Well its official, your voting history is apparantly up for sale. I know the election board there said they dont' know how this organization got peoples voting records, but it was done. So much for you being the only one that knows how you vote.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/30/inquiry-launched-group-sought-disclose-voting-records/
I just read this article and I couldn't find anywhere that said "how you voted". The only information that I could find was whether or not you voted. While this is still a personal matter, there are too many people involved in the voting procedure for the information to remain solely your knowledge. How you voted is another matter.
Quote from: Wilma on October 30, 2009, 06:38:26 PM
I just read this article and I couldn't find anywhere that said "how you voted". The only information that I could find was whether or not you voted. While this is still a personal matter, there are too many people involved in the voting procedure for the information to remain solely your knowledge. How you voted is another matter.
The article mentioned party registration of neighbors. that tells what people vote for. Should not be required to register a party. But the articles point is and my point is, why is this "organization" getting this information to begin with. Like the "elections board " says, only the elections board, and person voting are supposed to have that knowlege, not any one else.
All of that information is supposed to be private.
Then your title is misleading. Is that what you intended?
Quote from: Wilma on October 31, 2009, 07:04:08 AM
Then your title is misleading. Is that what you intended?
Its not misleading at all. How you vote is known. When you go to vote, they take your id and write your name, and ballot serial number. Then you vote. How you vote is tied to your identification.
How you are registered is not private information and I don't believe it tells how you vote in a general election. BUT I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING.
Quote from: greatguns on October 31, 2009, 08:13:06 AM
How you are registered is not private information and I don't believe it tells how you vote in a general election.
Yes it is private information. No one has the right to go up and get any of that information without the voters permission.
QuoteBUT I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING.
You are absolutely right!
Back when I was voting a paper ballot, all the identifying numbers were cut off the ballot and fell into a box with all the other numbers. How then was my ballot identified? There was nothing left on the ballot to identify the voter and the numbers were then destroyed. Since I haven't voted paper ballot since Sedgwick County went to machines, except for the mail in ballots that I vote here, I have no idea of how it is done now. I also do not have any idea of how my vote could be identified as mine on a machine.
My mail in ballot has no identifying marks on the actual ballot. The identification is on the outside of the mail-in envelope and I assume that my ballot is removed from the envelope, the information from the envelope is transferred to the clerk's records and the envelope is destroyed. The ballot is not counted until all ballots are counted and unless someone up at the clerk's office is sneaking a peak at my ballot, no one can tell "How I Voted".
No, I will not believe that my actual vote can be identified as mine. Not that I care. I vote the way I feel is right and I am not ashamed of it. If someone wants to make it public knowledge, then so be it. I know that we are guaranteed a secret vote, but doesn't that mean that no one can watch us mark our ballot or mark it for us or tell us how to mark it? The secrecy is in the fact that we can vote as we please, then lie to everyone about how we voted.
Voter registration is not private information and is available without the voter's permission. How do you think the politicians get your name and address for the endless mailings that they do. They have to pay for it and they have to have a legitimate reason for wanting it. I wish our good clerk would get on here and give us the right information. I am working from when Janet was running for public office and my memory might not be that good, but I know that she could get the voter registration list but she had to pay for it. However, I do not believe that anyone can tell you "how" anyone voted because there is no record of that.
Ohh Wilma
I am sitting here chuckling ------I think you nailed this one. How funny!!!
I don't know if how we vote is public knowledge or could be, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. The things that people "think" are private are usually surprised when it comes up that it's not.
I don't think anything is private any more. You have to work very hard to keep everything about you private.
Back when I registered to vote years and years ago I was asked my party affiliation and I did fill that in, but that wouldn't tell how I vote now as I don't consider myself that much any more, but it does bring me the honour of getting all their advertisements. :P
Thank you Wilma. I guess I do know some things! ;D ;D ;D
To learn how voter registration works in Kansas, go to this link http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_registration.html (http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_registration.html)
How you vote is not a matter of record nor does anyone know how you voted. How you register to vote is a matter of public record and can be obtained from the county election clerk by paying for that information. (By Janet, Wilma's daughter)
Wilma pretty much hit the nail on the head. You can buy the voter registration rolls from the office of the registrar. It will show party affiliation but it doesn't show how you vote. I worked in a few campaigns back in 1999-2000 and we were given lists of names, addresses, phone numbers, and party affiliation of voters in the district that we were working at the time.
Steve, believe it or not, there are people out there who don't vote strictly along party lines. If thats what you do as a Libertarian, it must be a tough trip to the polls every year for you.
Quote from: Anmar on October 31, 2009, 01:07:17 PM
Wilma pretty much hit the nail on the head. You can buy the voter registration rolls from the office of the registrar. It will show party affiliation but it doesn't show how you vote. I worked in a few campaigns back in 1999-2000 and we were given lists of names, addresses, phone numbers, and party affiliation of voters in the district that we were working at the time.
Steve, believe it or not, there are people out there who don't vote strictly along party lines. If thats what you do as a Libertarian, it must be a tough trip to the polls every year for you.
No i vote for whomever i want to vote for but i see absolutely no need for forcing someone to choose a party to register. Thats non of their business. I remember registering and i told them i don't have a party. I could have been snotty and told em none of their business but i was nice.
I don't know where someone has the right to buy a list of voters and how their registered. thats none of their business. Nothing about a voter is anyones business.
Quote from: Wilma on October 31, 2009, 01:04:05 PM
To learn how voter registration works in Kansas, go to this link http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_registration.html (http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_registration.html)
How you vote is not a matter of record nor does anyone know how you voted. How you register to vote is a matter of public record and can be obtained from the county election clerk by paying for that information. (By Janet, Wilma's daughter)
Well its a good thing that i told them i'm not a member of any party then. Though it does give me cause and some decision making in that i may choose to withdraw my name from voting roles.
That is your right and your privilege, but by doing so you are giving up your right to have a say in any elections. The law is the law. In every kind of dealing you have to give some to get some. To be able to help make decisions, you have to give up some of your privacy.
