Voter ID Bill

[jerryskids 6,790]

I still don't buy it. Expanding voting to more people does not disenfranchise anyone if people without computer access could still vote at a polling station. We don't even have uniform voting booths and equipment - if that's not an inequality than offering online voting isn't.

Oh, please. If you think Al and Jesse wouldn't be up in arms about more white people with computers getting an easier way to vote, you are living in a bigger fantasy world than I thought, which was already focking big already.

[davebg 0]

Oh, please. If you think Al and Jesse wouldn't be up in arms about more white people with computers getting an easier way to vote, you are living in a bigger fantasy world than I thought, which was already focking big already.

Yep, by the time those asshats are done they will have labelled the US govt as racist for not buying every black family a compooter.

[MDC 7,407]

I think the difference is there isn't much of a reason to falsely file someone else's taxes. You are conveniently omitting the real reason to not vote online...which is fraud. Can you imagine the people obtaining other access codes and voting for them. Is that what you want? Again...Are you saying that you do not believe that there would be an escalation in voter fraud if we utilized online voting?? Answer the question...

 

No, I don't think fraud would be any more widespread if it were done online and required several forms of ID - for example a license or passport # plus a PIN, social security # and followed by a paper trail. If you're going to go through the trouble of convincing someone to give you all of that personal info for the sake of their vote, you might as well bribe them to go to the polling station, you know?

 

Um... ...how about b/c the definition of "disenfranchisement" is directly tied to being deprived of civil or electoral privilages and has nothing to do w/paying taxes.

 

Unless you consider paying your taxes to be a "civil privilage".

 

Since when does disenfranchisement refer at all to just civil privileges? Are you just making this up as you go along?

[davebg 0]

No, I don't think fraud would be any more widespread if it were done online and required several forms of ID - for example a license or passport # plus a PIN, social security # and followed by a paper trail. If you're going to go through the trouble of convincing someone to give you all of that personal info for the sake of their vote, you might as well bribe them to go to the polling station, you know?

Good thing nobody has learned how to hack into government websites and networks.

Boy, you really have thought of everything.

alsonotreally

[MDC 7,407]

Oh, please. If you think Al and Jesse wouldn't be up in arms about more white people with computers getting an easier way to vote, you are living in a bigger fantasy world than I thought, which was already focking big already.

 

Alright jerkoff, I can see your mind is made up so I won't bother. Have fun grumbling about how lazy people don't want to go to polling stations and enjoy taking a few hours out of your day to go vote at a focking public school. You must be a lot of fun at parties.

[Toro 1]

The voting thing is unlike the taxes thing because when you e-file, you are going through a third party vendor for the access. If your taxes get messed up or something happens, you can always have the vendor information there for your own good, including if you want to sue to cover your damages and late fees.

 

MDC - Would you consider voting through a vendor? Would you thrust a for-profit company with this? Because the budget and technical expertise would be way too much for the gov't to make it feasible especially for a single day.

[MDC 7,407]

Good thing nobody has learned how to hack into government websites and networks.

Boy, you really have thought of everything.

alsonotreally

 

You are right Dave. No system is ever going to be failsafe, so we might as well stick with the older, less convenient and more annoying way of voting, even if there's fraud that way, too. Gotta love Republicans, always so optimistic and forward thinking.

[davebg 0]

Since when does disenfranchisement refer at all to just civil privileges? Are you just making this up as you go along?

Since the dictionary said so.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

dis·en·fran·chise /ˌdɪsɛnˈfræntʃaɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-en-fran-chahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -chised, -chis·ing. to disfranchise.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Origin: 1620–30; dis-1 + enfranchise]

 

—Related forms

dis·en·fran·chise·ment /ˌdɪsɛnˈfræntʃaɪzmənt, -tʃɪz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-en-fran-chahyz-muhnt, -chiz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, noun

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source dis·en·fran·chise (dĭs'ěn-frān'chīz') Pronunciation Key

tr.v. dis·en·fran·chised, dis·en·fran·chis·ing, dis·en·fran·chis·es

To disfranchise.

 

dis'en·fran'chise'ment (-chīz'mənt, -chĭz-) n.

 

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source

disenfranchise

 

"deprive of civil or electoral privileges," 1644, from dis- + enfranchise. Earlier form was disfranchise (1467).

