3 charged in Ohio with voting up to 6 times

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Kinda like gun laws...step up enforcement rather than adding new restrictions...I can live with that, but can others???

I can, as long as we enforce a restriction that no one can posses or own a gun, unless it's for game hunting purposes only.

That will never happen.

[GannonFan]

How do laws on the books fix the problem of voter rolls that are fraught with errors? Like I said before, when we moved my wife was still on the rolls in her prior two places of residence - no law could stop her from voting in three different locales in the same election. Or stop anyone else casting a vote for her. Heck, she might still be on the rolls in Philly where she lived. Why can't it be fixed, what's so sacrosanct about the current situation that we can't take common sense approaches to make sure everyone who is able to vote only votes once? And what does it matter that both sides do it? Why should anyone's vote being superceded by voter fraud be minimized just because the net effect may be that both parties benefit? The rest of the world seems to mostly do a better job of this than we do by simply making sure everyone who can vote is permitted to vote and that they only do it once.

At the end of the day, this is the basis of our entire political system - you'd think everyone would want to make sure we do this correctly. But hey, it's just a minor thing, right?

Why do you think I'd disagree with any of this?

I would hope you wouldn't, but you're passive agreement with it doesn't count for much either. You even said, it's "a minor issue" and both sides do it - that's pretty much akin to saying it happens but why bother about it.

And I don't think there are enough laws on the books that all we would have to do is enforce them better and these problems go away. What laws are out there to clean up the voter rolls so that they are accurate in every precinct? What laws are out there to stop someone from voting more than once and how would enforcement of that law even be practical? There's too much local control over these things and the result is that every precinct tends to be a little different, from the hours the polls are open to the number of people per voting precinct to the number of machines or stations in each to the types of ballots used. And each little nuance can and has been used by either party to tilt elections. That just shouldn't happen, and there's no enforcement of those laws that will fix it. Fix the laws, write new ones, and make sure everyone who can vote is able to vote and that they (or anyone else) can only cast that person's vote once. Seems like something we should all agree on.

[kalm]

Why do you think I'd disagree with any of this?

I would hope you wouldn't, but you're passive agreement with it doesn't count for much either. You even said, it's "a minor issue" and both sides do it - that's pretty much akin to saying it happens but why bother about it.

And I don't think there are enough laws on the books that all we would have to do is enforce them better and these problems go away. What laws are out there to clean up the voter rolls so that they are accurate in every precinct? What laws are out there to stop someone from voting more than once and how would enforcement of that law even be practical? There's too much local control over these things and the result is that every precinct tends to be a little different, from the hours the polls are open to the number of people per voting precinct to the number of machines or stations in each to the types of ballots used. And each little nuance can and has been used by either party to tilt elections. That just shouldn't happen, and there's no enforcement of those laws that will fix it. Fix the laws, write new ones, and make sure everyone who can vote is able to vote and that they (or anyone else) can only cast that person's vote once. Seems like something we should all agree on.

Meh...I agree with this too. But there are far greater election problems to solve.

[GannonFan]

I would hope you wouldn't, but you're passive agreement with it doesn't count for much either. You even said, it's "a minor issue" and both sides do it - that's pretty much akin to saying it happens but why bother about it.

And I don't think there are enough laws on the books that all we would have to do is enforce them better and these problems go away. What laws are out there to clean up the voter rolls so that they are accurate in every precinct? What laws are out there to stop someone from voting more than once and how would enforcement of that law even be practical? There's too much local control over these things and the result is that every precinct tends to be a little different, from the hours the polls are open to the number of people per voting precinct to the number of machines or stations in each to the types of ballots used. And each little nuance can and has been used by either party to tilt elections. That just shouldn't happen, and there's no enforcement of those laws that will fix it. Fix the laws, write new ones, and make sure everyone who can vote is able to vote and that they (or anyone else) can only cast that person's vote once. Seems like something we should all agree on.

Meh...I agree with this too. But there are far greater election problems to solve.

Such as...

[Ivytalk]

Meh...I agree with this too. But there are far greater election problems to solve.

Such as...

The quality of the candidates.

[LeadBolt]

Such as...

The quality of the candidates.

+1000

[GannonFan]

Such as...

The quality of the candidates.

That'd be great, let's get that law on the books!

[kalm]

The quality of the candidates.

+1000

Why do the candidates lack quality? Who chooses them?

