing? This: What the fuck is the big deal? Why is 20 days of early voting such a horrible thing? All that happens is that people will have greater opportunity to vote with a reduced impact on disrupting daily commerce.

And yet, some people are opposed to it because it's a Democrat who said it. Fucking tools...

And I'm very sure you've already written a big fat check to fund the facilities, people and equipment for those extra days, RIGHT?

Outside of poll workers who get paid very little and mostly volunteer, no extra costs are involved since most sites are in schools or libraries.

So the ID is no longer an obstacle.
So exorbitant cost is no longer an obstacle.

Next phantom reason to oppose it??m

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence, but feel free to carry on.

Which facts are those?

Facilities? Open already.
Equipment? Only used at election time. Incredibly unlikely that there will be other state wide elections happening within 20 days of a federal election and, even if it were, in Texas--as you know--early in person voting not every polling place open on election day is open during early voting.
Personnel? As stated, this will be an extra cost but its not as if they get paid a huge amount of money anyway. And we would only be talking about a few workers, not the entire election staff.

Tell me what the problem is on one day voting? When I worked days, told the boss going to vote, hop in my truck, grab a cheese burger from Mickey d's stop by the voting place and vote and back to work in the hour. Not that complicated if your not on the government dole and need bus passes and the like.

 

[candycorn]

Clinton to call for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide - The Washington Post

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to call for an early voting period of at least 20 days in every state.

Clinton will call for that standard in remarks Thursday in Texas about voting rights, her campaign said. She will also criticize what her campaign calls deliberate restrictions on voting in several states, including Texas.

The former secretary of state's address at historically-black Texas Southern University in Houston comes as Democrats pursue legal challenges to voting rule changes approved by Republican legislatures in several states.

Clinton and her allies claim the changes are aimed at narrowing the electorate in ways that benefit Republicans.

“This is, I think, a moment when we should be expanding the franchise,” Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said in an interview. “What we see in state after state is this effort by conservatives to restrict the right to vote.”

Once again, Clinton acts, which will force the GOP to react.

This has been going on for quite a while, now.

Discuss. Is this a good idea, or a bad one?

Democratic candidate Clinton is talking about a 20-day early voting period NATIONALLY.

Foxfyre (who else) said that Clinton has no new ideas. It'll be interesting to see what she is going to find wrong, evil, or sneaky about letting more people vote.

Not a new idea. I wonder why she didn't recommend this for her own state?

She is no longer in Congress and it is a novel idea.

Novel maybe to the extent it is unconstitutional, takes yet another states right away, and shifts ever more power to the federal government.

She never suggested such a thing as a federal law, if the States have pre-election voting anyway, nothing is being taken away in those cases and in cases where they do not, she is simply calling for them to do so, and how in the world even in your mind would this shift more power to the federal government if the states run the elections?

Again, you're batting 0.00%

 

[candycorn]

You know what is most disturbing about this whole thing? This: What the fuck is the big deal? Why is 20 days of early voting such a horrible thing? All that happens is that people will have greater opportunity to vote with a reduced impact on disrupting daily commerce.

And yet, some people are opposed to it because it's a Democrat who said it. Fucking tools...

And I'm very sure you've already written a big fat check to fund the facilities, people and equipment for those extra days, RIGHT?

Outside of poll workers who get paid very little and mostly volunteer, no extra costs are involved since most sites are in schools or libraries.

So the ID is no longer an obstacle.
So exorbitant cost is no longer an obstacle.

Next phantom reason to oppose it??m

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence, but feel free to carry on.

Which facts are those?

Facilities? Open already.
Equipment? Only used at election time. Incredibly unlikely that there will be other state wide elections happening within 20 days of a federal election and, even if it were, in Texas--as you know--early in person voting not every polling place open on election day is open during early voting.
Personnel? As stated, this will be an extra cost but its not as if they get paid a huge amount of money anyway. And we would only be talking about a few workers, not the entire election staff.

Tell me what the problem is on one day voting? When I worked days, told the boss going to vote, hop in my truck, grab a cheese burger from Mickey d's stop by the voting place and vote and back to work in the hour. Not that complicated if your not on the government dole and need bus passes and the like.

