by Worthington Daily Globe
October 31, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Worthington Daily Globe
Minnesota’s election system, which combines Election Day registration with vouching, is among the least secure election systems in the country. Continue Reading
Tags: letter, Minnesota, Opinion, Politics 21 Comments »
You have given valid reasons to vote yes on the amendment. I agree with you totally.
Hot debate. What do you think? 23 13
Notice the writer carefully avoids the budget-busting cost of implementation which could run as high as $50-$100 million. Ask your legislators where this money will come from.
Hot debate. What do you think? 17 22
Don’t care, if we can afford a domestic foreign aid program we can afford to protect our voting system. I don’t think the cost is going to be anywhere near those numbers. You seem to be willing to give away the farm on every other issue, whets up with this?
Hot debate. What do you think? 22 15
Ahhh, what’s up ……
Like or Dislike: 14 12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
You SHOULD care. Explain how showing fiscal and budgetary responsibility and accountability is giving away the farm? Aren’t Republicans supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility? Budget deficit reduction? Not robbing Peter to pay Paul? Your position is wasteful, especially since the politicians can’t give you any details about implementation. Until you come up with more precise figures (which you won’t get from your Hamilton or anyone else) you’ll have to take my number, which came from amendment supporters in interviews. Google it. You’re buying a ‘pig in a poke’, trusting your legislators to figure it out after the election. Google it.
What exactly is “domestic foreign aid”? Isn’t that an oxymoron? And I’d rather give the money to support programs that actually promote a better quality of life for people, here and around the world. As Dennis pointed out earlier, how much more food could go on food shelves? How many potholes could be filled? Bridges fixed? You name it.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 14 25
Minneesota is #1 in voter fraud because felons are voting and that is against the law.
Give me a break! what a waste of time and money I am voting NO!
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 10 25
Here is one example of domestic foreign aid:
If you want more I’m sure I can finds hundreds if not thousands more. One thing I didn’t know was that illegal aliens will not have to pay obama care tax. I guess I should have figured that, we just have to wise-up!
Like or Dislike: 17 12
We don’t need hundreds or thousands of right-wing cut and pastes, especially off-topic. I see how you might think that “domestic aid to foreigners” qualifies, but it is a stretch.
Please, please don’t try to switch the topic to immigration or Obamacare. They are favorite topics of yours, but still try to resist.
How are you proposing to pay for Voter ID implementation?
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 13 24
If we eliminated domestic foreign aid we probably wouldn’t need voter ID. At the very least we could pay for it and have hundreds of millions left over, win-win. There is no stretch to it; it’s an absolute fact.
Hot debate. What do you think? 18 12
You’re implying that somehow voter fraud is tied to “aid to foreigners”. The 2 issues are not inter-related. Nobody other than a xenophobe is going to buy that. It’s time to get real. Talk to your elected officials about the real dilemma here — and it’s a fiscal one, not a voter fraud one.
Since you should know that foreign and domestic social programs will continue to be needed and funded, and will never go away, what REAL solution / suggestion do you have for paying for this amendment? It’s easy to whine about the problem; it’s much tougher to come up with a solution. Obviously the legislature is stumped, too.
The clear solution is to scrap this amendment, send it back to the Legislature and demand they do their job. Vote “no”.
What I do know is if our foreign welfare doesn’t go away this voter I D thing will be meaningless because we will be bankrupt anyway! Voting YES might be a start in the right direction.
Rather than vote NO I would suggest watching\ re-watching the movie 2016 Obamas America, for if you havn’t seen this documentary you don’t know what you’re voting for…
Hot debate. What do you think? 21 11
This thread isn’t about President Obama, or some propaganda piece by a conservative film maker. It didn’t make it to the local cineplex, anyway. I hope you didn’t travel too far to see it.
Are you sure you know what you’re voting for with Romney, by the way? His positions change daily. But I digress…
Voting NO on the amendment has nothing to do with the presidential race. You just can’t stay away from trying to spin immigration or Obama into the thread.