[Ivytalk]

+1000

Why do the candidates lack quality? Who chooses them?

Is this one of your stupid anti-"duopoly" postings, kalm? How exactly would changing the current manner of selection of candidates (i.e., by political parties) improve the quality of the candidates? Is it your position that public financing of elections would produce more Lincolns and Jeffersons? Or that multiple parties would do a better job? Do tell: I'm all ears.

[CID1990]

Why do the candidates lack quality? Who chooses them?

Is this one of your stupid anti-"duopoly" postings, kalm? How exactly would changing the current manner of selection of candidates (i.e., by political parties) improve the quality of the candidates? Is it your position that public financing of elections would produce more Lincolns and Jeffersons? Or that multiple parties would do a better job? Do tell: I'm all ears.

Jefferson and Lincoln would have ZERO chance of being nominated or elected today, anyway.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[kalm]

Is this one of your stupid anti-"duopoly" postings, kalm? How exactly would changing the current manner of selection of candidates (i.e., by political parties) improve the quality of the candidates? Is it your position that public financing of elections would produce more Lincolns and Jeffersons? Or that multiple parties would do a better job? Do tell: I'm all ears.

Jefferson and Lincoln would have ZERO chance of being nominated or elected today, anyway.


Sent from the center of the universe.

This!

IT is a Burke jock sniffer who worships at the alter of elitist power. He hates things like freedom, democracy, and innovative ways of thinking.

[CID1990]

Jefferson and Lincoln would have ZERO chance of being nominated or elected today, anyway.


Sent from the center of the universe.

This!

IT is a Burke jock sniffer who worships at the alter of elitist power. He hates things like freedom, democracy, and innovative ways of thinking.

Well, I don't diverge from IT's thinking on politics, but I imagine I am more cynical when it comes to the prospect of electing anyone to national office who can pass any test other than the Rikki Lake test.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[GannonFan]

Is this one of your stupid anti-"duopoly" postings, kalm? How exactly would changing the current manner of selection of candidates (i.e., by political parties) improve the quality of the candidates? Is it your position that public financing of elections would produce more Lincolns and Jeffersons? Or that multiple parties would do a better job? Do tell: I'm all ears.

Jefferson and Lincoln would have ZERO chance of being nominated or elected today, anyway.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Huh? Why? Jefferson was the quintessential political insider - he beat Adams for the Presidency and set up a political dynasty for pretty much a quarter century because he was the first one to realize that it was politics as usual that would win elections, not some idealistic idea of government like Washington tried to practice before him. Jefferson pretty much created the political machinations we still use today.

As for Lincoln, again, why not? He was a Senator and was very high profile after the debates with Douglas. Plus he was tall - tall people have a better chance to get elected than small people.

[CID1990]

Jefferson and Lincoln would have ZERO chance of being nominated or elected today, anyway.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Huh? Why? Jefferson was the quintessential political insider - he beat Adams for the Presidency and set up a political dynasty for pretty much a quarter century because he was the first one to realize that it was politics as usual that would win elections, not some idealistic idea of government like Washington tried to practice before him. Jefferson pretty much created the political machinations we still use today.

As for Lincoln, again, why not? He was a Senator and was very high profile after the debates with Douglas. Plus he was tall - tall people have a better chance to get elected than small people.

Jefferson was the quintessential idealist. However, his libertarian slant could play well today like Rand Paul, but watch Paul not get nominated.

Lincoln was a white supremacist in word if not deed, so he would be toast even for the local school board elections.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[Ivytalk]

Jefferson and Lincoln would have ZERO chance of being nominated or elected today, anyway.


Sent from the center of the universe.

This!

IT is a Burke jock sniffer who worships at the alter of elitist power. He hates things like freedom, democracy, and innovative ways of thinking.

Typical ad hominem kalm response, devoid of ideas. CID1990 is on to something with the Rikki Lake reference: candidates need to be literate, thoughtful, and have an attention span of more than 5
minutes. The Constitution imposes few qualifications for office other than age and citizenship. I now think that term limits would improve the quality of office seekers, as candidates would have to be confident and competent enough to have something to go back to after their terms were up. Merely ending the two-party system would have no salutary effect on quality, although it would likely promote a harmful atomization of politics that would lead to ad hoc coalition- building at the expense of the legislative process.