 

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

WordNet - Cite This Source disenfranchise

 

verb

deprive of voting rights [ant: enfranchise]

 

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source

Main Entry: dis·en·fran·chise

Pronunciation: "dis-&n-'fran-"chIz

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Forms: -chised; -chis·ing

: DISFRANCHISE —dis·en·fran·chise·ment noun

 

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

[jerryskids 6,790]

Alright jerkoff, I can see your mind is made up so I won't bother. Have fun grumbling about how lazy people don't want to go to polling stations and enjoy taking a few hours out of your day to go vote at a focking public school. You must be a lot of fun at parties.

This was my first post in this thread. And yes, I am quite convinced that black "leadership" would object to online elections. Which was the point of my post. You know, the point you completely ignored in your response.

[MDC 7,407]

MDC - Would you consider voting through a vendor? Would you thrust a for-profit company with this? Because the budget and technical expertise would be way too much for the gov't to make it feasible especially for a single day.

 

Sure. We already do that now to some extent - I believe private, for profit companies provide voting technology, right?

[davebg 0]

You are right Dave. No system is ever going to be failsafe, so we might as well stick with the older, less convenient and more annoying way of voting, even if there's fraud that way, too. Gotta love Republicans, always so optimistic and forward thinking.

Don't get pissy w/me just b/c I have a successful career in IT and can see the inherent problems in your idea that a career of making coffee has not prepared you for.

[MDC 7,407]

This was my first post in this thread. And yes, I am quite convinced that black "leadership" would object to online elections. Which was the point of my post. You know, the point you completely ignored in your response.

 

Sorry - when you jump into a thread telling me I live in a fantasyworld for not initially agreeing with you, I just assume you're a focking jerkoff and stop caring what you think. I'm judgmental like that.

 

Since the dictionary said so.

 

You are going to have to explain to me how online voting actually deprives some people of voting rights.

 

I'm no logician, but that seems a little backassward.

[lennie75 0]

You are right Dave. No system is ever going to be failsafe, so we might as well stick with the older, less convenient and more annoying way of voting, even if there's fraud that way, too. Gotta love Republicans, always so optimistic and forward thinking.

I still don't see what this has to do with particinism. Unless you think one party is more realistic than the other...because that is what we are talking about. You obviously feel that Conservs. are realistic and Dems are unrealistic. If that is your arguement....then, I agree with your analysis concerning voting based on particinism.

 

But, seriously voting via internet just wont' work. Be realistic....if you think there would ge less fraud using the internet than by voting in person...you sealed your fate right there. You lose all objectivity.

 

All americans have the ability to vote now...end of story. I dont' see where there needs to be more access. Now, if you want to make it easier...I am all for it. But, don't give me your bleeding heart "unrealistic" stories about how hard it is to vote. If you think it is hard here go to another country where you have to dodge thugs and bombs!

 

I personally think we have it pretty good.

[MDC 7,407]

Don't get pissy w/me just b/c I have a successful career in IT and can see the inherent problems in your idea that a career of making coffee has not prepared you for.

 

I never said there aren't issues with it. I just think it's funny how you dismiss the idea of online voting outright like it's science focking fiction or something.

[davebg 0]

You are going to have to explain to me how online voting actually deprives some people of voting rights.

 

I'm no logician, but that seems a little backassward.

In case you forgot, I was disputing your failed attempt to compare voting online w/paying your taxes online.

 

I know it must be tough for you to stay on point when your points get shot down by so many people, but please try to keep up.

[Toro 1]

Sure. We already do that now to some extent - I believe private, for profit companies provide voting technology, right?

 

So you will trust the collective power of a vendor, such as Turbotax, with millions of votes?

 

See the difference is with tax returns, collectively, you wield no true power other than over the individual tax payer. Sure, Turbotax could fock up their whole database leaving millions of individual taxpayers having to scramble to fix their mess, but it might not elect the next president of the United States. That is the fundamental difference.

[MDC 7,407]

In case you forgot, I was disputing your failed attempt to compare voting online w/paying your taxes online.

 

 

By telling me that online voting makes it harder for people to vote.

 

Nice logic, Plato.