I present, you decide:
--------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory Voting? Automatic Registration? How Un-American!
By Mark Green
Published October 19th 2009 in Huffington Post
If you have an election where the winner gets four percent of the eligible electorate, is that a functioning democracy? Having just lost such a runoff contest in New York City,I congratulated the winner for running a skillful campaign according to the rules. But are there better rules?
When there were similarly pathetic turnouts in local school board races 20 years ago, such elections were ridiculed and then abolished. When there are 70-80 percent turnouts in British, French, Swedish and Israeli elections -- or 60 percent in our own 2008 presidential election -- no one questions whether they broadly represent popular will in a functioning democracy. A seven percent turnout, however, risks choosing city-wide officials more in a private selection than a public election.
Instead, let's expand Instant Runoff Voting and automatic registration, and even consider mandatory voting laws:
Instant Runoff Voting. Under IRV, voters rank their choices for an office, 1 or 2 or 3 depending on how many are running. Then after the first and only round of voting, any candidate with a majority of course wins the election, whether primary or general. But if no one has a majority, second and third and choices are automatically allocated until someone gets 50 percent + 1 of all the votes. With the tabulation occurring electronically, a majority winner is guaranteed on election night.
Besides assuring majority rule, IRV saves taxpayers money and cuts the costs of campaigns since there's only one primary and no runoff; reduces negative campaigning because candidates will want to be an acceptable second choice for their opponents' supporters; increases turnout since the electorate needs only to show up to the polls once; avoids winners only working their narrow geographic, racial, religious or organizational niches; and frees people to vote their consciences without the worry of wasting their vote on an admirable though arguable long-shot (a Ralph Nader, a Libertarian) since their ballots will be re-cast for their next choice.
San Francisco has been using IRV since 2004, and recently Aspen, Burlington -- and Australia, Ireland, Great Britain and New Zealand -- have adopted it. It's now been used in 46 American elections in six counties, cities or towns. Analyzing the first IRV election in San Francisco, FairVote, the Center for Voting and Democracy, concluded (PDF) that "winners received significantly more votes than winners in [past] December runoffs (and especially more than winners in conventional plurality elections), more votes were cast in the decisive election and winners received more votes both in real terms and as a percent of the vote than the old 'delayed' runoff system. And that means more voters had a say in who their supervisor [mayor] is."
Automatic Registration. According to recent U.S. Census data, 30 percent of eligible Americans are not registered vote. So instead of hoping that high school graduates will find their way one by one to Boards of Elections to register as all American jurisdictions do, many countries use their census or tax data bases to create a voter registration list or engage in direct mail or even door-to-door registration drives (Germany, France, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Belgium). According to the Brennan Center for Legal Justice's report, Voter Registration Modernization, "Although the United States does not have a residence registry or a national health care system [yet] that provides a list of all eligible voters, states have a variety of databases that compile information about their citizens - databases maintained by motor vehicle departments, income tax authorities, and social service agencies. Many of these lists already include all the information necessary to determine voter eligibility..." With everyone registered and then encouraged to vote by mailings and public service ads, turnouts increase.
Mandatory Voting. When I used to routinely ask applying law students in interviews what they thought of this idea simply to test their ability to think on their feet, about 98 percent would object to it as coercive, big-brotherish, un-American! "But if we accept the days it takes to sit on juries as a condition of citizenship, why not the few minutes it takes to vote?" Um, oh. Indeed, Australia (since 1924) regards it as much a part of their civic obligation as we in America (for the most part) do paying taxes.
Other countries which require voting includes Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Ecuador and Switzerland. While rules vary, in nearly all there's a penalty of some $15, which citizens can avoid paying by providing a legitimate excuse for not voting (religious objections, travel, illness). And voters can still write-in a name or vote for none-of-the-above.
So why bother? Because such a system could help create a habit to use the franchise rather than just cite it on July 4 ... help assure that elected officials more truly reflect their constituents ... and encourage candidates to concentrate on convincing 50 percent of the total vote, not just pulling out four percent of the eligible electorate. Or as a store window sign down my block once actually put it, "Democracy is like sex -- it works best when you participate."
----------------------------------------
From the Center
Flint
Steve....:)
I finally got the link open. I haven't actually gotten to read it until now, but I don't think the group had exactly "who" a person voted for, but rather were able to obtain a history of everyone that voted and what elections they voted in and was making it available to everyone which is illegal. No one is able to obtain a history of how often a person votes or when they voted, so still a big deal and no body's business but my own. But just to let you know, I don't think they were able to get a list of "who" they voted for. :-)
Another view, from the Washington Post
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you shame people into voting?
Building on an unusual scientific study about getting out the vote, a new and mysterious nonprofit organization purchased a registration list of Virginia voters that included their voting histories and the voting histories of their neighbors. Next, the organization prepared a mass mailing with those histories and planned to send them out to 350,000 Virginian voters.
The idea? To let them know that someone--including their neighbors--would be watching to see whether they perform their civic duty next Tuesday.
Critics of the idea called it shaming people into voting. Others complained about an invasion of privacy, though the information is already public.
But Debra Girvin, a suburban businesswoman from the suburbs of Richmond who saw herself as nothing more than an idealistic do-gooder--thought this could be a revolutionary exercise in democracy in action.
Her organization, The Know Campaign, was just about to send the mailings, too -- when inquiries from reporters and another look at Virginia's laws on the use of voter rolls made her rethink the project and cancel the mailing.
"It just seemed like a wise thing to do to say, 'Stop the presses,'" Girvin, executive director of The Know Campaign, said Wednesday night. "Our intention was really to do something very positive. I don't want to do bad things. Nor do I want the perception of such."
The mailings would not have pried beyond the curtains of the polling machine. But they relied on data that does take names of the people who have come through the doors at their voting precincts.
"Below is a partial lists of your recent voting history - public information obtained from the Virginia State Board of Elections," the letter says, according to a story in The Virginian-Pilot, which first reported about the project. "We have sent you this information as a public service because we believe that democracy only works when you vote."
