Let's Adopt Mexico's Voting Laws

[TruthSeeker56]

While we're at it, how about we adopt Mexico's IMMIGRATION LAWS!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How many adults do you know who can't already prove who they are? (legal adults, that is).

How many adults do you know who like Lesbian porn? We don't decide laws based upon well everyone I know has a driver's license.

Most laws are based on that, nimrod.

No nimrod, they aren't, nor should they be.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're the one that asked the stupid question about providing a car, you fucking idiot.

You asked if they should provide you a gun? I asked if they provide you a car you idiot. They provide you with neither. If you could think you would have understood that my question was your answer - no gun, no car, but voting has to be free, by law.

You equated driving with the 2nd amendment, as if it were a right. Otherwise, you would not have brought it up. Keep dancin', asshat.

No I equated a car with a gun idiot, both of which you have to buy yourself.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're the one that asked the stupid question about providing a car, you fucking idiot.

You asked if they should provide you a gun? I asked if they provide you a car you idiot. They provide you with neither. If you could think you would have understood that my question was your answer - no gun, no car, but voting has to be free, by law.

I REPEAT you have to show ID, prove residence and citizenship to REGISTER to vote. None of which is free.

The voting part has to be free. The expense of getting your papers together, if you even can, is why the courts often toss ID laws. That has the same function as a Poll Tax, and those are illegal.

 

[candycorn]

The Left always points to how many blacks, minorities, and elderly would be negatively impacted or outright denied the right to vote if a photo ID were required. Yet, if you look at all of the other facets of our lives that do require photo ID such as acces to government, you would think their would be at least an independent push by the Left to get Government issued ID cards in these people's hands.

The NAACP required people at a recent Voter ID protest in North Carolina to produce ID in order to participate. The Democrat National Convention requires photo ID to its own convention. What are they so afraid of that photo IDs must be required?

If we're going to have voter registration, it only makes sense to have the registrant show picture ID at the time the ballot is cast. The claims that some cannot obtain one is weak. I will say that the government should provide a picture ID free of charge for voting; anything more than that is a poll tax and is wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

I say yes but not just the ID law lets go all the way. Sorry folks I can't still link.

1. Nonpartisan election administration. Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) is a nonpartisan, professional institution in which political party representatives have access but no control. IFE manages a nation-wide system with uniform rules. In contrast, the United States has 13,000 counties and municipalities that manage our national elections with different rules and less capacity. Partisan officials generally control the process, and in a close election, the opposition is often suspicious of the result.

No.2 was the ID

3. Poll workers. Mexico views the conduct of elections like Americans view jury duty – a civic obligation – and they recruit on a random basis a large number of people from each district. They are well-trained in every stage of the electoral process. When I asked a U.S. election official about the criteria for choosing poll workers, he said: "I'll take anyone with a pulse." Most poll workers are very senior citizens without the kind of stamina necessary to manage a polling station for 12 hours, and in most cases, they are poorly trained as compared to their Mexican counterparts.

4. Campaign finance/corruption. Each of Mexico's main political parties receive approximately $24 million of public financing for a three-month campaign. They can also receive 10% of their funds from supporters, but no one can give more than $71,000. In contrast, in the United States, there will be an estimated $6 billion raised privately, and with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money. Major contributors could have extraordinary access and substantial influence over public policy. Some would define that as corruption on a scale that even the drug cartels couldn't compete.

5. Equitable access to the media/negative advertising. IFE pays for media advertising, and ensures that the candidates have equal access. IFE also tries to discourage any negative advertising. A substantial amount of the $6 billion raised by the candidates in the United States goes for media advertising, and a recent study showed that 70 percent of ads in this year’s presidential contest has been negative. Just think what $6 billion could do as an endowment to a university; it would have lasting positive effects. Who believes that negative advertising can have a lasting positive effect?

6. Neutralizing incumbency. Since its revolution, Mexico's constitution prohibits re-election in order to prevent incumbents from using government to manipulate the electoral process. IFE goes even further by trying to prevent the president from even campaigning in the most indirect way for his party's candidates. In the United States, incumbents have a huge advantage in fund-raising because special interests can contribute to members of Congress while they are writing laws.

7. Judging disputes. Mexico has minutely-detailed election laws, and a professional and independent Electoral Tribunal to judge election disputes. The United States has few laws and no court with the expertise to settle such disputes.


8. Observers. Mexico invites international polling observers while the U.S. government does not welcome any international observers, and only two states allow them.

Now Mexico's elections are still corrupt but the USA's is not better at all.

At least they will invite more then the D's and R's to the debate. All 4 candidates were allowed to participate and the guy finished last with 2.8% of vote was still they treated the same as the others really unheard of.

I thought you can only have the 2 choices.

Why should anyone think we should adopt all of Mexico's election laws?

You premise is moronic.