[davebg 0]

I never said there aren't issues with it. I just think it's funny how you dismiss the idea of online voting outright like it's science focking fiction or something.

I dismiss it for two reasons:

 

1) There is supposed to be a level playing field reagarding the ability of people to vote. Those people who have the most trouble voting in the current system (the poor & elderly) are the ones who would be helped the least by online voting.

 

2) If companies can't keep thieves out of thier financial systems and the government can't keep hackers from breaking into systems w/classified information and the like, what makes you think that we can have a secure onlie vote?

 

ETA: Also, people will be voting online from their home compooters, right? Those very same compooters that people can't keep free of viruses and spyware, which are responsible not only for data/ID theft, but also for turning their home PCs into bots for spammers (unbeknownst to them.) Do you have any idea how easy it would be for a hacker to target unsecure PCs and have thier votes changed to whatever they want before the data even gets to the server? don't even get me started on wireless and all of the completely unsecured Wi-Fi connections out there.

[MDC 7,407]

So you will trust the collective power of a vendor, such as Turbotax, with millions of votes?

 

See the difference is with tax returns, collectively, you wield no true power other than over the individual tax payer. Sure, Turbotax could fock up their whole database leaving millions of individual taxpayers having to scramble to fix their mess, but it might not elect the next president of the United States. That is the fundamental difference.

 

There are ways around this. I wouldn't trust one single vendor with millions of votes, but I probably would trust a series of vendors doing business with federal and state governments to provide that service, particularly if it were backed up by a paper trail and required multiple forms of ID. This doesn't seem all that much different than using machines by say Diebold, except for the going to the poll thing.

[lennie75 0]

I dismiss it for two reasons:

 

1) There is supposed to be a level playing field reagarding the ability of people to vote. Those people who have the most trouble voting in the current system (the poor & elderly) are the ones who would be helped the least by online voting.

 

2) If companies can't keep thieves out of thier financial systems and the government can't keep hackers from breaking into systems w/classified information and the like, what makes you think that we can have a secure onlie vote?

Here is what MDC really wants...because this I could truly see happenign in a Lib ( I mean communist) society.

 

1. Online voting passed

2. Since all the poor people wouldn't be able to have computers they would then pass a law giving all people who fail to make a decent living lap tops...by of course raising corporate taxes...therefore diminnishing any effects of their minimum wage increases...and causing layoffs...but who cares we would all have socialized medicine (oh yeah it would just take 2 years to get a surgery approved) and you would die in the process...But, who cares everyone would have laptops and the availability to vote.

3. Uh oh...all the free computers have viruses because of looking at porn on the internet...but hey...those people are now not able to afford any bread because they have been laid off...but they got a free computer out of the gig!!!!

 

There are ways around this. I wouldn't trust one single vendor with millions of votes, but I probably would trust a series of vendors doing business with federal and state governments to provide that service, particularly if it were backed up by a paper trail and required multiple forms of ID. This doesn't seem all that much different than using machines by say Diebold, except for the going to the poll thing.

What about all the illeagals that would be handling this operation??

[davebg 0]

By telling me that online voting makes it harder for people to vote.

 

Nice logic, Plato.

Maybe you can provide a link to where I said that.

 

Nope, you can't...b/c I didn't say it.

 

Just b/c you are getting pnwed by everyone in this thread doens't mean you can start making sh|t up.

[Toro 1]

There are ways around this. I wouldn't trust one single vendor with millions of votes, but I probably would trust a series of vendors doing business with federal and state governments to provide that service, particularly if it were backed up by a paper trail and required multiple forms of ID. This doesn't seem all that much different than using machines by say Diebold, except for the going to the poll thing.

 

So then you are going to go through the process of assigning people to a certain vendor? There are 300,000,000 people in the US. Let's be conservative and say 150,000,000 can vote. So how many votes would you trust with a single vendor? Even if you trusted a single vendor with a million votes, that would require 150 different vendors to have the capabilities to handle a minimum of 3 million hits in a given day. There are only about 3 vendors in the world that do that now and they are worth billions. Do you seriously think a vendor is going to shell out that kind of money for hardware, software, encryption technology, bandwidth and such for what could end up being maybe a million bucks or two?

 

I understand what you are trying to say but I just think that you are ignorant to the level of sophistication this would require, both on how the internets actually works, and the security and data management requirements needed.

