Are College Students Too Liberal to Vote?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KilljoyKlown, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    The article below is a good example of how dirty republicans like to play. I'm actually embarrassed to admit that I've voted republican in my past. Some of my old work buddies are republicans and send me political emails that make me sick. If the democrats ever played that dirty, I've never seen it.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One way to win elections is to keep the people who support your opponent from voting. That’s why Republicans in New Hampshire proposed new laws last week making it difficult for college students to vote.

    Last year, a conservative group calling itself Latinos for Reform ran an ad suggesting that Latinos should express their satisfaction with both parties’ immigration policies by not voting at all. The group’s website still carries a message telling Latinos that if they don’t want to be taken for granted, they shouldn’t vote. Not voting, of course, is precisely the way to ensure that politicians do take you for granted. But since Latinos largely vote Democratic, protesting immigration policy by staying home on election day would have overwhelming benefited Republicans.

    College students, of course, also largely vote Democratic. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of Americans 18 and over to vote, but the proposed legislation would have let college students vote only if their parents had established permanent residency in the state. Most students would presumably still be able to vote in their state of origin, but the law would make it much more difficult for them to vote than it would be for other more conservative citizens. The proposed legislation was ostensibly part of an effort to crack down on voter fraud. But, as Greg Sargent points out, there is little evidence of such fraud, and for the most part anti-fraud measures just make it more difficult for liberal groups to vote. New Hampshire Speaker of the House William O’Brien made it clear that was part of the motivation for the New Hampshire bill when he told to a Tea Party group that students lack “life experience” and “just vote their feelings.” “Voting as a liberal,” he told them, “that’s what kids do.”

    The New Hampshire bill failed, partly because O’Brien’s comments hit YouTube. Even if as a very general rule our judgment improves as we get older, younger people also have a perspective and legitimate interests that older people lack. And if we are going to treat college age citizens as adults—tax them as adults, try them as adults, and even to serve in the armed forces as adults—we should allow them the same say in our government as everyone else. Making it difficult for the young to vote is no different than making it difficult for the elderly to vote would be. The great virtue of democracy in a society like ours is it forces parties to appeal to voters of all types—to the young and to the old, to blacks and to whites, to gays and to evangelical Christians. Steve Benen is right when he says that if Republicans want to win elections, “they should field better candidates and adopt a more sensible policy agenda, not push schemes like voter-ID bills that depress minority, youth, and low-income voter turnout.”

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/31602?utm...Julie_Burstein_March_16_2011&utm_medium=email
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. siphra Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    344
    Actually, I suggest you read the bill, despite what O'Brien said to his constituents (i.e. pandering to his voters) The actual bill doesn't stop anyone from voting. It requires only that one be a citizen of the area in order to vote in local/federal elections from NH. This requires state citizenship, and registration after obtaining citizenship is 10 days. (That is to say you have to register 10 days before the election to qualify.)

    This bill is similar to bills already in place in states like MA which are heavily liberal.

    His choice of words will hopefully cost him his next election, but the law is not as bad as the left insists it is.

    The ONLY effect of the bill is that you cannot vote twice in federal elections, which actually makes sense.

    Otherwise if you do not want to be a citizen of NH (Where as a student you will spend nearly 3/4 of a year.... so you ARE a citizen and should change your information) you may vote in your states local and federal elections using the absentee ballot system in place in every state.


    Edited to add the link to the text of the bill: The Bill
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,906
    It's hard for students to vote in their home district, which Republicons know. They want to limit voting rights in any way they can. They can only win when people don't show up to vote.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. siphra Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    344
    Yes because no one including students have access to the internet and could request an absentee ballot, I mean god forbid they have to do two mins of work to vote. Or worse, go down to your local DMV (RMV in some states) and get your local area ID, where you can usually register to vote too.
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,906
    That precludes last-minute get out the vote campaigns, and in any case, it makes it more difficult. Republicons want voting to be difficult.
     
  9. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    It's really hard for me to think, that all those things you mentioned were not already in place. I've lived in many different states and those sound like very standard requirements. Perhaps if you add enough unnecessary bullshit to voting an make it public, you can discourage many voters from even bothering to go to the polls to vote. I only know republicans are the most devious underhanded politicians I've ever had the displeasure to know.
     
  10. siphra Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    344
    I wasn't sure it wasn't in place either, however I linked the text of the bill, and as you can see, that is literally all the bill does.
     
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,906
    Oh how fucking innocent it all is, right? Imagine this is the focus of Republicans now when we really need jobs. All they are focused on in how to keep their own jobs.
     
  12. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    College student are to dumb to vote, sheeple.
     
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,906
    It's "too", not "to".