 

[bripat9643]

You asked if they should provide you a gun? I asked if they provide you a car you idiot. They provide you with neither. If you could think you would have understood that my question was your answer - no gun, no car, but voting has to be free, by law.

You equated driving with the 2nd amendment, as if it were a right. Otherwise, you would not have brought it up. Keep dancin', asshat.

No I equated a car with a gun idiot, both of which you have to buy yourself.

Wrong. You equated driving with your 2nd Amendment rights.

No one is fooled.

 

[bripat9643]

You asked if they should provide you a gun? I asked if they provide you a car you idiot. They provide you with neither. If you could think you would have understood that my question was your answer - no gun, no car, but voting has to be free, by law.

I REPEAT you have to show ID, prove residence and citizenship to REGISTER to vote. None of which is free.

The voting part has to be free. The expense of getting your papers together, if you even can, is why the courts often toss ID laws. That has the same function as a Poll Tax, and those are illegal.

Then shouldn't the government have to pay for the gas in your car so you can drive to the polls?

Moron.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Wrong, and also Wrong, Wrong again, and yet again, also wrong, and yet again, wrong.

There are plenty of voters with no picture ID in this country, and no formal paperwork either. And it can be very hard to get and it cost bucks even if you can. If you did the research, like I have, and were an honest person, like I am, you'd know that, but you don't let facts get in your way. The reason the laws like this get in trouble is because we've never issued ID to everyone and we've never required it to vote. The GOP knows who voters without picture ID vote for, and they don't want them to vote. That's the whole idea of these laws. If it was really about ID, we'd issue one to everyone first and then ask for it, but that won't help the GOP and they know it.

BULLSHIT! There is NOBODY in this country who has no ID and cannot get one! Not ONE SINGLE PERSON. My grandmother has no birth certificate...yet she has photo ID.

Ah, so because you don't know of anyone it's not true? Do you know anyone who's been to the moon? No, well I guess we didn't go there then.

You're flailing, boy. Just admit you're full of shit, everyone but you realized it a while ago!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

BULLSHIT! There is NOBODY in this country who has no ID and cannot get one! Not ONE SINGLE PERSON. My grandmother has no birth certificate...yet she has photo ID.

Ah, so because you don't know of anyone it's not true? Do you know anyone who's been to the moon? No, well I guess we didn't go there then.

You're flailing, boy. Just admit you're full of shit, everyone but you realized it a while ago!

I used your "logic" exactly. There's a reason we don't base our laws on person knowledge or opinion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I REPEAT you have to show ID, prove residence and citizenship to REGISTER to vote. None of which is free.

The voting part has to be free. The expense of getting your papers together, if you even can, is why the courts often toss ID laws. That has the same function as a Poll Tax, and those are illegal.

Then shouldn't the government have to pay for the gas in your car so you can drive to the polls?

Moron.

The government should bring the polls to you moron, and in lots of cases they do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You equated driving with the 2nd amendment, as if it were a right. Otherwise, you would not have brought it up. Keep dancin', asshat.

No I equated a car with a gun idiot, both of which you have to buy yourself.

Wrong. You equated driving with your 2nd Amendment rights.

No one is fooled.

Learn to read idiot. And learn to be honest as well.

 

[bripat9643]

No I equated a car with a gun idiot, both of which you have to buy yourself.

Wrong. You equated driving with your 2nd Amendment rights.

No one is fooled.

Learn to read idiot. And learn to be honest as well.

How ironic!

 

[bripat9643]

The voting part has to be free. The expense of getting your papers together, if you even can, is why the courts often toss ID laws. That has the same function as a Poll Tax, and those are illegal.

Then shouldn't the government have to pay for the gas in your car so you can drive to the polls?

Moron.

The government should bring the polls to you moron, and in lots of cases they do.

Utterly moronic. That idea would have gone over well in 1789.

You didn't address my question: shouldn't the government have to pay to put gas in your car so you can drive to the polls?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Ah, so because you don't know of anyone it's not true? Do you know anyone who's been to the moon? No, well I guess we didn't go there then.

You're flailing, boy. Just admit you're full of shit, everyone but you realized it a while ago!

I used your "logic" exactly. There's a reason we don't base our laws on person knowledge or opinion.

You're still flailing, boy. Just admit you're full of shit, everyone but you realized it a while ago!

 

[hatman]

I say yes but not just the ID law lets go all the way. Sorry folks I can't still link.

1. Nonpartisan election administration. Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) is a nonpartisan, professional institution in which political party representatives have access but no control. IFE manages a nation-wide system with uniform rules. In contrast, the United States has 13,000 counties and municipalities that manage our national elections with different rules and less capacity. Partisan officials generally control the process, and in a close election, the opposition is often suspicious of the result.

No.2 was the ID

3. Poll workers. Mexico views the conduct of elections like Americans view jury duty – a civic obligation – and they recruit on a random basis a large number of people from each district. They are well-trained in every stage of the electoral process. When I asked a U.S. election official about the criteria for choosing poll workers, he said: "I'll take anyone with a pulse." Most poll workers are very senior citizens without the kind of stamina necessary to manage a polling station for 12 hours, and in most cases, they are poorly trained as compared to their Mexican counterparts.