There is no problem with one day voting much in the same way there is no problem living in a 1 bedroom shack on the edge of town. Longer voting periods is a much better idea for a number of reasons. I give you credit for abandoning your idiotic statements you made prior to this but the reasons multi-day balloting is a better idea stem from reasons such as bad weather on election day to medical issues (if you have a procedure scheduled on that day for example), to just flat out better serving the citizens.

 

[CowboyTed]

I don't see how there can be complaints:
Some people for travel reasons, job obilgations and health reasons can't vote in person.
Ireland has for example 21 day postal voting and polls open till 10 pm and had 70% turnout for the recent Marraige Poll.

What is the problem with people being allowed to vote easier? Is there some reason they don't want them to vote.

Only rule should be that the vote be recieved by the polling day and not after...

 

[Redfish]

I don't see how there can be complaints:
Some people for travel reasons, job obilgations and health reasons can't vote in person.
Ireland has for example 21 day postal voting and polls open till 10 pm and had 70% turnout for the recent Marraige Poll.

What is the problem with people being allowed to vote easier? Is there some reason they don't want them to vote.

Only rule should be that the vote be recieved by the polling day and not after...

There have always been absentee ballots for those who cannot vote on election day. This whole "election month" bullshit is nothing but a dem/lib attempt to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

 

[candycorn]

You know what is most disturbing about this whole thing? This: What the fuck is the big deal? Why is 20 days of early voting such a horrible thing? All that happens is that people will have greater opportunity to vote with a reduced impact on disrupting daily commerce.

And yet, some people are opposed to it because it's a Democrat who said it. Fucking tools...

And I'm very sure you've already written a big fat check to fund the facilities, people and equipment for those extra days, RIGHT?

Outside of poll workers who get paid very little and mostly volunteer, no extra costs are involved since most sites are in schools or libraries.

So the ID is no longer an obstacle.
So exorbitant cost is no longer an obstacle.

Next phantom reason to oppose it??m

Are the volunteers going to take off work for 20 day's?

Usually the volunteers are retired.

You going to shut down the schools and library's for 20 days?

They don't shut down the schools or libraries now on election day so why would you start such foolishness...unless you're trying to suppress the vote which, obviously, you are.

Being a liberal candy and me being a parent I sure don't want the schools open for 20 days when strangers are coming in and going.

Do you/have you been hold/holding your kid out on the 2nd Tuesday of each November for their entire life? If so, you seem to not give a crap about your kid's safety; according to you.

Never been to a school on voting day that was not shut down in Illinois or South Carolina in the past 20 year's.

Well, that makes sense to keep kids away from heavily republican districts--you know how they love the little flowers--in Texas when I was growing up, the schools never closed on election day. Back then the state was somewhat purple.

 

[candycorn]

I don't see how there can be complaints:
Some people for travel reasons, job obilgations and health reasons can't vote in person.
Ireland has for example 21 day postal voting and polls open till 10 pm and had 70% turnout for the recent Marraige Poll.

What is the problem with people being allowed to vote easier? Is there some reason they don't want them to vote.

Only rule should be that the vote be recieved by the polling day and not after...

There have always been absentee ballots for those who cannot vote on election day. This whole "election month" bullshit is nothing but a dem/lib attempt to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

But that can't happen now thanks to the Voter ID laws...so now you have to come up with a new bullshit excuse to keep people away from the polls.

 

[Foxfyre]

Clinton to call for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide - The Washington Post

Once again, Clinton acts, which will force the GOP to react.

This has been going on for quite a while, now.

Discuss. Is this a good idea, or a bad one?

Democratic candidate Clinton is talking about a 20-day early voting period NATIONALLY.

Foxfyre (who else) said that Clinton has no new ideas. It'll be interesting to see what she is going to find wrong, evil, or sneaky about letting more people vote.

Not a new idea. I wonder why she didn't recommend this for her own state?

She is no longer in Congress and it is a novel idea.

Novel maybe to the extent it is unconstitutional, takes yet another states right away, and shifts ever more power to the federal government.

She never suggested such a thing as a federal law, if the States have pre-election voting anyway, nothing is being taken away in those cases and in cases where they do not, she is simply calling for them to do so, and how in the world even in your mind would this shift more power to the federal government if the states run the elections?