Girvin, a human resources consultant with her own company who lives in Chesterfield, said she got the idea after reading about a study by three political scientists, two of whom are from Yale University, who devised an ingenious way to motivate people to vote. The researchers targeted more than 180,000 voters in Michigan. The voters were divided into a control group and four target groups. The control group voted as they normally did. The other four groups received mailings leading up to the election.
One group got a letter every 11 days before a 2006 election urging them to vote because it was their civic duty. The second group received a letter advising them that their voting habits were being observed. The third got a letter notifying them that they should know that their voting habits are a matter of public record. (Though, as in Virginia, whom a person votes for is a secret, of course.) But this group also received the 2004 presidential voting history of everyone in their household. The fourth group received a letter with their 2004 presidential voting history and also that of their neighbors'.
Girvin said she simply wanted to test the idea in this year's gubernatorial race.
"I wish -- and I'm an idealistic person -- but I wish people would care more about who we're voting for and more about working through the democratic process. I hate people on the right screaming and I hate people on the left screaming, and I think there are a lot of people in the middle who are tired of not being heard. And I think they've given up."
Girvin said she purchased the voter rolls from a private company but declined to identify it. She also declined to identify the source of the grants that funded the project because the mailing was canceled and the grantor's money will be returned.
By Anne Bartlett | October 28, 2009; 8:12 PM ET
Quote from: Wilma on October 31, 2009, 01:59:08 PM
That is your right and your privilege, but by doing so you are giving up your right to have a say in any elections. The law is the law. In every kind of dealing you have to give some to get some. To be able to help make decisions, you have to give up some of your privacy.
Why? Isn't voting a right? Why do i have to give up anything to vote?
Sorry but i don't go that way. Might as well just wad the constitution up and toss it in the fire if we have to give up those rights to get a right guaranteed by it.
Just because the board is violating rights doesn't mean their right.
Crap like this pisses me off. How, When, and Who you voted for is YOUR business and no one elses. The idea of voter roles and the like and the fact that they can be purchased is, to me, a violation of privacy.
"Civic Duty", I feel, is also anti-American. If a person wants to serve on a jury, fine. If they do not then they should not be forced to. If a person chooses to not vote I don't think that they are giving up their right to express their displeasure or satisfaction with a canidate. If we are going to shame people into excrising their rights then folks who choose not to own firearms should be shamed, people who do not assemble at local rallies should be shamed, people who do not express their opinion on an issue should be shamed, and the list goes on. The Constitution gives us the certain rights, it is up to us to excrise them as we see fit. To not excrise those rights is also our choice, and no one elses. The Constitution does not have a mandatory useage clause, nor does it have a use it or lose it clause.
Voting is a right, a duty and a privilege. You know what pisses me off? Self proclaimed good Americans who don't want to do their civic duty and bitch about it. What is wrong with exercising your rights, privileges and duties as good Americans. I suppose the right to bitch is considered a privilege, too, and that is what you are exercising. What is wrong with doing your civic duty and being proud of it?
Some of you Constitution officiandoes answer this one. Does the Constitution say anything about privacy of the voter's roles? Is it unconstitutional for the list of registered voters to be available to the public? It seems to me that if you don't want your registration to be public, you shouldn't be registered. Yet you have to be registered to vote. The reason for the registration is to be sure that only qualified voters are voting. And that someone else isn't using your registration to vote illegally. Just think about it a minute. What would the elections be like if there were no controls in place?
Quote from: Varmit on November 01, 2009, 07:35:59 AM
Crap like this pisses me off. How, When, and Who you voted for is YOUR business and no one elses. The idea of voter roles and the like and the fact that they can be purchased is, to me, a violation of privacy.
"Civic Duty", I feel, is also anti-American. If a person wants to serve on a jury, fine. If they do not then they should not be forced to. If a person chooses to not vote I don't think that they are giving up their right to express their displeasure or satisfaction with a canidate. If we are going to shame people into excrising their rights then folks who choose not to own firearms should be shamed, people who do not assemble at local rallies should be shamed, people who do not express their opinion on an issue should be shamed, and the list goes on. The Constitution gives us the certain rights, it is up to us to excrise them as we see fit. To not excrise those rights is also our choice, and no one elses. The Constitution does not have a mandatory useage clause, nor does it have a use it or lose it clause.
I saw where vermont has a bill up to fine people 500 dollars for not owning a firearm. It makes sense too as not owning one constitutionally makes them a liability in defense of the state in that they cannot be a ready militia.
QuoteI saw where vermont has a bill up to fine people 500 dollars for not owning a firearm. It makes sense too as not owning one constitutionally makes them a liability in defense of the state in that they cannot be a ready militia.
so..........it's wrong to take guns away BUT it's cool to FORCE somebody else to get one who doesn't WANT one??????????????real constitutional thinkin at work THERE.
QuoteThe reason for the registration is to be sure that only qualified voters are voting. And that someone else isn't using your registration to vote illegally. Just think about it a minute. What would the elections be like if there were no controls in place?
but Wilma......that's common sense :P & common sense don't fly too well in politics and the "gimmeee my freedoms debate"
as for the jury duty question.........that was to keep the same twelve people from serving on all juries and using that capacity to "grind their axes" so to speak. Kind of a NO brainer when you think about it.
Thanks, Pam. Is there anyone else on here with common sense or is it just you and me?
I have some. I think. ???
I think I have some left. :-\
Being out here in the Center, it's hard not to get indoctrinated by the uber-right and the uber-left. ::)
Oh wait, I forgot there is no center according to the uber-right. :-\
Maybe their indoctrination campaign is working. :P
Thomas Paine had a lot of Common Sense.
I'm with flint, I'm just probably going to start ignoring the far right and the far left crazies running around.
ahem.... ;D Me too!
Quote from: Anmar on November 01, 2009, 11:23:12 AM
I'm with flint, I'm just probably going to start ignoring the far right and the far left crazies running around.