4. Campaign finance/corruption. Each of Mexico's main political parties receive approximately $24 million of public financing for a three-month campaign. They can also receive 10% of their funds from supporters, but no one can give more than $71,000. In contrast, in the United States, there will be an estimated $6 billion raised privately, and with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money. Major contributors could have extraordinary access and substantial influence over public policy. Some would define that as corruption on a scale that even the drug cartels couldn't compete.

5. Equitable access to the media/negative advertising. IFE pays for media advertising, and ensures that the candidates have equal access. IFE also tries to discourage any negative advertising. A substantial amount of the $6 billion raised by the candidates in the United States goes for media advertising, and a recent study showed that 70 percent of ads in this year’s presidential contest has been negative. Just think what $6 billion could do as an endowment to a university; it would have lasting positive effects. Who believes that negative advertising can have a lasting positive effect?

6. Neutralizing incumbency. Since its revolution, Mexico's constitution prohibits re-election in order to prevent incumbents from using government to manipulate the electoral process. IFE goes even further by trying to prevent the president from even campaigning in the most indirect way for his party's candidates. In the United States, incumbents have a huge advantage in fund-raising because special interests can contribute to members of Congress while they are writing laws.

7. Judging disputes. Mexico has minutely-detailed election laws, and a professional and independent Electoral Tribunal to judge election disputes. The United States has few laws and no court with the expertise to settle such disputes.


8. Observers. Mexico invites international polling observers while the U.S. government does not welcome any international observers, and only two states allow them.

Now Mexico's elections are still corrupt but the USA's is not better at all.

At least they will invite more then the D's and R's to the debate. All 4 candidates were allowed to participate and the guy finished last with 2.8% of vote was still they treated the same as the others really unheard of.

I thought you can only have the 2 choices.

Why should anyone think we should adopt all of Mexico's election laws?

You premise is moronic.

Because as someone who never votes Democrat or Republican an actual Independent.
Who believes its a rigged system I realize its impossible to change the system when people in charge of system and are the same people who makes the rules. Where these elected crooks and there party's can gerrymander districts for they never lose power its a joke. Debate laws changed by Democrats and Republicans oh yeah great system should never change because that's the thing r's and d's keep themselves in power while the two bicker and fight on mostly on everything but agree on that?

And people like you love it, blame the other side. It's not my party fault it's yours. Seriously it's like little kids back n forth all day!

 

[bripat9643]

I say yes but not just the ID law lets go all the way. Sorry folks I can't still link.



Now Mexico's elections are still corrupt but the USA's is not better at all.

At least they will invite more then the D's and R's to the debate. All 4 candidates were allowed to participate and the guy finished last with 2.8% of vote was still they treated the same as the others really unheard of.

I thought you can only have the 2 choices.

Why should anyone think we should adopt all of Mexico's election laws?

You premise is moronic.

Because as someone who never votes Democrat or Republican an actual Independent.
Who believes its a rigged system I realize its impossible to change the system when people in charge of system and are the same people who makes the rules. Where these elected crooks and there party's can gerrymander districts for they never lose power its a joke. Debate laws changed by Democrats and Republicans oh yeah great system should never change because that's the thing r's and d's keep themselves in power while the two bicker and fight on mostly on everything but agree on that?

And people like you love it, blame the other side. It's not my party fault it's yours. Seriously it's like little kids back n forth all day!

I never said election laws shouldn't ever change. I just questioned the notion that we should adopt Mexico's election laws whole hog because of the comparison with their laws on voter I.D.

It's a bogus premise.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're flailing, boy. Just admit you're full of shit, everyone but you realized it a while ago!

I used your "logic" exactly. There's a reason we don't base our laws on person knowledge or opinion.

You're still flailing, boy. Just admit you're full of shit, everyone but you realized it a while ago!

Just because your stupid little right-wing buddies pat you on the back doesn't mean you have a clue. You don't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Then shouldn't the government have to pay for the gas in your car so you can drive to the polls?

Moron.

The government should bring the polls to you moron, and in lots of cases they do.

Utterly moronic. That idea would have gone over well in 1789.

You didn't address my question: shouldn't the government have to pay to put gas in your car so you can drive to the polls?

Your question is too dumb to address. It's idiotic, like you.

 

[bripat9643]

I used your "logic" exactly. There's a reason we don't base our laws on person knowledge or opinion.

You're still flailing, boy. Just admit you're full of shit, everyone but you realized it a while ago!

Just because your stupid little right-wing buddies pay you on the back doesn't mean you have a clue. You don't.

No one paying [sic] you on the back, PMH?

BTW, you never explained how you've been reading my posts for years when you've only been a member of this forum since February.