Again, you're batting 0.00%

Oh well if all she is doing is suggesting with no intention to push it as law, then okay. But making a suggestion qualifies her as having unique ideas? This makes her a leader? Heck, I have a lot of great ideas to suggest that would make government more efficient and people's lives a lot better if everybody would just agree. And I also have a lot of private sector and government experience including management and some heavy administration, but I am in no way qualified to be President. I'm pretty sure nobody is running, GOP, Democrat, or Independent, who isn't making some good suggestions for how things might be improved.

But okay, score one for Hillary. She expressed an idea. (Though given her track record, I suspect it didn't originate with her.)

 

[candycorn]

Foxfyre (who else) said that Clinton has no new ideas. It'll be interesting to see what she is going to find wrong, evil, or sneaky about letting more people vote.

Not a new idea. I wonder why she didn't recommend this for her own state?

She is no longer in Congress and it is a novel idea.

Novel maybe to the extent it is unconstitutional, takes yet another states right away, and shifts ever more power to the federal government.

She never suggested such a thing as a federal law, if the States have pre-election voting anyway, nothing is being taken away in those cases and in cases where they do not, she is simply calling for them to do so, and how in the world even in your mind would this shift more power to the federal government if the states run the elections?

Again, you're batting 0.00%

Oh well if all she is doing is suggesting with no intention to push it as law, then okay. But making a suggestion qualifies her as having unique ideas? This makes her a leader?

When you brazenly (not to mention wrongly) suggest that she has none yes. I would think that she would have intention to push it as a federal mandate if/when she gets into office since it is such a good idea.

Heck, I have a lot of great ideas to suggest that would make government more efficient and people's lives a lot better if everybody would just agree. And I also have a lot of private sector and government experience including management and some heavy administration, but I am in no way qualified to be President. I'm pretty sure nobody is running, GOP, Democrat, or Independent, who isn't making some good suggestions for how things might be improved.

I'm sure you have zero good ideas given your track record here of lazy research and arguing with anecdotes instead of debating with data.

But okay, score one for Hillary. She expressed an idea. (Though given her track record, I suspect it didn't originate with her.)

Given your track record, I would be suspect in believing you.

 

[CowboyTed]

I don't see how there can be complaints:
Some people for travel reasons, job obilgations and health reasons can't vote in person.
Ireland has for example 21 day postal voting and polls open till 10 pm and had 70% turnout for the recent Marraige Poll.

What is the problem with people being allowed to vote easier? Is there some reason they don't want them to vote.

Only rule should be that the vote be recieved by the polling day and not after...

There have always been absentee ballots for those who cannot vote on election day. This whole "election month" bullshit is nothing but a dem/lib attempt to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

So you have proof of this rampant voter fraud going on... Who is organising this? They need to be brought to justice.

I can easily show excessive queuing and voter apathy.

Have you any proof that happening and why has no other first world countries experienced this?

There is far more incidents of voters having there right curbed by excessive voter laws than incidents of voter fraud

 

[Redfish]

I don't see how there can be complaints:
Some people for travel reasons, job obilgations and health reasons can't vote in person.
Ireland has for example 21 day postal voting and polls open till 10 pm and had 70% turnout for the recent Marraige Poll.

What is the problem with people being allowed to vote easier? Is there some reason they don't want them to vote.

Only rule should be that the vote be recieved by the polling day and not after...

There have always been absentee ballots for those who cannot vote on election day. This whole "election month" bullshit is nothing but a dem/lib attempt to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

So you have proof of this rampant voter fraud going on... Who is organising this? They need to be brought to justice.

I can easily show excessive queuing and voter apathy.

Have you any proof that happening and why has no other first world countries experienced this?

There is far more incidents of voters having there right curbed by excessive voter laws than incidents of voter fraud

One fraudulent vote is one too many. Give us some valid examples to prove your claim in your last sentence.

 

[CowboyTed]

I don't see how there can be complaints:
Some people for travel reasons, job obilgations and health reasons can't vote in person.
Ireland has for example 21 day postal voting and polls open till 10 pm and had 70% turnout for the recent Marraige Poll.

What is the problem with people being allowed to vote easier? Is there some reason they don't want them to vote.

Only rule should be that the vote be recieved by the polling day and not after...

There have always been absentee ballots for those who cannot vote on election day. This whole "election month" bullshit is nothing but a dem/lib attempt to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

So you have proof of this rampant voter fraud going on... Who is organising this? They need to be brought to justice.

I can easily show excessive queuing and voter apathy.