Hmmm thats what I said a long time ago about the far left... and just the crazies in general..
so far ..its worked for me.. ;)
Quote from: Wilma on November 01, 2009, 07:59:21 AM
Voting is a right, a duty and a privilege. What is wrong with exercising your rights, privileges and duties as good Americans. What is wrong with doing your civic duty and being proud of it?
Because when a person is forced to do something it is no longer a right or a privilege. As for jury duty, I understand the idea that folks have an axe to grind, but I don't agree with how jury selection and compensation is conducted. Frankly, if I am going to be pulled away from work then I should be compensated for it according to my wages.
The History of Voter Registration in the U.S.
Voter registration originated in the early 19th century as a method of disenfranchisement. Many states were concerned with the growing number of foreign-born transients participating in local government, and so they developed a system of registration to ensure that these non-citizens could not vote. While this did disenfranchise transients and the foreign-born, many poor citizens were also not included on the voter rolls; they were often not home when the assessors came by, which was typically during the work-day, so they were not included. Many areas that were largely Democratic rebuffed the registration system, because most of the poor, immigrants, and other potentially disenfranchised groups tended to vote Democrat.
Near the beginning of the 20th century, other disenfranchisement issues arose, mostly concerning the ability of African-Americans to vote. Laws in the South were designed "expressly to be administered in a discriminatory fashion," where the validity of a vote due to small mismarks, an arbitrary assessment of a voter's "understanding," or other minutia would be subject to the whim of an election official (112).
Between 1870 and WWI, though, most states opted to instate registration, usually to avoid the inevitable conflicts that arose between disenfranchised voters and election officials on Election Day. The Progressive Era also brought new registration developments, allowing citizens an extended window to register, which contributed significantly to the increased participation of working-class people and immigrants.
States mandated the new registration laws individually, so the end result was by no means cohesive or uniform among states. In 1875, the Supreme Court upheld the states' right to grant suffrage to certain groups in Minor v Happersett, which upheld a lower court's ruling.
Notable exceptions to the power of the states, in the form of constitutional amendments, arose during the 20th century. Attempts to enfranchise African-Americans culminated in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which permitted federal examiners to investigate electoral offices in the South to ensure nondiscriminatory voter registration practices. "In Mississippi, black registration went from less than 10 percent in 1964 to almost 60 percent in 1968; in Alabama, the figure rose from 24 percent to 57 percent. In the region as a whole, roughly a million new voters were registered within a few years after the bill [Voting Rights Act] became law, bringing African-American registration to a record 62 percent" (264).
In the 1970s and 1980s, many states were concerned that labyrinthine registration procedures and laws were depressing voter turnout, so they attempted to simplify the process. Turnout was not significantly enhanced by these new reforms, so in 1993, President Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act, which mandated that states allow citizens to register to vote by mail, at the DMV, or at local public offices, such as welfare offices. Once the bill took effect in 1995, 9 million new voters registered themselves.
It is clear that the country has been progressing towards federal-run universal registration since its inception. Universal registration is enfranchising, and will help to remind every American that their participation is sought, and that their voice is a vital part of the political process.
Source: Keyssar, Alexander. The Right to Vote The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
Quote from: Wilma on November 01, 2009, 07:59:21 AM
Voting is a right, a duty and a privilege.
Wilma it is impossible that it is a right, and a priveledge. Either it is a right or its a privilege Which is subject to revocation at any time. Can't be both. As far as a duty? Where does it say its a duty?
QuoteYou know what pisses me off? Self proclaimed good Americans who don't want to do their civic duty and bitch about it.
Ok who assigned the civic duty?
QuoteWhat is wrong with exercising your rights, privileges and duties as good Americans.
Nothing at all. But part of that right is to NOT exercise voting.
QuoteI suppose the right to bitch is considered a privilege, too, and that is what you are exercising. What is wrong with doing your civic duty and being proud of it?
Bitching privileges are tied directly to the right to vote. IF you don't vote, you have no privilege to bitch.
It is revoked when you don't vote.
QuoteSome of you Constitution officiandoes answer this one. Does the Constitution say anything about privacy of the voter's roles? Is it unconstitutional for the list of registered voters to be available to the public? It seems to me that if you don't want your registration to be public, you shouldn't be registered. Yet you have to be registered to vote. The reason for the registration is to be sure that only qualified voters are voting. And that someone else isn't using your registration to vote illegally. Just think about it a minute. What would the elections be like if there were no controls in place?
Actually the constitution does not guarantee the right to vote. It is left up to the states. The only right we have to vote is in the placement of our representatives and senators. We do not have any right to vote in federal positions.
As far as what would it be like if no controls were in place, probably better than now since we know that Acorn and other organizations have successfully nullified those controls and submit fraudulent registrations. Goes to show that the concept of only property owners voting would be the best voting method. Maybe i would go only taxpayers should vote, those that have to write a check to the irs every year certainly have more right to vote than those who don't pay taxes.
Quote from: pamsback on November 01, 2009, 09:43:57 AM
QuoteI saw where vermont has a bill up to fine people 500 dollars for not owning a firearm. It makes sense too as not owning one constitutionally makes them a liability in defense of the state in that they cannot be a ready militia.
so..........it's wrong to take guns away BUT it's cool to FORCE somebody else to get one who doesn't WANT one??????????????real constitutional thinkin at work THERE.
Hey whats good for the goose is great for the gander. IF the anti gunners want to force us to have to register then they should have to register also. That is CONSTITUTIONAL. One law should affect all not just one segment of society. Period.
Its just like this recent homo law that was passed. Now its a hate crime to kill a homosexual. THeir a special group now subject to special consideration above that and beyond American Citizens. Doesn't matter that murder is murder and punishable by law. Now it comes with special benefits that are not available to all americans.
Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 01:36:45 PM
Now its a hate crime to kill a homosexual. THeir a special group now subject to special consideration above that and beyond American Citizens. Doesn't matter that murder is murder and punishable by law. Now it comes with special benefits that are not available to all americans.
;) I got your back on this one Stevie. If you are murdered I will tell everyone that you and me dated :-[......That way it will be more fair to you.