[Baldy]

Jefferson and Lincoln would have ZERO chance of being nominated or elected today, anyway.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Huh? Why? Jefferson was the quintessential political insider - he beat Adams for the Presidency and set up a political dynasty for pretty much a quarter century because he was the first one to realize that it was politics as usual that would win elections, not some idealistic idea of government like Washington tried to practice before him. Jefferson pretty much created the political machinations we still use today.

True, but the core beliefs of the Jeffersonians like limited government, self-sufficiency, self-government, freedom, and individual responsibility would NEVER pass the smell test in today's society. Hell, Jefferson, Washington, JQ Adams, Madison, even Alexander Hamilton would all be considered some sort of extreme right wing anti-American radicals by most of the knuckledraggers who infest this country now.

[kalm]

This!

IT is a Burke jock sniffer who worships at the alter of elitist power. He hates things like freedom, democracy, and innovative ways of thinking.

Typical ad hominem kalm response, devoid of ideas. CID1990 is on to something with the Rikki Lake reference: candidates need to be literate, thoughtful, and have an attention span of more than 5
minutes. The Constitution imposes few qualifications for office other than age and citizenship. I now think that term limits would improve the quality of office seekers, as candidates would have to be confident and competent enough to have something to go back to after their terms were up. Merely ending the two-party system would have no salutary effect on quality, although it would likely promote a harmful atomization of politics that would lead to ad hoc coalition- building at the expense of the legislative process.

I knew I could pry something of substance out of ya.

I'll remind you that the constitution also says nothing about a two party system, corporations, or money as speech. But yes, short of public financing of elections (which has it's own constitutional problems I'm sure) I don't think there's much that can be done to break the stranglehold both parties have on the system. And they ARE responsible for the state of things...both of them. Or...all one of them.

I don't know how you forcibly end the two party system but a greater amount of ideas, greater access to legislators, and a reduced amount of monied influence would all be good things IMO.

[UNI88]

Typical ad hominem kalm response, devoid of ideas. CID1990 is on to something with the Rikki Lake reference: candidates need to be literate, thoughtful, and have an attention span of more than 5
minutes. The Constitution imposes few qualifications for office other than age and citizenship. I now think that term limits would improve the quality of office seekers, as candidates would have to be confident and competent enough to have something to go back to after their terms were up. Merely ending the two-party system would have no salutary effect on quality, although it would likely promote a harmful atomization of politics that would lead to ad hoc coalition- building at the expense of the legislative process.

I knew I could pry something of substance out of ya.

I'll remind you that the constitution also says nothing about a two party system, corporations, or money as speech. But yes, short of public financing of elections (which has it's own constitutional problems I'm sure) I don't think there's much that can be done to break the stranglehold both parties have on the system. And they ARE responsible for the state of things...both of them. Or...all one of them.

I don't know how you forcibly end the two party system but a greater amount of ideas, greater access to legislators, and a reduced amount of monied influence would all be good things IMO.

The two party system is far from perfect but IT is right that ending it would have no effect on quality. A multi-party system would have it's own problems and would very likely not be better than what we have now. I'm starting to wonder if we're seeing the disintegration of the Republican Party. If we are then I expect the party to end up in the history books like the Whigs and for a new party to replace it. The transition will be painful but in the long run it will hopefully bring new energy to our system of government.

[GannonFan]

Huh? Why? Jefferson was the quintessential political insider - he beat Adams for the Presidency and set up a political dynasty for pretty much a quarter century because he was the first one to realize that it was politics as usual that would win elections, not some idealistic idea of government like Washington tried to practice before him. Jefferson pretty much created the political machinations we still use today.

As for Lincoln, again, why not? He was a Senator and was very high profile after the debates with Douglas. Plus he was tall - tall people have a better chance to get elected than small people.

Jefferson was the quintessential idealist. However, his libertarian slant could play well today like Rand Paul, but watch Paul not get nominated.

Lincoln was a white supremacist in word if not deed, so he would be toast even for the local school board elections.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Jefferson wrote as an idealist, but in practice he was again, a quintessential politician. He was as practical as they come in terms of maneuvering behind the scenes and using anything he could to gain political advantage. For all his diatribes against Hamilton and the things he did as Treasurer, Jefferson was perfectly happy using those things to his advantage once he got into the White House. Heck, his greatest achievement as President, the taking advantage of a distracted Napolean and the Louisiana Purchase, was one of the broadest examples of assumed power by the Federal government not only up to that point, but for years to follow. Rand Paul is a kook and a one man show - Jefferson practically created and molded the political party that would come to dominate the first half century of our country - they couldn't be further apart.