Have you any proof that happening and why has no other first world countries experienced this?

There is far more incidents of voters having there right curbed by excessive voter laws than incidents of voter fraud

One fraudulent vote is one too many. Give us some valid examples to prove your claim in your last sentence.

But mass curbing of peoples right because a law might be broken is OK?

 

[OKTexas]

You know what is most disturbing about this whole thing? This: What the fuck is the big deal? Why is 20 days of early voting such a horrible thing? All that happens is that people will have greater opportunity to vote with a reduced impact on disrupting daily commerce.

And yet, some people are opposed to it because it's a Democrat who said it. Fucking tools...

And I'm very sure you've already written a big fat check to fund the facilities, people and equipment for those extra days, RIGHT?

I think you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Boy, that was original, and exactly what I thought.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see how there can be complaints:
Some people for travel reasons, job obilgations and health reasons can't vote in person.
Ireland has for example 21 day postal voting and polls open till 10 pm and had 70% turnout for the recent Marraige Poll.

What is the problem with people being allowed to vote easier? Is there some reason they don't want them to vote.

Only rule should be that the vote be recieved by the polling day and not after...

There have always been absentee ballots for those who cannot vote on election day. This whole "election month" bullshit is nothing but a dem/lib attempt to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

So you have proof of this rampant voter fraud going on... Who is organising this? They need to be brought to justice.

I can easily show excessive queuing and voter apathy.

Have you any proof that happening and why has no other first world countries experienced this?

There is far more incidents of voters having there right curbed by excessive voter laws than incidents of voter fraud

One fraudulent vote is one too many. Give us some valid examples to prove your claim in your last sentence.

But mass curbing of peoples right because a law might be broken is OK?

Nobody has suggested curbing anybody's right to vote. A lot of us want to curb people's ability to vote illegally. And all those objecting to efforts to ensure an honest and accurate vote all seem to want people to be able to vote illegally more easily whether they phrase it that way or not. Why is that do you think?

 

[Redfish]

I don't see how there can be complaints:
Some people for travel reasons, job obilgations and health reasons can't vote in person.
Ireland has for example 21 day postal voting and polls open till 10 pm and had 70% turnout for the recent Marraige Poll.

What is the problem with people being allowed to vote easier? Is there some reason they don't want them to vote.

Only rule should be that the vote be recieved by the polling day and not after...

There have always been absentee ballots for those who cannot vote on election day. This whole "election month" bullshit is nothing but a dem/lib attempt to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

So you have proof of this rampant voter fraud going on... Who is organising this? They need to be brought to justice.

I can easily show excessive queuing and voter apathy.

Have you any proof that happening and why has no other first world countries experienced this?

There is far more incidents of voters having there right curbed by excessive voter laws than incidents of voter fraud

One fraudulent vote is one too many. Give us some valid examples to prove your claim in your last sentence.

But mass curbing of peoples right because a law might be broken is OK?

What law? the one that says you can only vote once? or the one that says you can't vote after you die?

 

[Redfish]

I don't see how there can be complaints:
Some people for travel reasons, job obilgations and health reasons can't vote in person.
Ireland has for example 21 day postal voting and polls open till 10 pm and had 70% turnout for the recent Marraige Poll.

What is the problem with people being allowed to vote easier? Is there some reason they don't want them to vote.

Only rule should be that the vote be recieved by the polling day and not after...

There have always been absentee ballots for those who cannot vote on election day. This whole "election month" bullshit is nothing but a dem/lib attempt to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

So you have proof of this rampant voter fraud going on... Who is organising this? They need to be brought to justice.

I can easily show excessive queuing and voter apathy.

Have you any proof that happening and why has no other first world countries experienced this?

There is far more incidents of voters having there right curbed by excessive voter laws than incidents of voter fraud

One fraudulent vote is one too many. Give us some valid examples to prove your claim in your last sentence.

But mass curbing of peoples right because a law might be broken is OK?

Nobody has suggested curbing anybody's right to vote. A lot of us want to curb people's ability to vote illegally. And all those objecting to efforts to ensure an honest and accurate vote all seem to want people to be able to vote illegally more easily whether they phrase it that way or not. Why is that do you think?

I will never understand why anyone objects to proving who you are before voting. They have to do that to collect unemployment or food stamps, to get the power turned on, or to board a plane or train. OR to register to vote. What is the objection to showing the same ID when voting that you had to show to register?

this whole thing is fricken ridiculous.