 

Unless you can see a need for the US gov't to invest 3 billion or so into something so you don't have to take a bus 4 blocks?

 

ALSO@#$!#@$! Multiple forms of ID? People aren't going to defraud from the individual voter standpoint. It is from a standpoint of operability and security.

[MDC 7,407]

I dismiss it for two reasons:

 

1) There is supposed to be a level playing field reagarding the ability of people to vote. Those people who have the most trouble voting in the current system (the poor & elderly) are the ones who would be helped the least by online voting.

 

2) If companies can't keep thieves out of thier financial systems and the government can't keep hackers from breaking into systems w/classified information and the like, what makes you think that we can have a secure onlie vote?

 

ETA: Also, people will be voting online from their home compooters, right? Those very same compooters that people can't keep free of viruses and spyware, which are responsible not only for data/ID theft, but also for turning their home PCs into bots for spammers (unbeknownst to them.) Do you have any idea how easy it would be for a hacker to target unsecure PCs and have thier votes changed to whatever they want before the data even gets to the server? don't even get me started on wireless and all of the completely unsecured Wi-Fi connections out there.

 

1. e-voting may help the poor/elderly less than wealthier and younger voters, but you said they are already disenfranchised by the current system. Online voting may help a proportionally greater % of wealthier / younger voters, but a proportionally greater % of them are already voting. The inequality would still be there but you'd have more net voters.

 

2. Look, I know there are flaws with the technology and stuff but if we can put a focking guy on the moon I don't see why online or telephone voting is impossible. You cannot envision any possible way people will ever be able to vote other than showing up in person at a polling center run by some unqualified hack who barely looks you in the eye and doesn't nec. require your identification? There is NO better or more convenient way to do this?

 

Leaving work so maybe I'll check in later. I don't have all the answers but I think it's a disgrace that only 1/3rd of people vote and I think making it more convenient is a way to boost those numbers.

 

Maybe you can provide a link to where I said that.

 

Nope, you can't...b/c I didn't say it.

 

Just b/c you are getting pnwed by everyone in this thread doens't mean you can start making sh|t up.

 

You said online voting would disenfranchise those who don't own computers. Disenfranchise = to "deprive of electoral privileges." Ergo, online voting ... deprives people of the ability to vote?

[jerryskids 6,790]

Sorry - when you jump into a thread telling me I live in a fantasyworld for not initially agreeing with you, I just assume you're a focking jerkoff and stop caring what you think. I'm judgmental like that.

 

That's funny, Mr. Pot. davebg and others have given you quite a bit of technical reasons why online voting would not be feasible, and you have completely ignored it. As you have my initial point. And I'm the one who has already made up his mind.

[MDC 7,407]

Unless you can see a need for the US gov't to invest 3 billion or so into something so you don't have to take a bus 4 blocks?

 

With all of the money the federal government wastes on all kinds of unnecessary bullsh1t, $3 billion in online voting technology would be a focking bargain.

[lennie75 0]

1. e-voting may help the poor/elderly less than wealthier and younger voters, but you said they are already disenfranchised by the current system. Online voting may help a proportionally greater % of wealthier / younger voters, but a proportionally greater % of them are already voting. The inequality would still be there but you'd have more net voters.

 

2. Look, I know there are flaws with the technology and stuff but if we can put a focking guy on the moon I don't see why online or telephone voting is impossible. You cannot envision any possible way people will ever be able to vote other than showing up in person at a polling center run by some unqualified hack who barely looks you in the eye and doesn't nec. require your identification? There is NO better or more convenient way to do this?

 

Leaving work so maybe I'll check in later. I don't have all the answers but I think it's a disgrace that only 1/3rd of people vote and I think making it more convenient is a way to boost those numbers.

I agree MDC...there will be a time when we will have the capability. But, I don't think it is anytime soon. The only thing I think you have been dumb in stating is that conservatives are aginst online voting. I just think that is a ridiculous stateemnt...because the only people who are against online voting are the realistic ones that realize we dont' have the capability for it at this time.

 

I think everyone shoudl have the opportunity to vote...but, personally I think a great majority do have an opportunity...and I don't think that voting in person has anythign to do with only 33% of us voting. I think it has to do with being lazy and not caring about ther world around them.