You have no answer and no solutions to the problems you think exist. Focus on that, not on things you can’t control.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 12 26
Eliminate paying over $50 million a year for students in the public schools who are here illegally. That would be a good way to start.
Hot debate. What do you think? 23 11
Broken record. It’s not going to happen. Totally unworkable. You know that.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 10 23
Oops, sorry I forgot you support lawbreakers. With your logic it you might think it would be okay for Tom Petters family to keep his stolen money, since they are innocent victims, just like the illegal students.
Hot debate. What do you think? 21 9
Wow! Have we met? How do you know I support lawbreakers? How foolish.
Maybe I was too harsh in my “broken record” reply… although it is exactly that. On second thought, you should take your idea to Rep. Hamilton and the Legislature. As Republicans, they should be the party of fiscal responsibility and would NEVER propose a program that could not be paid for somehow. At the moment, they seem short of ideas — or at the very least they haven’t communicated to anyone HOW to pay for this Voter ID program — so they may welcome your idea. Then, you can let THEM implement it. Or, since it’s your idea, you could sign up to head up the initiative to track down these students and boot them out of school. Seems practical, doesn’t it?
Feel better now?
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 11 23
I don’t think that voter ID is about a small amount of fraud here and there. It is more likely about making sure that only people who have the right to vote. are the ones voting. With the millions and millions of citizens from other countries, non-citizens, extremists, drug lords or whatever other wack jobs you have it’s an absolute necessity! It’s hard to believe that there are still some that haven’t figured that out, or have they? To me it’s either vote YES for our state\country or no for the other! A no vote would be a vote against yourself unless you might be one who could benefit from illegal voting.
I agree wholeheartedly on having voter ID, HOWEVER-in its current form this amendment is not a good way to do it. It needs to be redone. There are too many ways for it to fail. Did you know that someone who does not have a photo ID can still vote and that vote must be held for 7 days while waiting for them to produce a photo ID? What will that do to our election results? You will have to wait for all votes to be tallied for results! Also, it is too restrictive for our military as their current military ID is considered an UNACCEPTABLE form of photo ID. Why? If their ID is good enough for them to go to war why did the writers of this amendment exclude that as a valid form of ID? I think it is discriminatory to our military personnel! Also, if the elderly do not have a current form of photo ID and it is difficult for them to get out of their home or residence to get a current ID, how are they supposed to be able to vote. The amendment is too restrictive. We need rules, but we need it done right. This needs to go back to the legislature to be fine tuned before it is put out to the voters. The cost is extremely high for a system that is broken to start with. Please vote NO!
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 12 24
Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.
1.9An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the
1.10amendment is adopted, article VII, section 1, will read:
1.11Section 1. (a) Every person 18 years of age or more who has been a citizen of the
1.12United States for three months and who has resided in the precinct for 30 days next
1.13preceding an election shall be entitled to vote in that precinct. The place of voting by one
1.14otherwise qualified who has changed his residence within 30 days preceding the election
1.15shall be prescribed by law. The following persons shall not be entitled or permitted to
1.16vote at any election in this state: A person not meeting the above requirements; a person
1.17who has been convicted of treason or felony, unless restored to civil rights; a person under
1.18guardianship, or a person who is insane or not mentally competent.
1.19(b) All voters voting in person must present valid government-issued photographic
1.20identification before receiving a ballot. The state must issue photographic identification
1.21at no charge to an eligible voter who does not have a form of identification meeting the
1.22requirements of this section. A voter unable to present government-issued photographic
1.23identification must be permitted to submit a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot must
1.24only be counted if the voter certifies the provisional ballot in the manner provided by law.
2.1(c) All voters, including those not voting in person, must be subject to substantially
2.2equivalent identity and eligibility verification prior to a ballot being cast or counted.
Like or Dislike: 14 9
Please be honest. I have not seen anywhere saying that military id’s aren’t government issued id’s. The amendment says any form of government photo issued id is valid. The last time I checked the military is considered part of government.
Like or Dislike: 19 10
I have a hard time seeing any huge new cost being associated with.
Like or Dislike: 16 12
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company