OT - Any ideas to which party the "Homeless Demo" will go?

[daveparks]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeless-voters_N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.

U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.

Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.

The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.

The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end

First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

[Nathan Sanders]

In article

Post by daveparks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeless-voters_
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Nathan

[daveparks]

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles...
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?
Nathan

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

[Nathan Sanders]

In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles...
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside. Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

Do you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Nathan

[daveparks]

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles...
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside.  Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

If someone should decide to rest on the bench - can the homeless
person have them evicted?
Or what if someone scooches the bench over to a picnic table for more
seating - is it now a Homeless Condo? LOL!!

Post by Nathan Sanders
Do you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?
Nathan

[Nathan Sanders]

In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles..
.
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside.

If someone should decide to rest on the bench - can the homeless
person have them evicted?

Of course not. Plenty of people reside in places they don't own, and
plenty of people can evict someone from a location that they don't
reside in. The two concepts (residence, ability to evict someone) are
not necessarily linked.

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

No answer?

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
Do you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Still no answer?

It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?

If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?

If not, why not? Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?

Nathan

[daveparks]

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles..
.
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside.

If someone should decide to rest on the bench - can the homeless
person have them evicted?

Of course not.  Plenty of people reside in places they don't own, and
plenty of people can evict someone from a location that they don't
reside in.  The two concepts (residence, ability to evict someone) are
not necessarily linked.

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

No answer?

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
Do you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Still no answer?
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?
If not, why not?  Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?
Nathan

If the bench gets moved - can the homeless person re-locate to under a
Slide? It does offer more protection from the elements.

Why park benches? Why not Freeway Overpasses? Does Ohio not have
freeways?

[Nathan Sanders]

In article

Post by daveparks
If the bench gets moved - can the homeless person re-locate to under a
Slide? It does offer more protection from the elements.

Do you think homeless people should be legally allowed to vote?

If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?

If not, why not?  Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?

Post by daveparks
Why park benches? Why not Freeway Overpasses? Does Ohio not have
freeways?

As if you wouldn't whine about freeway overpasses, too. What could a
homeless person write down for "legal residence" that you *wouldn't*
write about?

I wish I could say it's just amusing that conservatives are pissing
their pants about the possibility that citizens of all socioeconomic
levels might actually vote, but it's really kinda scary just how
regressive their views on democracy really are.

White property owners only, please!

Nathan

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks
If the bench gets moved - can the homeless person re-locate to under a
Slide? It does offer more protection from the elements.

Do you think homeless people should be legally allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?
If not, why not?  Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?

"Ten of the original 13 states had property and/or tax requirements when
the U.S. Constitution came into effect. Eligibility to vote for
representatives would be based on each state's rules for voting on the
state legislature's lower house. For example, the 1777 New York State
Constitution required that a man have considerable wealth to be able to
vote for the state Assembly - he had to pay taxes as well as own property
worth at least 20 pounds or pay an annual rent of 2 pounds."

So you see, universal suffrage didn't arrive until the 20th century. Nor
did socialism, for that matter. Do you see the connection? Allow park
bench vagrants to vote, and they will vote for representatives who promise
to pick the next guy's pocket.

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks
If the bench gets moved - can the homeless person re-locate to under a
Slide? It does offer more protection from the elements.

Do you think homeless people should be legally allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?
If not, why not?  Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?

"Ten of the original 13 states had property and/or tax requirements when
the U.S. Constitution came into effect. Eligibility to vote for
representatives would be based on each state's rules for voting on the
state legislature's lower house. For example, the 1777 New York State
Constitution required that a man have considerable wealth to be able to
vote for the state Assembly - he had to pay taxes as well as own property
worth at least 20 pounds or pay an annual rent of 2 pounds."
So you see, universal suffrage didn't arrive until the 20th century. Nor
did socialism, for that matter.

Giving women the right to vote didn't arrive until the 20th century
either. How about we regress back to the 1910s? Time after time, it
seems like that's exactly the world you'd be happy with.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Do you see the connection? Allow park
bench vagrants to vote, and they will vote for representatives who promise
to pick the next guy's pocket.

I see the connection: your realization that a clear majority of
Americans don't agree with your politics, a majority that happens to
be disproportionately distributed among groups who you find to be easy
targets for vote suppression.

From there, it's not too much of a leap to see what the obvious
political strategy should be: suppress enough votes from those groups
who disproportionately disagree with you and who are most vulnerable
to various legal and pragmatic hurdles to voting (under the pretense
of protecting against "voter fraud"), and suddenly, your minority
political viewpoints look a lot more robust than they really are.