    Irony.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2011
  14. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    I'm not convinced that's all the bill does. I'd like to know the real reason behind the bill in the first place. Was there any proof of voting improprieties? What about the timing of the bill? Who was running against who? What are their reputations when campaigning? Like I said republicans are devious and relentless in doing anything they can to change the balance of the vote.
     
  15. siphra Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    344
    Yes and exactly what legislation would you suggest that might create jobs? Expanding the nearly bankrupt public sector some more?

    It is fairly simple, BOTH parties focus on getting the votes in they need, from the start just about. The legislation is not in any way as bad as you and the others wish to think it is. Read it, and see for yourself, yes the guy was an idiot for pandering that way, but then again every politician does this.
     
  16. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,906
    Yes, expanding education funding. Reducing corporate tax loopholes to gain revenue. Republicans give the money away then claim poverty. They are slime, they have no morals, and no concern for the working American.
     
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,058
    1. to get into college you have to have at least a fair amount of intellect.
    2. college students tend to be reasonable well informed about issues
    3. I'm almost positive being a college student doesn't take away your ability to talk
    4. why does being mute hurt your ability to vote?
     
  18. siphra Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    344
    While I agree with increased funding for education, there are essential problems, reducing tax loopholes will increase the number of corporations that leave. As I stated in an earlier post (in civility thread) taxes are not the problem, increasing taxes taken from companies reduces the number of jobs on the market. Republicans have become corporate socialists, and that is the number one reason I am no longer a republican. So on that issue at least, we agree.
     
  19. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    Stupid, dumb or what not, as long as they are eligible to vote by law, then it should be their choice whether they vote or not. The same choice all of us have being good citizens. How would you feel if you all of a sudden had to start jumping through hoops so you could go vote? Would you get pissed off and not vote at all?
     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,906
    Increasing taxes actually increases jobs. Corporations become less likely to give it away as CEO salary (tax deductible) and more likely to invest in the company. And why do we assume corporations can do as they wish, that they are above the law? If they leave, then fuck them, they can't bring a cent back and they can't sell anything here without a tariff.
     
  21. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    And that gets into our totally frakked trade policy.
    (Inbound rant coming, please buckle safety belt, expect turbulence)

    We need to start practicing strategic trade, not free trade-like every other country does:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/uncle-sam-global-trade-su_b_536654.html
    And have you wondered why all those Spanish-speaking guys want to mow your yard? read THIS:

    http://www.tfdnews.com/news/2011/03...e-free-trade-agreements-when-nafta-failed.htm

    Plus "Shafta" as I like to call it, cost us over 750 K jobs(according to the above article), and turned Mexico into a food importer when they were an exporter.

    So it has hurt BOTH countries-a lot.
    But Administration after Administration has been pushing more free trade as the cure...for the problems that are actually being caused by free trade!!!
    :wallbang:

    I'm planning on ordering at least the cheaper of Ian Fletcher's books...he's a PhD economist who says exactly what I've been saying, and what Ross Perot was saying (in his squirrely manner...he's a bit nutty but not dumb...)-that free trade isn't good for us.

    Trade as currently practiced is hurting America, has been allowed to for many years, and nobody is realizing it's one of the main problems we have.

    Here's a short review of his one book:http://www.tradereform.org/2010/09/the-problem-with-free-trade/

    A homepage of his book (that you can get used on Amazon):
    http://www.freetradedoesntwork.com/

    And apparently Amazon has this one in stock again:
    http://www.amazon.com/Globaloney-Americas-Economy-Undermines-Democracy/dp/0578056518

    Here is a thought for you though...Nafta's created a lot of civil unrest in Mexico, the drug war being only one aspect.
    I've been hearing for a few years now from people who have family there that Mexico's ripe for revolution-of the left-wing variety.

    Part of the reason it hasn't happened yet is that large numbers of people*have been* up here doing menial labor. That's not being as much so anymore, for reasons you know.

    If/when it happens, it will have been at least partly our doing for having added to their misery and thrown about a million farmers off the land.
    Ready for it?
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2011
  22. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    @ chimpkin

    That was a very impressive post and I'm quite convinced, but don't you think it would get better play on this forum as it's own topic? I'm not sure how to respond in context to the current topic. The point you are making is really worth more than it's likely to get under this topic.
     
  23. Otto9210 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    As a high school senior i would have to admit that if Republicans wanted to take voting rights away from a group they could probably do it the easiest to young adults. Don't get me wrong....some young adults like me actually watch the news and think about politics and world events but the majority?.....

    I have to admit that having my voting rights taken away would anger me because I love politics,history,economics, and philosophy and I can't wait to vote the first chance I get.
    Personally I would like to see what would happen if voting rights were taken away from seniors. I can see it now....rioting grandma's and grandpa's in wheelchairs and walkers, violently throwing their meds at strangers then traveling to Florida to establish a Senior's Paradise.
    Funny thing is...if Republicans did that a majority of seniors would probably blame Obama

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page