 

I have a lot more respect for you, MDC, who has ideas and opinions and is willing to back them up by voting. Then I do soemoen who chooses not to vote...and that is what most of the 67% of the population is doing...CHOOSiNG!!!!

[Doyle Redland 0]

specific to the national holiday issue, do you all really want a national holiday where alcohol sales are prohibited? makes no difference to me. My buzz tends to come packaged in a baggie, not a bottle. just something for the beer loving crowd to consider.

[Toro 1]

With all of the money the federal government wastes on all kinds of unnecessary bullsh1t, $3 billion in online voting technology would be a focking bargain.

 

You are dumb.

[jerryskids 6,790]

1. e-voting may help the poor/elderly less than wealthier and younger voters, but you said they are already disenfranchised by the current system. Online voting may help a proportionally greater % of wealthier / younger voters, but a proportionally greater % of them are already voting. The inequality would still be there but you'd have more net voters.

 

Can you honestly not see how Al and Jesse wouldn't object to this? Perhaps you don't follow your own math.

[davebg 0]

1. e-voting may help the poor/elderly less than wealthier and younger voters, but you said they are already disenfranchised by the current system. Online voting may help a proportionally greater % of wealthier / younger voters, but a proportionally greater % of them are already voting. The inequality would still be there but you'd have more net voters.

Those younger voters who would benefit by being able to vote online...when they were unwilling to vote when they had to take more time out of their day than it takes for them to go to gap.com and pick out a t-shirt...will get no sympathy from me. They are lazy focks. I do not want my government to spend billions of dollars so these half-assed slackers can vote for our leaders quickly so they can take a 15 minute break to go down to Starbucks to get a double-half-caf-frappa-mocha-chino.

 

Pretty much what you are saying is that the poor and elderly are already disenfranchised, but instead of coming up w/a solution to remedy that, let's just write them off and make it easier for the wealthy and the young to vote so we can pad the numbers w/people who have been so disinterested that they failed to vote until we literally made it as easy as changing the channel on the TV.

 

IMNSHO, that is horseshit.

 

2. Look, I know there are flaws with the technology and stuff but if we can put a focking guy on the moon I don't see why online or telephone voting is impossible. You cannot envision any possible way people will ever be able to vote other than showing up in person at a polling center run by some unqualified hack who barely looks you in the eye and doesn't nec. require your identification? There is NO better or more convenient way to do this?

Can I envision an alternative to showing up in person to vote? Sure. However, as long as people can't manage to secure their own PCs and networks it will be IMPOSSIBLE to have secure online voting. Even if you could resolve all of the issues inherent in online voting on the server side, there is no way to secure the client side at this time.

 

Believe me, if there was a way to get compooter r-tards to secure their machines someone would be making millions off of it right now.

Leaving work so maybe I'll check in later. I don't have all the answers but I think it's a disgrace that only 1/3rd of people vote and I think making it more convenient is a way to boost those numbers.

You said online voting would disenfranchise those who don't own computers. Disenfranchise = to "deprive of electoral privileges." Ergo, online voting ... deprives people of the ability to vote?

Again, please show me where I said that. You can't b/c I didn't say it. What I said was that online voting would not be likely to help those who are already disenfranchied (the poor & elderly.) Again, it's not worth the risk and the $$$ to implement a system that helps people who are lazy, rather than those who are truly disenfranchised.

[davebg 0]

Leaving work so maybe I'll check in later.

So, did you really leave work or just get tired of being pwned in this thread?

 

You managed to respond in your Spiderman 3 thread at 5:55pm.

[MDC 7,407]

Those younger voters who would benefit by being able to vote online...when they were unwilling to vote when they had to take more time out of their day than it takes for them to go to gap.com and pick out a t-shirt...will get no sympathy from me. They are lazy focks. I do not want my government to spend billions of dollars so these half-assed slackers can vote for our leaders quickly so they can take a 15 minute break to go down to Starbucks to get a double-half-caf-frappa-mocha-chino.

 

This seems like circular logic to me. People who don't vote because it's inconvenient are lazy ... so lets keep it inconvenient so they still won't vote? Or something like that, I don't know.