Nathan

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
"Ten of the original 13 states had property and/or tax requirements
when the U.S. Constitution came into effect. Eligibility to vote for
representatives would be based on each state's rules for voting on
the state legislature's lower house. For example, the 1777 New York
State Constitution required that a man have considerable wealth to be
able to vote for the state Assembly - he had to pay taxes as well as
own property worth at least 20 pounds or pay an annual rent of 2
pounds."
So you see, universal suffrage didn't arrive until the 20th century.
Nor did socialism, for that matter.

Giving women the right to vote didn't arrive until the 20th century
either. How about we regress back to the 1910s? Time after time, it
seems like that's exactly the world you'd be happy with.

Suzanne D might well be a strong, supportive case in point there.

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
Do you see the connection? Allow park
bench vagrants to vote, and they will vote for representatives who
promise to pick the next guy's pocket.

I see the connection: your realization that a clear majority of
Americans don't agree with your politics, a majority that happens to
be disproportionately distributed among groups who you find to be easy
targets for vote suppression.
From there, it's not too much of a leap to see what the obvious
political strategy should be: suppress enough votes from those groups
who disproportionately disagree with you and who are most vulnerable
to various legal and pragmatic hurdles to voting (under the pretense
of protecting against "voter fraud"), and suddenly, your minority
political viewpoints look a lot more robust than they really are.

Wrong. I have SPECIFICALLY kept vote fraud as a separable problem from
that of unqualified voters. You seem astonished that the groups I
singled out do not agree with my politics. Why would they voluntarily
give up their influence, especially when it means they would have to
stop picking my pocket?? Think, Nathan. Think.

[zob]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:16:44 -0700 (PDT), daveparks

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles..
.
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double -
and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside.

If someone should decide to rest on the bench - can the homeless
person have them evicted?

Of course not.  Plenty of people reside in places they don't own, and
plenty of people can evict someone from a location that they don't
reside in.  The two concepts (residence, ability to evict someone) are
not necessarily linked.

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

No answer?

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
Do you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Still no answer?
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?
If not, why not?  Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?
Nathan

If the bench gets moved - can the homeless person re-locate to under a
Slide? It does offer more protection from the elements.
Why park benches? Why not Freeway Overpasses? Does Ohio not have
freeways?

Dave, you sound like McCain now. You cannot answer the question asked
of you, so you keep trying to divert the issue away from your lack of
a legitimate direct answer.

What do * you* think that Holmes Americans should use as their legal
address in order to be able to exercise their right to vote?

Just answer the question, please. I'd like to know the answer also.

[Mickey]

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles..
.
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside.

If someone should decide to rest on the bench - can the homeless
person have them evicted?

Of course not. Plenty of people reside in places they don't own, and
plenty of people can evict someone from a location that they don't
reside in. The two concepts (residence, ability to evict someone) are
not necessarily linked.

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

No answer?

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
Do you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Still no answer?
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?

What are the requirement in your state to establish residence status,
say enough to qualify for in state tuition at a state university?

Post by Nathan Sanders
If not, why not? Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?

The point is to unambiguously establish that the voter actually resides
in the precinct in which he will vote. Consider the possible
ramification of residents of one precinct claiming residence on a park
bench in some other precinct just to insure that a candidate of from
their party can steal an election. You defeat the entire rationale for a
republican form of government and erode protection for minority rights.
How about a couple of hundred thousand Idaho skin heads claiming
residency on a park bench in Harlem, then voting absentee. How well or
fairly is Harlem represented? And under your theory it wouldn't even be
fraud. Home is wherever you say it is.

No system is 100% perfect, but in this case the judiciary is screwing
the pooch, big time.

The Other Mickey

Post by Nathan Sanders
Nathan

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by Mickey

Post by Nathan Sanders
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?

What are the requirement in your state to establish residence status,
say enough to qualify for in state tuition at a state university?

http://www.sudbury.ma.us/services/individual_faq.asp?id=128

Post by Mickey

Post by Nathan Sanders
If not, why not? Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?

The point is to unambiguously establish that the voter actually resides
in the precinct in which he will vote.

As you point out below, no system is perfect. There are two main
sources of possible error: preventing a valid vote from being cast,
and allowing an invalid vote to be cast. It is impossible to
eliminate both errors. Decreasing one error type leads to a necessary
increase in the other type (by the same principles underlying Type I
and Type II errors in statistics).

So the question is, which is worse: denying someone their right to
vote, or having someone (attempt to) abuse the system?

