Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote!

Thats the way i see it to.

If u read the OPs text properly. You will not lose youre abelity to vote, they just want to make sure that no one can vote more then once.

Eks. If you must leave youre house to live somwhere els. They want to make sure you dont vote two times with new and old addres thats all. No harm in that thats just right.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Ok disabled vet fair enough.

How did people vote in 1790 when people were going on the manifest destiny.
Residency should not preclude ability to vote. In my humber opinion.

Shoot. Give registered voters a pin number to establish there vote. It really is not rocket science.

You are evil DD. You place a thread like this and skulk away. LOL.
What are you doing. Working on your thesis?

For the record. I've been called a lot worse. Thank you for your service DV.

[edit on 9/10/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 9/10/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 9/10/2008 by jpm1602]

The law is in effect for a very important reason.

There are plenty of people whom would jump from county to county that they didn't live in to vote and thus unfairly in a cheaters way try to influence the vote.

This law HAS to exist, to prevent unfair voting practices.

[SNIP]

I just added you as my friend....at least someone here understands the reason for this law. Is supports the people.

Would you put it beyond some slimy politician to PAY and buss his supporters all over the place to vote wherever they want to sway the election in his favor?

Come on people... wake up and deny your ignorance!

Mod Edit: Removed off-topic/mannered quote.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Gemwolf]

Oh I disagree. People seem to think that it is not about race because there is this notion these days that racism doesn't exist..Well I hate to be the one to say it, but it does, like it or not. Look at the statistics in each of the towns and townships that dot this county, the demographics are very telling, and I think there was less care in implementing these policies because it would predominantly disenfranchise the greater black community in the area. Don't tell me a national campaign knows nothing of regional and local demographics, they would be stupid not to do the research. It is also targeted politically using the base electorate of Obama. It's a double whammy, shut the voters out, you shut out the opposition.

It may not be run by racists, but the deliberate targeting is discrimination any way you slice it.

Click here for more information.

What an amazing display of how disinfo agents work to destroy threads.

Someone should make a copy of this thread, analyse it and then use it as a guide on 'How to Spot Disinfo Agents through the Techniques They Use'

And they have certainly picked up the pace and rhetoric in the last 2 or 3 weeks, not only here on ATS but on many other forums, blogs and news sites all over the web. I suppose it is part the full spectrum dominance concept.

This is just to ensure people aren't voting fraudulently. You true believers (Dems and Repubs) drive me crazy getting all worked up over nothing.

For you race-baiting, class warriors out there, here are the demographics for Maccomb County. Believe it or not, sometimes race isn't an issue.

Wikipedia-

"The racial makeup of the county was 92.66% White, 2.71% Black or African American, 0.31% Native American, 2.14% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.39% from other races, and 1.77% from two or more races. 1.58% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 18.1% were of German, 17.1% Polish, 13.6% Italian, 7.5% Irish and 5.5% English ancestry according to Census 2000. "

"The years 2000-2005 saw the African American population in Macomb County more than double. This growth largely resulted from an exodus of African Americans from Detroit. By 2005 Census estimates for Macomb County showed it was 5.6% African American."

That powerful 5% Black vote MUST BE SUPPRESSED! Besides, isn't it pretty racist to think that it would automatically be Blacks that were getting their homes foreclosed? Hmm.....

They didn't have any info on sheep farmers.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
These guys are relentless and we need to get active in this election to stop voter fraud!

i know this is very far back in the pages, but i am only on page one still and this post struck me. (if someone else has already mentioned this, i apologize for mentioning it a second time)...in particular, leo, getting active in the election is in no way going to do anything. a lot of people it seems don't think about how little their vote really counts. does it mean you shouldn't vote, no. you should always exercise every right you have (if for no other reason than when you wake up tomorrow you may not have it.) but now, back to my point. the general populaces votes don't mean a whole lot in the presidential election process due to the fact that we are still under the "ELECTORAL COLLEGE" system. it's been about ten years since i've had a politics course, but from what i understand of the college, if say for example in the state of virginia the republicans when the vote. after that, their are 2 (from the senators, each state is guaranteed 2 votes and a proportionate amount based on population size of the state.) delegates representing the republican party (whom are expected to vote as such) and there are the proportionate number (not sure off the top of my head so let's just say 8) of delegates who will be representing the republican party and also expected to vote as such. so that should give a total number of 10 republican votes to the presidential election. now this is where the problem comes in. each of these delegates are individual people with minds of their own. nothing states that they MUST vote how the state says (we've seen that in the last presidential election with one member voting opposite and one abstaining). they can vote however they want to, or are told to by "HIGHER UPS." the main point i'm saying is that until we can eliminate the ELECTORAL COLLEGE then how we vote will never matter. anyways, just my 2 cents on the election process and all