Quote from: ADP on November 01, 2009, 01:47:45 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 01:36:45 PM
Now its a hate crime to kill a homosexual. THeir a special group now subject to special consideration above that and beyond American Citizens. Doesn't matter that murder is murder and punishable by law. Now it comes with special benefits that are not available to all americans.
;) I got your back on this one Stevie. If you are murdered I will tell everyone that you and me dated :-[......That way it will be more fair to you.
Oh ok, thats kool :D
Same to you
being murdered comes with special benefits? what the hell?
We register. We are not guaranteed that our name on the rolls will remain a private, secret matter. We are only given the privilege of voting. How we cast that vote remains a secret.
If only people who write a check to the IRS could vote, that would eliminate a whole lot of good people. I no longer write a check to the IRS. As to voting being restricted only to people who pay taxes, then there would be a whole lot more people entitled to vote as everybody who buys anything, pays taxes.
I would challenge anyone to go to our County Clerk and try to get information about someone else that might be on the voter's registry. You might find out if they are registered, but I would bet that you wouldn't find out anything else. Daughter has registered since she moved over here and she tells me that the only information she had to give was her name, address, date of birth and party affiliation. That is the only information that is on record on the voter's rolls. What is the big deal about it being public?
Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 01:32:13 PM
Bitching privileges are tied directly to the right to vote. IF you don't vote, you have no privilege to bitch.
It is revoked when you don't vote.
Actually the constitution does not guarantee the right to vote. It is left up to the states. The only right we have to vote is in the placement of our representatives and senators. We do not have any right to vote in federal positions.
Srkruzich, I have to disagree with you here. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th, all deal with voting. Specifically the 24th deals with voting for the president, vice president, senator or represenative.
I have heard the "if you don't vote, then you can't bitch" line before and strongly disagree with it. Just because a person doesn't exercise one right doesn' t mean that they give up another. Freedom of speech is one of the first rights listed in the Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution does it state that a person must exercise all or nothing.
QuoteNow its a hate crime to kill a homosexual.
No.......it's a hate crime if you kill them BECAUSE they are a "homo".
Y'ALL just like hollerin about somethin.....as a man way wiser than I would say............Y'all would BITCH if you were hung with a new rope :P
QuoteHey whats good for the goose is great for the gander. IF the anti gunners want to force us to have to register then they should have to register also.
so how does this two wrongs make a right thing work out for ya? Constitutional's got nothin to do with that......
I have to say I don't think anyone should be "forced" to own a firearm. After all, some people aren't responsible enough to own one and some people, by very conscience, are very against owning them and that's their right. But I don't think the right to own them and to bear them should ever be taken from those who wish to own them.
I agree with you here Sarah. But, what about a convicted felon?
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 05:13:08 PM
I agree with you here Sarah. But, what about a convicted felon?
That would depend on the crime. Bouncing a check can be a felony. Are they dangerous? Not a chance.
It used to be about 100 years ago, and this law is still on some books that once you serve your time, you get released from prison with a gun, a saddle and 20 bucks.
From Steve:
QuoteThat would depend on the crime. Bouncing a check can be a felony. Are they dangerous? Not a chance.
Who decides where to draw the line? At what level of grey do we operate, rather than solidly black or white?
You know, I'm probably the wrong person to ask because I'm actually sort of against this back ground check thing since to me it's an invasion of privacy. BUT, convicted felons are going to get guns one way or another if they really want them. It's really not that difficult and yet, I've seen people who were convicted of something stupid years and years ago get turned down on background checks. So, the whole thing over whether convicted felons should own guns is really neither here nor there because in all actuality, unless you completely outlaw and do away with every gun in the country, they're going to have them. A better start might be teaching people about the sanctity of life rather than how much fun it is to kill someone or taking something that you didn't earn.
Neither Steve's addendum, nor Sarah's decision that the question is mute, is an answer to my questions:
Who decides where to draw the line?
At what level of grey do we operate, rather than solidly black or white?
I did answer your question. My answer is, there should be no line when it comes to fire arms as it's being tackled from the wrong angle. Not every answer is always black and white. It's a constitutional right to own them and each person should decide for themselves. It's not the governments right to decide as government ALWAYS takes a mile when given an inch.
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 05:42:24 PM
From Steve: QuoteThat would depend on the crime. Bouncing a check can be a felony. Are they dangerous? Not a chance.
Who decides where to draw the line? At what level of grey do we operate, rather than solidly black or white?
Its simple, is it a violent crime comitted against another person to deprive them of life, or liberty or property? Then theres your line.
Secondly,lets say i was convicted of auto theft. After i complete my sentence, and stay clean for 5 years after the conviction, I can regain my right to own firearms by making application to the state for a pardon of the crime. Once it has been granted, you are no longer a convicted felon!
IF you are a violent offender, it will be next to impossible to get your gun rights back. BUT you can still own a gun if your a convicted violent felon. All you have to do is own a corporation and purchase the guns through the corporation and have them owned by that entity.
Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 06:52:49 PM
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 05:42:24 PM
From Steve: QuoteThat would depend on the crime. Bouncing a check can be a felony. Are they dangerous? Not a chance.
Who decides where to draw the line? At what level of grey do we operate, rather than solidly black or white?
Its simple, is it a violent crime comitted against another person to deprive them of life, or liberty or property? Then theres your line.
Secondly,lets say i was convicted of auto theft. After i complete my sentence, and stay clean for 5 years after the conviction, I can regain my right to own firearms by making application to the state for a pardon of the crime. Once it has been granted, you are no longer a convicted felon!
IF you are a violent offender, it will be next to impossible to get your gun rights back. BUT you can still own a gun if your a convicted violent felon. All you have to do is own a corporation and purchase the guns through the corporation and have them owned by that entity.
Thank you Steve, that is an answer.
Now, where in the Constitution does it state what you have espoused?