My view is that people are always going to try to abuse the system
anyway, so try to balance it out by letting as many real voters cast
their vote as possible. It's the same principle underlying my belief
in loosening/eliminating restrictions on gun ownership and
recreational drugs. Why trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens
in an effort to snuff out the unwelcome behavior that's going to
happen anyway?

Post by Mickey
Consider the possible
ramification of residents of one precinct claiming residence on a park
bench in some other precinct just to insure that a candidate of from
their party can steal an election.

If you already have a residence (by paying property taxes or signing a
rental agreement), then you've already established your residence.
You can't just switch it when it's already on the books.

Only homeless people would potentially be able to claim different
precincts, and they're the least likely to have the means to get from
one precinct to the next anyway.

Post by Mickey
You defeat the entire rationale for a
republican form of government and erode protection for minority rights.
How about a couple of hundred thousand Idaho skin heads claiming
residency on a park bench in Harlem, then voting absentee. How well or
fairly is Harlem represented? And under your theory it wouldn't even be
fraud. Home is wherever you say it is.

Not if "where you say it is" contradicts legal fact (property taxes,
rental contracts, etc.). But yes, in the absence of any legal tie to
a particular address, your home is where you say it is. Where else
would it be?

Post by Mickey
No system is 100% perfect, but in this case the judiciary is screwing
the pooch, big time.

I feel much better about a government that makes it easier for
citizens to vote than a government that makes it harder. We already
have an embarrassingly low voter turnout in this country as it is.

Nathan

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nathan Sanders
As you point out below, no system is perfect. There are two main
sources of possible error: preventing a valid vote from being cast,
and allowing an invalid vote to be cast. It is impossible to
eliminate both errors. Decreasing one error type leads to a necessary
increase in the other type (by the same principles underlying Type I
and Type II errors in statistics).

But every invalid vote cancels a valid vote. And you left out the most
important case: "valid" votes cast by leeches and bums. They shouldn't
have a right to vote.

Post by Nathan Sanders
So the question is, which is worse: denying someone their right to
vote, or having someone (attempt to) abuse the system?
My view is that people are always going to try to abuse the system
anyway, so try to balance it out by letting as many real voters cast
their vote as possible. It's the same principle underlying my belief
in loosening/eliminating restrictions on gun ownership and
recreational drugs. Why trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens
in an effort to snuff out the unwelcome behavior that's going to
happen anyway?

It's easy to dramatically reduce the number of invalid votes.

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by Mickey
Consider the possible
ramification of residents of one precinct claiming residence on a park
bench in some other precinct just to insure that a candidate of from
their party can steal an election.

If you already have a residence (by paying property taxes or signing a
rental agreement), then you've already established your residence.
You can't just switch it when it's already on the books.
Only homeless people would potentially be able to claim different
precincts, and they're the least likely to have the means to get from
one precinct to the next anyway.

Yea, lack of mobility is sufficient safeguard for the system. LOL. And
besides, I could register on park benches in border cities of a few
states, stop showering for a couple weeks before the first Tuesday in
November, and commit fraud myself. I don't have to be homeless. I only
have to say I'm homeless. I mean, I presume park bench dwellers can't
get state identification with their park bench listed on it, right?

Post by Nathan Sanders
I feel much better about a government that makes it easier for
citizens to vote than a government that makes it harder. We already
have an embarrassingly low voter turnout in this country as it is.

I prefer a government that makes it easier for legitimate, productive
Americans to vote ONCE.

[i***@yahoo.com]

leeches and bums.  They shouldn't
have a right to vote.

Jesus Christ himself couldn't have said it better!

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by b***@gmail.com
And you left out the most
important case: "valid" votes cast by leeches and bums. They shouldn't
have a right to vote.

Finally, someone who has the balls to actually just blurt out their
true feelings, rather than dancing around the issue talking about
nonsense like freeway underpasses and gangs of homeless people hopping
from precinct to precinct.

Too bad more of your ilk aren't as straightforward. You'd get a lot
fewer votes than you already do.

Nathan

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
And you left out the most
important case: "valid" votes cast by leeches and bums. They shouldn't
have a right to vote.

Finally, someone who has the balls to actually just blurt out their
true feelings, rather than dancing around the issue talking about
nonsense like freeway underpasses and gangs of homeless people hopping
from precinct to precinct.
Too bad more of your ilk aren't as straightforward. You'd get a lot
fewer votes than you already do.
Nathan

Yea, the system worked a lot better when this was the case. Like it or
not.