 

[OKTexas]

Clinton to call for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide - The Washington Post

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to call for an early voting period of at least 20 days in every state.

Clinton will call for that standard in remarks Thursday in Texas about voting rights, her campaign said. She will also criticize what her campaign calls deliberate restrictions on voting in several states, including Texas.

The former secretary of state's address at historically-black Texas Southern University in Houston comes as Democrats pursue legal challenges to voting rule changes approved by Republican legislatures in several states.

Clinton and her allies claim the changes are aimed at narrowing the electorate in ways that benefit Republicans.

“This is, I think, a moment when we should be expanding the franchise,” Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said in an interview. “What we see in state after state is this effort by conservatives to restrict the right to vote.”

Once again, Clinton acts, which will force the GOP to react.

This has been going on for quite a while, now.

Discuss. Is this a good idea, or a bad one?

Democratic candidate Clinton is talking about a 20-day early voting period NATIONALLY.

Foxfyre (who else) said that Clinton has no new ideas. It'll be interesting to see what she is going to find wrong, evil, or sneaky about letting more people vote.

Not a new idea. I wonder why she didn't recommend this for her own state?

She is no longer Senator from NY, in case you haven't noticed.

And on the national level, it is indeed a novel idea.

Statest push statest ideas, who would've thunk? Big oil, big insurance, big corporations = bad, big government = good. Hypocrites.

 

[OKTexas]

You know what is most disturbing about this whole thing? This: What the fuck is the big deal? Why is 20 days of early voting such a horrible thing? All that happens is that people will have greater opportunity to vote with a reduced impact on disrupting daily commerce.

And yet, some people are opposed to it because it's a Democrat who said it. Fucking tools...

And I'm very sure you've already written a big fat check to fund the facilities, people and equipment for those extra days, RIGHT?

Outside of poll workers who get paid very little and mostly volunteer, no extra costs are involved since most sites are in schools or libraries.

So the ID is no longer an obstacle.
So exorbitant cost is no longer an obstacle.

Next phantom reason to oppose it??m

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence, but feel free to carry on.

Which facts are those?

Facilities? Open already.
Equipment? Only used at election time. Incredibly unlikely that there will be other state wide elections happening within 20 days of a federal election and, even if it were, in Texas--as you know--early in person voting not every polling place open on election day is open during early voting.
Personnel? As stated, this will be an extra cost but its not as if they get paid a huge amount of money anyway. And we would only be talking about a few workers, not the entire election staff.

You can pretend that keeping places open double the time won't cost double, but you're delusional.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see how there can be complaints:
Some people for travel reasons, job obilgations and health reasons can't vote in person.
Ireland has for example 21 day postal voting and polls open till 10 pm and had 70% turnout for the recent Marraige Poll.

What is the problem with people being allowed to vote easier? Is there some reason they don't want them to vote.

Only rule should be that the vote be recieved by the polling day and not after...

There have always been absentee ballots for those who cannot vote on election day. This whole "election month" bullshit is nothing but a dem/lib attempt to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

So you have proof of this rampant voter fraud going on... Who is organising this? They need to be brought to justice.

I can easily show excessive queuing and voter apathy.

Have you any proof that happening and why has no other first world countries experienced this?

There is far more incidents of voters having there right curbed by excessive voter laws than incidents of voter fraud

One fraudulent vote is one too many. Give us some valid examples to prove your claim in your last sentence.

But mass curbing of peoples right because a law might be broken is OK?

What law? the one that says you can only vote once? or the one that says you can't vote after you die?

The problem with those people voting for the dead is that under our system of a secret ballot, there is no way to determine how a person voted after the fraud has been discovered. I believe the secret ballot is very important for a free society, but in order for it to maintain integrity, only those eligible to vote should be able to vote, and that does require them showing proof of identity when they vote. Of course photo ID can be forged, but it would require a lot more effort for the cheats to find somebody willing to cast an illegal vote and creating a phony photo ID for one time use.

I still think people should have to register to vote in person at the clerk's office, produce photo ID and proof of residency in order to register, and then produce positive ID again when they cast their vote. Voting should not only be our legal right as citizens, but should be seen as a patriotic act of a responsible citizen who should be confident that his/her vote will count and not be cancelled out via fraud.