"Suppressing" the vote

[LaraK]

I saw a piece on the news this morning about phony literature being passed around saying that the election had been moved to the 5th. I don't know if it's me (and I have my flame suit on)...but if you don't understand the US Constitution enough to know that we have been voting the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November for over two hundred years....should you be voting?

 

[need_a_Disney_fix]

I'm thinking not, but unfortunately they have that right.

 

[Charade]

People being duped to vote on the wrong day?

Hell, people are duped when they vote on the right day!!!

 

[momto2girls]

People being duped to vote on the wrong day?

Hell, people are duped when they vote on the right day!!!

 

[corndog]

I saw a piece on the news this morning about phony literature being passed around saying that the election had been moved to the 5th. I don't know if it's me (and I have my flame suit on)...but if you don't understand the US Constitution enough to know that we have been voting the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November for over two hundred years....should you be voting?

I'm curious, where in the Constitution does it say we vote on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November?

As far as I can tell, the practice did not start until 1845, less than 200 years ago.

Should someone who thinks this is in the Constitution and has been the practice "for over two hundred years" be voting?

 

[LaraK]

I'm curious, where in the Constitution does it say we vote on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November?

As far as I can tell, the practice did not start until 1845, less than 200 years ago.

Should someone who thinks this is in the Constitution and has been the practice "for over two hundred years" be voting?

Sorry, I think it is in my state constitution...I concede the point.

What the Constitution requires is that that date is consistant in every state.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

[corndog]

Sorry, I think it is in my state constitution...I concede the point.

What the Constitution requires is that that date is consistant in every state.

Just having a little fun with you. I agree with your original point.

 

[LaraK]

Just having a little fun with you. I agree with your original point.

Yes, but as an old debator, I should be more careful with my points, I just negated the majority of my argument.

 

[L107ANGEL]

Yes, but as an old debator, I should be more careful with my points, I just negated the majority of my argument.

Now you see why I don't debate

 

[rie'smom]

Hopefully, those foolish enough to believe the handouts would get a clue when they go past a polling place. Around our area the voting places are only several blocks from each other.

 

[NMAmy]

I think some of the confusion might come into play with some states changing to add early voting--something that was unheard of before. Some people might think if a state can change to add early voting perhaps they could add late voting as well. From what I understand, some of the flyers that went out had official looking seals which merely adds to the confusion.

 

[Suzie Zoo]

Well.... I'll be the voice of dissent. Shocking

I think it's a crappy thing to do. It bothers me that people are more concerned with their candidate winning than they are with the importance of the freedom to vote. I'd rather have my candidate lose than keep people from voting.

Yes, people should know when to vote. But duping someone into thinking otherwise leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (Not that I think that anyone here was condoning it!)

 

[sahd2one]

Just remember there is no right to vote in a presidential election anywhere in the US Constitution.

 

[Bonnie40]

Well.... I'll be the voice of dissent. Shocking

I think it's a crappy thing to do. It bothers me that people are more concerned with their candidate winning than they are with the importance of the freedom to vote. I'd rather have my candidate lose than keep people from voting.

Yes, people should know when to vote. But duping someone into thinking otherwise leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (Not that I think that anyone here was condoning it!)

 

[marybet]

It is possible to see a brochure that looks real and believe what is on it. I would hope that they would be concerned that it is not correct but if you have never voted before you might be confused.

The qualifications for voting are to be of legal age and to be registered. You do not have to prove that you studied the positions of each candidate.

 

[LaraK]

Well.... I'll be the voice of dissent. Shocking

I think it's a crappy thing to do. It bothers me that people are more concerned with their candidate winning than they are with the importance of the freedom to vote. I'd rather have my candidate lose than keep people from voting.

Yes, people should know when to vote. But duping someone into thinking otherwise leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (Not that I think that anyone here was condoning it!)

I completely agree that what was done was wrong and I do not support it in any way.

On the other hand, I watched the piece and just shook my head thinking "who on God's green earth would buy that?".

They also showed a man in Nevada who said he got a call that said he didn't have to go to a polling place, he could vote on the phone. What bothered me the most about that part of the story was that he didn't speak English. I had a momentary thought of "oh, if you're non-English speaking it may be harder" very quickly followed by the thought "why is a non-English speaking person a registered voter". Don't you still have to know English to get your citizenship? (BTW, I checked and there is still an English and Civics exam)

 

[Chuck S]

But the flyers aren't saying the election date was changed for everyone. They are saying Republicans vote on the 4th, Democrats vote on the 5th. The flyers also contain the official seal of the state election board, that was grabbed from their website.

Granted, the vast majority of people know better. But, it does not mean that this should be treated as a prank. It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm sure you'd all be up in arms if the parties on the flyer were reversed.

 

[LaraK]

But the flyers aren't saying the election date was changed for everyone. They are saying Republicans vote on the 4th, Democrats vote on the 5th. The flyers also contain the official seal of the state election board, that was grabbed from their website.

Granted, the vast majority of people know better. But, it does not mean that this should be treated as a prank. It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm sure you'd all be up in arms if the parties on the flyer were reversed.

I'm a Democrat, just wanted to clarify, this statement isn't a party issue.

 

[phragmipedium]

If it just said the date changed, I see your point. I grant you that most people know it's on Tuesday, though citizens have been ignorant of more "common knowledge" than this before. But to my knowledge (if these are the...Virginia? or is it Florida? flyers that have been in the news), the flyers are saying that because of unusually high voter turnout, they've had to make this change in order to ensure that everyone gets a chance to vote - so Republicans vote on the 4th, and Democrats vote on the 5th. It sounds a little more conceivable and I could see a lot of people going, "Oh - that makes sense." I agree that the average (and above average) person should be able to see through this and check for themselves. But...we don't have some sort of national intelligence test in order to vote - whether you agree with that or not it's still not okay for flyers to be going around that are essentially attempting to suppress votes. Voter suppression is never okay. Voter fraud is never okay, either. And I think that if it were the other way around (Dems vote on the 4th, Republicans vote on the 5th), I'd still think it was wrong, and I think a lot of Republicans would also. Even foolish people get to vote here.

 

[Chuck S]

I completely agree that what was done was wrong and I do not support it in any way.

On the other hand, I watched the piece and just shook my head thinking "who on God's green earth would buy that?".

They also showed a man in Nevada who said he got a call that said he didn't have to go to a polling place, he could vote on the phone. What bothered me the most about that part of the story was that he didn't speak English. I had a momentary thought of "oh, if you're non-English speaking it may be harder" very quickly followed by the thought "why is a non-English speaking person a registered voter". Don't you still have to know English to get your citizenship? (BTW, I checked and there is still an English and Civics exam)

What does the language have to do with it? Many older Mexican-Americans here speak only Spanish. Schools were segregated. White, Black and Hispanic. English was not taught or spoken in the Hispanic schools years ago. If you are born here, you are a citizen, and have a right to vote. No civic exam required for native born Americans, they are citizens. There is no law requiring you to speak English, there is no official national language in the US.