[Mickey]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by Mickey

Post by Nathan Sanders
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?

What are the requirement in your state to establish residence status,
say enough to qualify for in state tuition at a state university?

http://www.sudbury.ma.us/services/individual_faq.asp?id=128

Post by Mickey

Post by Nathan Sanders
If not, why not? Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?

The point is to unambiguously establish that the voter actually resides
in the precinct in which he will vote.

As you point out below, no system is perfect. There are two main
sources of possible error: preventing a valid vote from being cast,
and allowing an invalid vote to be cast. It is impossible to
eliminate both errors. Decreasing one error type leads to a necessary
increase in the other type (by the same principles underlying Type I
and Type II errors in statistics).
So the question is, which is worse: denying someone their right to
vote, or having someone (attempt to) abuse the system?

No, the question is why do the people who wish to reduce Type I errors
work so hard to defeat efforts to reduce Type II errors. Is there a
political agenda? You bet.

Post by Nathan Sanders
My view is that people are always going to try to abuse the system
anyway, so try to balance it out by letting as many real voters cast
their vote as possible. It's the same principle underlying my belief
in loosening/eliminating restrictions on gun ownership and
recreational drugs. Why trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens
in an effort to snuff out the unwelcome behavior that's going to
happen anyway?

Post by Mickey
Consider the possible
ramification of residents of one precinct claiming residence on a park
bench in some other precinct just to insure that a candidate of from
their party can steal an election.

If you already have a residence (by paying property taxes or signing a
rental agreement), then you've already established your residence.
You can't just switch it when it's already on the books.

Sure you can. We are free to move around the country as we wish. We
simply declare one residence our "summer home." Then switch back when
convenient. As most easily enforceable residence definitions, other than
voting under these new regimes, require only a majority of time in a
residence, changing, for elections only, would not be a problem.

Post by Nathan Sanders
Only homeless people would potentially be able to claim different
precincts, and they're the least likely to have the means to get from
one precinct to the next anyway.

So, we now create a new protected class. Jeez.

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by Mickey
You defeat the entire rationale for a
republican form of government and erode protection for minority rights.
How about a couple of hundred thousand Idaho skin heads claiming
residency on a park bench in Harlem, then voting absentee. How well or
fairly is Harlem represented? And under your theory it wouldn't even be
fraud. Home is wherever you say it is.

Not if "where you say it is" contradicts legal fact (property taxes,
rental contracts, etc.). But yes, in the absence of any legal tie to
a particular address, your home is where you say it is. Where else
would it be?

My other home, of course. I have friends who own homes in multiple
states. How is not owning homes in multiple states any different. How is
owning a home in one state but living in another different state. If you
can't discriminate against a person for not have a permanent residence
you sure as hell can't discriminate against someone else just because
they do. Residence, under your regime, is an artificial (and politically
convenient) construct. In other words, it is a scam.

The Other Mickey

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nathan Sanders
Still no answer?
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?
If not, why not? Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?
Nathan

Thinking aloud, how about: you can vote if you pay property taxes on your
current residence, or if your spouse (of the opposite sex) does. This way
we (theoretically) eliminate those who don't pay income taxes and renters
(which are probably split 50/50 between politcally naive young people, and
lower class dregs) - two groups who have no business being involved in the
decisions of how to spend YOUR money. Although these regulations still
leave one critical issue to be dealt with: how to keep the old farts from
voting themselves more benefits. Hummmm.... I'm sure we can think of
something.

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nathan Sanders
Still no answer?
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?
If not, why not? Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?

Thinking aloud, how about: you can vote if you pay property taxes on your
current residence, or if your spouse (of the opposite sex) does. This way
we (theoretically) eliminate those who don't pay income taxes and renters
(which are probably split 50/50 between politcally naive young people, and
lower class dregs) - two groups who have no business being involved in the
decisions of how to spend YOUR money. Although these regulations still
leave one critical issue to be dealt with: how to keep the old farts from
voting themselves more benefits. Hummmm.... I'm sure we can think of
something.

If we just made you Emporer, this would be a lot simpler.

Nathan

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nathan Sanders
Still no answer?
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?
If not, why not? Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?

Thinking aloud, how about: you can vote if you pay property taxes on
your current residence, or if your spouse (of the opposite sex) does.
This way we (theoretically) eliminate those who don't pay income
taxes and renters (which are probably split 50/50 between politcally
naive young people, and lower class dregs) - two groups who have no
business being involved in the decisions of how to spend YOUR money.
Although these regulations still leave one critical issue to be dealt
with: how to keep the old farts from voting themselves more benefits.
Hummmm.... I'm sure we can think of something.