As for Lincoln, you're talking as a disgruntled Southerner and a subscriber to the Lost Cause. Sure he was racist and if you magically transport him into today's world he wouldn't be elected. But that ignores the fact that he lived 150 years ago and was very much a product of his time - his views were very much in line with the prevailing thought of that era. Just because he eventually came to the realization and championed that slavery had to end didn't mean that he wasn't racist, especially relative to our time. But by your capricious evaluation practically no President prior to the 1950's would stand a chance to be President today because of their outdated, althouth not while they lived, views on race. If you ignore the fact that any of them, if they lived in our times, would likely have views more mainstream to our age, then you can draw whatever faulty conclusion you want to, although the usefullness of those conclusions is obviously limited.

[Bronco]

Too much fraud
We need voter ID in all states

BHO showed his when he voted

[Ivytalk]

Typical ad hominem kalm response, devoid of ideas. CID1990 is on to something with the Rikki Lake reference: candidates need to be literate, thoughtful, and have an attention span of more than 5
minutes. The Constitution imposes few qualifications for office other than age and citizenship. I now think that term limits would improve the quality of office seekers, as candidates would have to be confident and competent enough to have something to go back to after their terms were up. Merely ending the two-party system would have no salutary effect on quality, although it would likely promote a harmful atomization of politics that would lead to ad hoc coalition- building at the expense of the legislative process.

I knew I could pry something of substance out of ya.

I'll remind you that the constitution also says nothing about a two party system, corporations, or money as speech. But yes, short of public financing of elections (which has it's own constitutional problems I'm sure) I don't think there's much that can be done to break the stranglehold both parties have on the system. And they ARE responsible for the state of things...both of them. Or...all one of them.

I don't know how you forcibly end the two party system but a greater amount of ideas, greater access to legislators, and a reduced amount of monied influence would all be good things IMO.

I just don't like being called a jock-sniffer, although I do admire Burke.

As for a greater admixture of ideas, it would shake things up if (a) "minority parties" like the Libertarians and the Greens were allowed to participate in televised debates for national office if they got on the ballot in enough states (there is a chicken-and-egg problem here already), and (b) debate moderators actually forced the candidates to answer the questions asked, rather than allowing them to "flip" the question into a talking point. Kind of like Delaware judges don't allow me to BS my way around a question that I'm not comfortable answering directly -- but there will be consequences if I don't, one way or the other.

I also think that term limits would have a positive impact on the "monied influence" you identify -- particularly if it were accompanied by a requirement of FULL DISCLOSURE of all campaign donors. No more hiding behind super PACs.

[GannonFan]

I knew I could pry something of substance out of ya.

I'll remind you that the constitution also says nothing about a two party system, corporations, or money as speech. But yes, short of public financing of elections (which has it's own constitutional problems I'm sure) I don't think there's much that can be done to break the stranglehold both parties have on the system. And they ARE responsible for the state of things...both of them. Or...all one of them.

I don't know how you forcibly end the two party system but a greater amount of ideas, greater access to legislators, and a reduced amount of monied influence would all be good things IMO.

The two party system is far from perfect but IT is right that ending it would have no effect on quality. A multi-party system would have it's own problems and would very likely not be better than what we have now. I'm starting to wonder if we're seeing the disintegration of the Republican Party. If we are then I expect the party to end up in the history books like the Whigs and for a new party to replace it. The transition will be painful but in the long run it will hopefully bring new energy to our system of government.

The two party system is going to remain in this country simply because the way our government is set up practically demands a two party system. You see multi-parties in governments that have much more power centralized in the legislative branch of the government, and in those cases the building of coalitions encourages the presence of multiple parties that can be combined in numerous ways to obtain that coalition. But in our country, with such a powerful Executive branch, there is no encouragement for coalition building of several different political parties. Eventually, and I'm sure game theory would even back this up, the most efficient option is for two parties to battle it out for that Executive control. The structure of the government, as spelled out in the Constitution, is what drives us to a two party system.

We can pretend that taking money out of the system would change all that, but strangely we had a two party system pretty much since the 1790's and money wasn't a huge part of the system for a good 100 years or so. When people say that we need to take monied interests out of the equation and 1) everything would be better and 2) we could move to a multi-party system they either don't know much of their history or they don't have a real solution to the problems with our political system and their throwing out a talking point for the lack of a real solution.