I want to further clarify what i was saying about violent crimes. It used to be that if you go out and murder someone in cold blood we hung your ass. But since the liberal weenies said that was so inhumane and we have to lock them up for x number of years then release them, there had to be a method to control those people. But the problem is that you can't control them. You can't keep firearms out of their hands through laws or any other method BUT hanging their ass.
So basically there is no line that can be drawn in which to operate unless you want to count the fact that dead is dead and a dead criminal can't come back to cause problems. Eliminate the violent ones and you have no excuse to regulate
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 06:57:15 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 06:52:49 PM
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 05:42:24 PM
From Steve: QuoteThat would depend on the crime. Bouncing a check can be a felony. Are they dangerous? Not a chance.
Who decides where to draw the line? At what level of grey do we operate, rather than solidly black or white?
Its simple, is it a violent crime comitted against another person to deprive them of life, or liberty or property? Then theres your line.
Secondly,lets say i was convicted of auto theft. After i complete my sentence, and stay clean for 5 years after the conviction, I can regain my right to own firearms by making application to the state for a pardon of the crime. Once it has been granted, you are no longer a convicted felon!
IF you are a violent offender, it will be next to impossible to get your gun rights back. BUT you can still own a gun if your a convicted violent felon. All you have to do is own a corporation and purchase the guns through the corporation and have them owned by that entity.
Thank you Steve, that is an answer.
Now, where in the Constitution does it state what you have espoused?
What are you wanting to know. State what?
Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 07:00:31 PM
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 06:57:15 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 06:52:49 PM
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 05:42:24 PM
From Steve: QuoteThat would depend on the crime. Bouncing a check can be a felony. Are they dangerous? Not a chance.
Who decides where to draw the line? At what level of grey do we operate, rather than solidly black or white?
Its simple, is it a violent crime comitted against another person to deprive them of life, or liberty or property? Then theres your line.
Secondly,lets say i was convicted of auto theft. After i complete my sentence, and stay clean for 5 years after the conviction, I can regain my right to own firearms by making application to the state for a pardon of the crime. Once it has been granted, you are no longer a convicted felon!
IF you are a violent offender, it will be next to impossible to get your gun rights back. BUT you can still own a gun if your a convicted violent felon. All you have to do is own a corporation and purchase the guns through the corporation and have them owned by that entity.
Thank you Steve, that is an answer.
Now, where in the Constitution does it state what you have espoused?
What are you wanting to know. State what?
The Constitution does not include what you have stated above. How does your particular position become the correct one?
C'mon Steve, do you really not get what I'm asking, or are you just being obtuse?
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 07:04:40 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 07:00:31 PM
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 06:57:15 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 06:52:49 PM
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 05:42:24 PM
From Steve: QuoteThat would depend on the crime. Bouncing a check can be a felony. Are they dangerous? Not a chance.
Who decides where to draw the line? At what level of grey do we operate, rather than solidly black or white?
Its simple, is it a violent crime comitted against another person to deprive them of life, or liberty or property? Then theres your line.
Secondly,lets say i was convicted of auto theft. After i complete my sentence, and stay clean for 5 years after the conviction, I can regain my right to own firearms by making application to the state for a pardon of the crime. Once it has been granted, you are no longer a convicted felon!
IF you are a violent offender, it will be next to impossible to get your gun rights back. BUT you can still own a gun if your a convicted violent felon. All you have to do is own a corporation and purchase the guns through the corporation and have them owned by that entity.
Thank you Steve, that is an answer.
Now, where in the Constitution does it state what you have espoused?
What are you wanting to know. State what?
The Constitution does not include what you have stated above. How does your particular position become the correct one?
Doesn't include what? violent crimes or regaining your gun rights.
Apparently you are that obtuse. Your uber-right cabal on the Forum here must be losing your grip on Warph; he can actually acknowledge when I have a point!
From the Center
Flint
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 07:13:15 PM
Apparently you are that obtuse. Your uber-right cabal on the Forum here must be losing your grip on Warph; he can actually acknowledge when I have a point!
From the Center
Flint
Your not making your point. Your fishing.
Your position statement was this:
QuoteIts simple, is it a violent crime comitted against another person to deprive them of life, or liberty or property? Then theres your line.
Secondly,lets say i was convicted of auto theft. After i complete my sentence, and stay clean for 5 years after the conviction, I can regain my right to own firearms by making application to the state for a pardon of the crime. Once it has been granted, you are no longer a convicted felon!
IF you are a violent offender, it will be next to impossible to get your gun rights back. BUT you can still own a gun if your a convicted violent felon. All you have to do is own a corporation and purchase the guns through the corporation and have them owned by that entity.
My question was:
Where in the Constitution does it state what you have espoused?
You have not answered my question, just tried your best to obfuscate.
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
Your position statement was this:
QuoteIts simple, is it a violent crime comitted against another person to deprive them of life, or liberty or property? Then theres your line.
Secondly,lets say i was convicted of auto theft. After i complete my sentence, and stay clean for 5 years after the conviction, I can regain my right to own firearms by making application to the state for a pardon of the crime. Once it has been granted, you are no longer a convicted felon!
IF you are a violent offender, it will be next to impossible to get your gun rights back. BUT you can still own a gun if your a convicted violent felon. All you have to do is own a corporation and purchase the guns through the corporation and have them owned by that entity.
My question was:
Where in the Constitution does it state what you have espoused?
You have not answered my question, just tried your best to obfuscate.
He also stated this:
QuoteI want to further clarify what i was saying about violent crimes. It used to be that if you go out and murder someone in cold blood we hung your ass. But since the liberal weenies said that was so inhumane and we have to lock them up for x number of years then release them, there had to be a method to control those people. But the problem is that you can't control them. You can't keep firearms out of their hands through laws or any other method BUT hanging their ass.
So basically there is no line that can be drawn in which to operate unless you want to count the fact that dead is dead and a dead criminal can't come back to cause problems. Eliminate the violent ones and you have no excuse to regulate
Which is the same thing I said. There is no line for anyone to draw. We have rights. We punish evil doers. It's just that simple.
Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
Your position statement was this:
QuoteIts simple, is it a violent crime comitted against another person to deprive them of life, or liberty or property? Then theres your line.