 

Pretty much what you are saying is that the poor and elderly are already disenfranchised, but instead of coming up w/a solution to remedy that, let's just write them off and make it easier for the wealthy and the young to vote so we can pad the numbers w/people who have been so disinterested that they failed to vote until we literally made it as easy as changing the channel on the TV.

 

IMNSHO, that is horseshit.

 

What I'm saying is that e-voting wouldn't make poor and elderly people any more disenfranchised than they already are.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that 25% of poor/elderly people aren't able to get to the polls for a number of reasons. If roughly 25% of that same demographic doesn't have access to or can't use a computer, how is this disenfranchising poor or elderly people if you've increased the NET numbers of those people who are voting?

 

Can I envision an alternative to showing up in person to vote? Sure. However, as long as people can't manage to secure their own PCs and networks it will be IMPOSSIBLE to have secure online voting. Even if you could resolve all of the issues inherent in online voting on the server side, there is no way to secure the client side at this time.

 

Believe me, if there was a way to get compooter r-tards to secure their machines someone would be making millions off of it right now.

 

I guess I just don't think it's an impossibility to set up a system where people vote over the phone or online and it's easier to alter their vote that wayy than it would be in person. Is hacking into a secure network to aquire multiple forms of identification and a mailed, unique PIN number to alter votes that much easier than impersonating someone at a polling station or outright bribing people to vote? Is this so far fetched that it's not even worth exploring?

 

Again, please show me where I said that. You can't b/c I didn't say it. What I said was that online voting would not be likely to help those who are already disenfranchied (the poor & elderly.) Again, it's not worth the risk and the $$$ to implement a system that helps people who are lazy, rather than those who are truly disenfranchised.

 

You are so all over the place that I don't know what your argument is. The technology isn't there? It's not worth paying for? Lazy people shouldn't vote? Seems like the last one is your key argument and that's just a difference of opinion. Yes people are lazy but I see a benefit to encouraging participation and if that costs money so be it. This wouldn't be the first time we offered financial incentives to encourage positive behavior.

 

So, did you really leave work or just get tired of being pwned in this thread?

 

You managed to respond in your Spiderman 3 thread at 5:55pm.

 

I really left work. You're a lot more concerned with ownage than me. It's not like Mike FF Today sends you a prize if you win a thread.

[Cdub100 3,906]

I sure am glad I checked out of this thread

[lennie75 0]

This seems like circular logic to me. People who don't vote because it's inconvenient are lazy ... so lets keep it inconvenient so they still won't vote? Or something like that, I don't know.

What I'm saying is that e-voting wouldn't make poor and elderly people any more disenfranchised than they already are.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that 25% of poor/elderly people aren't able to get to the polls for a number of reasons. If roughly 25% of that same demographic doesn't have access to or can't use a computer, how is this disenfranchising poor or elderly people if you've increased the NET numbers of those people who are voting?

I guess I just don't think it's an impossibility to set up a system where people vote over the phone or online and it's easier to alter their vote that wayy than it would be in person. Is hacking into a secure network to aquire multiple forms of identification and a mailed, unique PIN number to alter votes that much easier than impersonating someone at a polling station or outright bribing people to vote? Is this so far fetched that it's not even worth exploring?

You are so all over the place that I don't know what your argument is. The technology isn't there? It's not worth paying for? Lazy people shouldn't vote? Seems like the last one is your key argument and that's just a difference of opinion. Yes people are lazy but I see a benefit to encouraging participation and if that costs money so be it. This wouldn't be the first time we offered financial incentives to encourage positive behavior.

I really left work. You're a lot more concerned with ownage than me. It's not like Mike FF Today sends you a prize if you win a thread.

here is the problem MDC. You are making it sound like voting is the most difficult thing to do. It is not that hard. It at most will only take a couple hours out of your day....and usually only 30 minutes or so. As someone said before...your employer has to give you the opportunity to vote...so that can't be the issue. Voting agencies are everywhere...I'll put it like this..if you can afford a computer to vote on you can afford the cab, bus, bike ride to the polling station. Could we make it easier...sure...is it worth billions of $$s to do so..no. If people can spend two hourse at the DMV to renew their drivers license they can spend an hour or two in line to vote. Again...the way to fix it is to have all states have early voting.