As for the current GOP, I'm not sure it's so much a disintegration as it is just a remolding. Obviously, and you're correct, there will always be a second party, and in all likliehood it will be called the Republican party. I don't see the GOP being like the Whigs back in the day, though. That was a complete disintegration and they vanished for all branches and even levels of government, and they did so in a much less connected world than today. With the amount of gerrymandering the two parties have done over the decades, the GOP will be a significant force in the legislature, especially the House, for the foreseeable future. They could lose control of the House, for sure, but they'll never be far from winning it back either.

[GannonFan]

I knew I could pry something of substance out of ya.

I'll remind you that the constitution also says nothing about a two party system, corporations, or money as speech. But yes, short of public financing of elections (which has it's own constitutional problems I'm sure) I don't think there's much that can be done to break the stranglehold both parties have on the system. And they ARE responsible for the state of things...both of them. Or...all one of them.

I don't know how you forcibly end the two party system but a greater amount of ideas, greater access to legislators, and a reduced amount of monied influence would all be good things IMO.

I just don't like being called a jock-sniffer, although I do admire Burke.

As for a greater admixture of ideas, it would shake things up if (a) "minority parties" like the Libertarians and the Greens were allowed to participate in televised debates for national office if they got on the ballot in enough states (there is a chicken-and-egg problem here already), and (b) debate moderators actually forced the candidates to answer the questions asked, rather than allowing them to "flip" the question into a talking point. Kind of like Delaware judges don't allow me to BS my way around a question that I'm not comfortable answering directly -- but there will be consequences if I don't, one way or the other.

I also think that term limits would have a positive impact on the "monied influence" you identify -- particularly if it were accompanied by a requirement of FULL DISCLOSURE of all campaign donors. No more hiding behind super PACs.

I like the full disclosure part. The "money is speech" part is absolutely true, it is. But when someone speaks, we normally do who is speaking. No reason why that shouldn't be the same with the money and where it came from.

[kalm]

I knew I could pry something of substance out of ya.

I'll remind you that the constitution also says nothing about a two party system, corporations, or money as speech. But yes, short of public financing of elections (which has it's own constitutional problems I'm sure) I don't think there's much that can be done to break the stranglehold both parties have on the system. And they ARE responsible for the state of things...both of them. Or...all one of them.

I don't know how you forcibly end the two party system but a greater amount of ideas, greater access to legislators, and a reduced amount of monied influence would all be good things IMO.

I just don't like being called a jock-sniffer, although I do admire Burke.

As for a greater admixture of ideas, it would shake things up if (a) "minority parties" like the Libertarians and the Greens were allowed to participate in televised debates for national office if they got on the ballot in enough states (there is a chicken-and-egg problem here already), and (b) debate moderators actually forced the candidates to answer the questions asked, rather than allowing them to "flip" the question into a talking point. Kind of like Delaware judges don't allow me to BS my way around a question that I'm not comfortable answering directly -- but there will be consequences if I don't, one way or the other.

I also think that term limits would have a positive impact on the "monied influence" you identify -- particularly if it were accompanied by a requirement of FULL DISCLOSURE of all campaign donors. No more hiding behind super PACs.

Well I don't like my beautiful analysis of duopoly being called stupid, so very nice post here, and we good!

[kalm]

I just don't like being called a jock-sniffer, although I do admire Burke.

As for a greater admixture of ideas, it would shake things up if (a) "minority parties" like the Libertarians and the Greens were allowed to participate in televised debates for national office if they got on the ballot in enough states (there is a chicken-and-egg problem here already), and (b) debate moderators actually forced the candidates to answer the questions asked, rather than allowing them to "flip" the question into a talking point. Kind of like Delaware judges don't allow me to BS my way around a question that I'm not comfortable answering directly -- but there will be consequences if I don't, one way or the other.

I also think that term limits would have a positive impact on the "monied influence" you identify -- particularly if it were accompanied by a requirement of FULL DISCLOSURE of all campaign donors. No more hiding behind super PACs.

I like the full disclosure part. The "money is speech" part is absolutely true, it is. But when someone speaks, we normally do who is speaking. No reason why that shouldn't be the same with the money and where it came from.

Money:



Speech:



See? Clearly not the same thing.

And bullshit doesn't literally walk either.