Secondly,lets say i was convicted of auto theft. After i complete my sentence, and stay clean for 5 years after the conviction, I can regain my right to own firearms by making application to the state for a pardon of the crime. Once it has been granted, you are no longer a convicted felon!
IF you are a violent offender, it will be next to impossible to get your gun rights back. BUT you can still own a gun if your a convicted violent felon. All you have to do is own a corporation and purchase the guns through the corporation and have them owned by that entity.
My question was:
Where in the Constitution does it state what you have espoused?
You have not answered my question, just tried your best to obfuscate.
Thats not a area the constitution is needed. The Constitution only pertains to the Federal government except where it expressly prohibits the states. The 2nd amendment is the law of the land. Now states have the rights protected by the constitution in the 10th amendment concerning its operations. No one in the federal government can restrict gun ownership. It is a states rights issue. Secondly, the states cannot legally ban gun ownership, in that their prohibited from doing so by the 2nd amendment. BUT that doesn't stop each individual state from enacting laws. Each state can place some restrictions on onwnership but not a total outright ban on gun ownership as evidence by the recent ruling in dc reversing the outlawing of handguns.
The thing about states being able to place restrictions is that a person is able to move to another state that does not have such restrictions and that is why they can do this. IF the states were to enact a statewide ban via their laws, then they would be in violation of the 2nd amendment because their combigned action would be a federal action.
Again the states response to restricting guns to violent offenders a direct result of the liberal weenies that managed to prevent the elimination of violent criminals. Personally, just let em all have a gun, and shoot the ones that can't behave.
Steve, please tell me how the 10th admendment gets you around the following clauses of our Constitution and Bill of Rights on the aforementioned subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Second paragraph, Article VI of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Amendment II:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article IV Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
I think ya'll are making this way too complicated. If a convicted felon that has served his time cannot be trusted to own a firearm based on his criminal history then he shouldn't be let out of prison or he should be killed.
For those on here who aren't uber-rightists, my point in all of this is:
Why is it that only the so called Constitutionalists get to bounce back and forth between the contextualist and strict constructionist approaches to judicial interpretation? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it.
Quote from: Varmit on November 01, 2009, 07:56:28 PM
I think ya'll are making this way too complicated. If a convicted felon that has served his time cannot be trusted to own a firearm based on his criminal history then he shouldn't be let out of prison or he should be killed.
I think Steve said that in an earlier post. Different wording, but same idea.
Varmit, that is a part of the penalty of being a convicted felon, losing rights. Don't they lose the right to own a firearm as well as the right to vote, and the right to a lot of security clearances? Not just the right to freedom for a prescribed time.
Quote from: Varmit on November 01, 2009, 07:56:28 PM
I think ya'll are making this way too complicated. If a convicted felon that has served his time cannot be trusted to own a firearm based on his criminal history then he shouldn't be let out of prison or he should be killed.
Thats what i said!
Quote from: sixdogsmom on November 01, 2009, 08:56:35 PM
Varmit, that is a part of the penalty of being a convicted felon, losing rights. Don't they lose the right to own a firearm as well as the right to vote, and the right to a lot of security clearances? Not just the right to freedom for a prescribed time.
Actually that is a violation of the second amendment. There is no justification to remove these rights past the prescribed time of incarceration and probation or parole. Once said felon has paid his debt to society, his rights according to the constitution must be restored. So each state and the federal goernment is violating thier rights.
As i said before and varmit said just a min ago, either keep them in jail or kill them if their not trustworthy enough to own a gun.
As easy as they are being let out of jail now a days..
... I don't want them owning a gun..
But the laws are only for the law abiding anyway... the others don't care.......
Kill someone because they aren't trustworthy enough to own a gun? Can i have some of what you're smoking?
Quote from: Anmar on November 01, 2009, 10:01:44 PM
Kill someone because they aren't trustworthy enough to own a gun? Can i have some of what you're smoking?
If they used a gun to commit a crime, either keep em locked up or kill them. Whats the problem? Either way they are unable to live amongst law abiding citizens aren't they?
Quote from: Teresa on November 01, 2009, 09:42:36 PM
As easy as they are being let out of jail now a days..
... I don't want them owning a gun..
But the laws are only for the law abiding anyway... the others don't care.......
Your right. But some felons aren't dangerous felons. Thats the problem. stealing a car, bouncing a check, doesn't really justify stripping one of citizenship. The laws are screwed up to begin with.
I would say make felonies violent crimes only, and non violent crimes something less than a felony but more than a misdemeanor. But thats not the goal of government. Their goal is to strip everyone of their constitutional right to own a gun. So what better way than to make something as benign as bouncing a check a felony.
Writing someone a check that will bounce is not so benign. It depends on the amount. I would suggest staying within the law and then it won't be a problem!
Quote from: greatguns on November 02, 2009, 05:12:34 AM
Writing someone a check that will bounce is not so benign. It depends on the amount. I would suggest staying within the law and then it won't be a problem!
Really now? how does bouncing a check, constitute a high crime? It's very benign, it doesn't endanger lives, nor does it endanger liberties. Check bouncing should be nothing more than a civil matter handled by misdemeanour courts. Same thing with petty thefts. It's a screwed up system when you can drive drunk endangering peoples lives and it only be a misdemeanour yet you bounce a check and its a felony or get only 7 years for murder and 30 years for a ponzi scheme.
You have a very good point.. I wasn't referring to petty stuff when I made my statement.. I was referring to hard crime...
If I write you a hot check for 10,000, I doubt you would consider it petty. But whatever! ::) If you write me one for that amount it might endanger your life.
Quote from: greatguns on November 02, 2009, 05:53:11 PM
If I write you a hot check for 10,000, I doubt you would consider it petty. But whatever! ::) If you write me one for that amount it might endanger your life.
IF you took a check for $10,000 dollars without verifying that the money is there, you deserve to lose it!
That's why we deal on cash only basis. Years and years of selling stuff and having people write me bad checks and then never bother to set it right...............cash only please and that is how we deal with other people.