Originally posted by iggster
Actually when I read this I see that they are checking the forclosed adresses with reported voting adresses. No name verifications just adresses. They are just making things legit is all. If you have had your home forclosed you just use your new adress to vote.

No. If you had your home forclosed on they will look it up on the list while you are standing there with a long line of people behind you and then they will explain that your home was foreclosed on and ask for a drivers liscense showing your new address. If your drivers liscense hasn't been renewed lately they will tell you, you can't vote.

It's a public shaming of those who have been forclosed on...those most likely to have an interest in voting for a "change".

They also made sure they had a press release explaining what they are going to do, to discourage voters from comming.

Originally posted by dontreadonme
This is just to ensure people aren't voting fraudulently. You true believers (Dems and Repubs) drive me crazy getting all worked up over nothing.

Yes...and these are the most sinister type of perpetrators of voter fraud.

People so devious and committed that they have allowed themselves to enter financial ruin and have even let there home be forclosed upon and are willing to be publically shamed at their local polling station come Novemeber...all so they can fraudently cast a vote!

I don't understand the problem. You've always been required to provide an accurate address to vote. If you live there, you can list it as an address. Live in a shelter? List the address, and you can vote. Live in a park? No problem.

Why would someone who has foreclosed not have an address? Are they living in cardboard boxes on the street? Them and their families? I rather doubt this, for the majority. And even if someone is completely homeless, if they want to vote, it's not a big deal to check into a shelter, a place where you can have an address. Heck, you can even designate a street corner as an official address.

They are trying to prevent someone living at Aunt Jillians to get two votes, that's all. You can still vote. They are not saying "if you have lost your home, you can't vote." They are saying "you can't use the address of a home you are not living in as registration to vote."

If they truly said something akin to the fact that have a foreclosure on your records, a bancruptcy, etc., makes you ineligible to vote, THEN I'd have serious issues.

Why wouldn't someone have an address if their home was foreclosed? No one is stopping anyone from getting their vote. More sensationalism of an article - I just love politics.

When registering to vote, homeless people may designate a shelter, park, or street corner as their residence. Fischer v. Stout, 741 P.2d 217 (Alaska 1987).

Again... what's keeping these people from voting? Homeless people can vote:

www.nationalhomeless.org...

I see nothing to keep someone who has their home foreclosed from voting.



[edit on 11-9-2008 by fleabit]

Call me crazy, but either this has been blown way out proportion by those who don't know any better, or someone is trying to instigate trouble over a non-issue.

No one is being denied their vote. Every time a registered voter moves, they must re-register. Like it or not, voter registration is tracked by address, letting people vote as close to home as possible. This was considered a convenience, so that people don't have to drive long distances just to cast a vote. There's an upside and a downside, as always, but it's not designed to be unfair.

Perhaps instead of using SS#s, we should be using voter registration cards, which must be kept updated like a driver's license. One person, one vote. Then addresses in and of themselves would not be an issue.

Voter fraud is, in fact, a big problem. One poster already made this point, using info from the '82 election. Does anyone really think it's no longer a problem? After the '04 election, I did alot of research on voter fraud, and found it was a problem all over the country, and both the Republicans and Democrats were accused and charged. Probably why neither party wanted to fully investigate the problem. Hopefully, their fraudulent efforts simply cancel each other out.

Another voter fraud problem which is not getting much attention at all, but should... "Snowbirds." Many seniors live in the northern states during the warmer months, but live in the southern states for the colder months. I have heard many, many "snowbirds" boast that they register to vote locally, and use an absentee ballot to also vote in their home state. Not cool.