Thank God there are laws to cover your attitude. Now I'm out of this skunk match.
In several states, writing a bad check is or can be a felony. I think knowingly writing a bad check to pay for merchandise should be a felony, it is basically theft by a written instrument . If the bad check writer does it frequently, doesn't pay then it should be theft and a felony. In Missouri you can get 4 years prison for bad check writing under certain conditions.
as to the original topic, your selections are private, your party affiliation, etc isn't. Thats how the political system works. You're ok with big business and foreign governments lobbying our government, so this shouldn't be a big deal to you.
Quote from: greatguns on November 02, 2009, 06:36:12 PM
Thank God there are laws to cover your attitude. Now I'm out of this skunk match.
My attitudes fine. I just am pointing out that if someone takes a check for any large sum of money then their a fool if they don't check first before releasing property to verify funds.
I don't take checks, and i WON'T EVER take a Cashiers check from a bank. Cash only, and i'll be checking the bills with a counterfeit pen when i do.
Quote from: Anmar on November 02, 2009, 06:55:52 PM
as to the original topic, your selections are private, your party affiliation, etc isn't. Thats how the political system works. You're ok with big business and foreign governments lobbying our government, so this shouldn't be a big deal to you.
Why is it such a big deal for anyone to know my affiliation?
Because then you wouldn't get all those really cool fire starters...eh, I mean flyers in the mail. ;D
well i still get them and i have no affiliation with any party.
Well, then you're just fair game for every party. *snicker*
Well i just get more firestarter then
In the California primaries, you are given a ballot based on your party affiliation to weed out the most unpopular and send one candidate from your party on to the main election. For that reason, they need to know your affiliation. I always thought primary elections were somewhat unnecessary as the state could save a lot of money and just let everyone run for whatever seat they wanted in just one election. But I guess there is a need to eliminate the unwashed prior to the big election.
Larryj
Quote from: larryJ on November 03, 2009, 10:06:11 AM
In the California primaries, you are given a ballot based on your party affiliation to weed out the most unpopular and send one candidate from your party on to the main election. For that reason, they need to know your affiliation. I always thought primary elections were somewhat unnecessary as the state could save a lot of money and just let everyone run for whatever seat they wanted in just one election. But I guess there is a need to eliminate the unwashed prior to the big election.
Larryj
Well quite frankly thats discrimination against the voter. I don't vote party lines for anyone. If i like a dem in one gen election i expect to be able to vote for him over his other dem challengers. Same with republicans or Non-affiliations.
I see it as a means of controlling the vote which is nothing more than vote tampering.
I think you lost me there. I guess I didn't explain it correctly. Or I am just being dumb.
In California, you declare a party affiliation, as I imagine just about everywhere else does. When you go to the Primary, you are handed a ballot that is only for your party. Meaning, if you are a Republican, you are given a Republican ballot and sent to a designated Republican voting machine. At this point, you are weeding out the wannabes, and selecting the one person who will go to the general election. At this point, you are voting party lines. When you go to the general election, you are given a ballot that includes all those who made it through the primary process. You can vote for whoever you want, be he Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc. What I am trying to say is-------------I like Candidate A and vote for him in the primary. He loses to Candidate B who goes on to the general election. I detest Candidate B and look at the other party's candidates and try to decide which of the two evils is worse. If there was no primary, then Candidate A will still be on the ballot and I could vote for him.
I can't see how a Californian would win every time. My candidate from California is good, but the candidate from --- say---Kansas is really great. I didn't have a chance to vote for the Kansas candidate in my primary, but I will in the general election. The point is-why have a primary which is a waste of money when you are going to vote for someone from another state that you like better?
I think I am losing myself!
Larryj
If we didn't have primaries, then we would have to have multiple run-off elections before a candidiate would get a majority, or at least a large plurality. Refer back to reply 17 of this thread for a novel approach to this problem.
Charles
Oh, dear, Larry is lost. Can someone help him find himself?
I don't know about other states, but Kansas has a write in system. If Candidate A loses in the Primary, he can still mount a write-in campaign and possibly win over Candidate B in the general election. It isn't very probable that he would win, but it is possible. Therefore if your favorite doesn't make it through the primaries, you can still vote for him by writing in his name in the proper space. Of course, you are still limited to only one vote so if you write in someone, you can't vote for any of the other candidates for that office.
Not only lost, but gave myself a big headache! I may have to go to bed early! Or, I will go over to the thread with Sarge playing the harp and just listen and close my eyes for a while.
;)
Larryj
Other places include an extra envelope with no markings on it when you vote absentee. It stays sealed until it is time to count the votes.
Other places include an extra envelope with no markings on it when you vote absentee. It stays sealed until it is time to count the votes
Yeah, you would think that about counting the absentee ballots. In a large urban area such as Los Angeles County, there are millions of votes to be counted and many of them absentee ballots. I know people who are county workers who are given the opportunity to make a little extra money by working the elections and counting votes. Some of them start as early as a week before the election "sorting" those envelopes to make the counting process easier come election day. Who is to say that those envelopes might not be opened to speed up the process? I know it is against the law to do so, but there are a lot of votes to be counted and the public wants to know the results of their votes right away.
Years ago, the major networks would predict the winners of certain contests when the polls closed in the East-----5:00 PM in California. So about the time Californians were getting off work and heading to vote on the way home, they already had an idea who had won the race. Complaints were made and the practice was stopped. When you watch TV now, the networks are chomping at the bit, waiting for 8:00 PM Pacific time so they can tell you their "predictions." The first thing out of an anchor's mouth at that time is "this network has predicted that "john doe" has won the race." Now how would they know that information judged solely on exit polls? Alright, by 8:00 PM Pacific time, the votes in the East have been counted for three hours, and the votes in the central time zone have had two hours to be counted, the mountain time zone has only had one hour, and most certainly no votes have been counted in the pacific time zone which contains a lot of voters. So how do they know?
By law, no votes can be counted until the polls close, right?
Larryj