Obviously, with so many empty, foreclosed homes around the country, this could be an opportunity for less-than-honest people using these homes to vote more than once. No one wants to deny anyone their right to vote. But neither should anyone want to encourage, aid and abet others in fraudulent voting. It's a two-way street.

There is a fair and responsible answer. Let's find it... instead of just assuming the worst and making wild accusations.

My GOD! Does no one posting in this thread know the Federal Election laws!?!?!?!? Does anyone understand voting districts and their importance. PLEASE, Deny ignorance instead of embracing it!

THE LAW REQUIRES that you have a valid, certifiable address within the district in which you vote. Why? Because you will then be eligible to cast ballots for/against levys, taxes, local politicians, changes to laws and codes etc... Why should someone possess the right to vote in a district where they do not live?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you no longer live at the address for which you are registered to vote - then YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE! It's pretty simple really. Perhaps this is not the best way to enforce the law, but it is still the law. It is YOUR responsibility to RE-REGISTER with your new address in order to be eligble to vote - period!

No one is going to be disenfranchised here. In fact, it is the other way around. Those who are registered within a specific district, voting for issues within their district should not have their vote negated by someone who should not be legally authorized to vote.

My goodness, how shallow and easily swayed the sheeple are!

reply to post by fleabit


Understood...BUT once upon a time they used to quiz African Americans at the voting boothe on the constitution and give them a reading test.

It was a form of humiliation aimed at suppressing specific demographics of voters.

People who have suffered financially are likely to be looking for dramatic change in DC.

I can't help but believe their is a shame factor at having someone announce your home was foreclosed on when you go to the polling station.

The way this was announced in advance makes me believe it is a subtle form of Voter suppression. If it is a legitimate concern then they can simply ask for proof of current residence without checking foreclosure notices. Social Security/Voter Registration/Drivers Liscense Numbers would seem sufficient to exclude double voting without the public shaming.

Originally posted by maybereal11
If you had your home forclosed on they will look it up on the list while you are standing there with a long line of people behind you and then they will explain that your home was foreclosed on and ask for a drivers liscense showing your new address. If your drivers liscense hasn't been renewed lately they will tell you, you can't vote.

It's a public shaming of those who have been forclosed on...those most likely to have an interest in voting for a "change".

They also made sure they had a press release explaining what they are going to do, to discourage voters from comming.

No, they will simply inform you that you are no longer registered in that district as a result of not having a current address. They will then allow you to cast a PROVISIONAL BALLOT under your new address if you still reside in that district. If you reside in a new district, you will be advised to contact the county board of elections to determine your appropriate balloting district and you will be sent there to cast a PROVISIONAL BALLOT. Once your new address has been verified and confirmed, your ballot will count as before. This all assumes that you were properly registered to vote to begin with!

The purpose of the press release was to inform people to have your sh*t in order BEFORE you come to the polls! The deadline to register to vote is October 4th. They are not trying to disenfranchise anyone, but INFORM them of what to do in the event that they no longer reside at their original address.

Honest to God people, not everything is a conspiracy against the people. This is THE LAW! JEEEEEEESH!

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


It reads to me like they do not want somebody using a fraudulent address. People are not supposed to be living in foreclosed houses. Thus somebody using such an address would be suspect of fraud.

That's crazy!

What in the world is happening? It'll be "Don't have the money to buy buy buy? Then you don't get to vote."

I hope ya'll get the things here straightened out.

Peace,
FK

Originally posted by kozmo

THE LAW REQUIRES that you have a valid, certifiable address within the district in which you vote. Why? Because you will then be eligible to cast ballots for/against levys, taxes, local politicians, changes to laws and codes etc... Why should someone possess the right to vote in a district where they do not live?

Yes. Is there a way to confirm current residence without publically announcing at the polling station that someone has been foreclosed on?

How about this...Issue a press release similiar to this one that explains that with the current housing crisis, voters should make sure they bring proof of CURRENT RESIDENCE and know where their correct polling station is.

RATHER THAN announcing that if your house was foreclosed on, we will look it up and publically call you out on it at your polling station.

I still lean toward Voter Suppression here. Not partisan. Both Dems and Rebuplicans have had a shady past in both fraud and suppression.