If we just made you Emporer, this would be a lot simpler.
Nathan

It's very simple in the first place. Reasonable measures to eradicate
voter fraud must be taken, and political sensitivity must not be a
consideration.

[PB]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nathan Sanders
Still no answer?
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?
If not, why not? Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?
Nathan

Thinking aloud, how about: you can vote if you pay property taxes on your
current residence, or if your spouse (of the opposite sex) does. This way
we (theoretically) eliminate those who don't pay income taxes and renters
(which are probably split 50/50 between politcally naive young people, and
lower class dregs) - two groups who have no business being involved in the
decisions of how to spend YOUR money.

Renters shouldn't vote? LOL! I rent a VERY nice condo in NYC. And I rent
because I prefer the convenience of it. My roof leaks? 'Fix it Mr.
Landlord.' My washer broke? 'Hey Mr. Super, get me a repair guy.'
'Building party on the roof? Sweet, I'm in!'

I rent for the service factor and social factor and the lack of headaches
and worries. My life is hectic enough without worrying about homeowner
bullshit necessary to just live in a relatively decent domicile in a
location I adore.

It certainly doesn't have ANYTHING to do with whether or not I should be
able to vote, or being young or naïve. Mostly it makes me simply extremely
able to afford to buy back my own time and luxuries. And I value my time
just.that.much. After all, I can afford anything else I need in life, but
there ain't no gettin' back time. Ever. No way, no how. You can't beg it,
borrow it, or steal it -- but you can, sort of, buy it.

And I do! Happily! :P

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by PB

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nathan Sanders
Still no answer?
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?
If not, why not? Why do you think owning (or just renting) a
particular kind of property should be a legal requirement for
exercising your right to vote?
Nathan

Thinking aloud, how about: you can vote if you pay property taxes on
your current residence, or if your spouse (of the opposite sex) does.
This way we (theoretically) eliminate those who don't pay income
taxes and renters (which are probably split 50/50 between politcally
naive young people, and lower class dregs) - two groups who have no
business being involved in the decisions of how to spend YOUR money.

Renters shouldn't vote? LOL! I rent a VERY nice condo in NYC. And I
rent because I prefer the convenience of it. My roof leaks? 'Fix it
Mr. Landlord.' My washer broke? 'Hey Mr. Super, get me a repair
guy.' 'Building party on the roof? Sweet, I'm in!'
I rent for the service factor and social factor and the lack of
headaches and worries. My life is hectic enough without worrying
about homeowner bullshit necessary to just live in a relatively decent
domicile in a location I adore.
It certainly doesn't have ANYTHING to do with whether or not I should
be able to vote, or being young or naïve. Mostly it makes me simply
extremely able to afford to buy back my own time and luxuries. And I
value my time just.that.much. After all, I can afford anything else I
need in life, but there ain't no gettin' back time. Ever. No way, no
how. You can't beg it, borrow it, or steal it -- but you can, sort
of, buy it.
And I do! Happily! :P

Oh come on, Pen. By now you know I throw in a little hyperbole here and
there.

PS. DC is gonna be on SNL right? Or did you already cover that in a
post?

[Cheri]

Post by Nathan Sanders
It's really simple: do you think homeless people should be legally
allowed to vote?
If so, then what do you think they should write down for "legal
residence"?

Streets of Laredo, Streets of Bakersfield, Lonesome Street, On the Street
Where you Live? Any of those could work. Feel free to add another
"residence" if those don't work for you.

Cheri

[i***@yahoo.com]

Whenever they get called out for their inhuman bullshit, the
Republicans swear up and down that it's not VOTING to which they
object...it's the definition of words.


They pull the same crap when they tell you they're not against gay
marriage because they hate gay people...they're just trying to protect
a WORD

[Suzanne D.]

"Nathan Sanders" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nathansanders-

Post by Nathan Sanders
If that's where you reside. Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

That's actually an interesting question. They have to be allowed to vote,
as they are Americans, yet you have to have a legal residence in order to
vote.

Is there some provision whereby homeless people can give a legal residence,
such as a shelter?
--S.

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by Suzanne D.
news:nathansanders-

Post by Nathan Sanders
If that's where you reside. Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

That's actually an interesting question. They have to be allowed to vote,
as they are Americans, yet you have to have a legal residence in order to
vote.
Is there some provision whereby homeless people can give a legal residence,
such as a shelter?

One would hope that that is a viable option.

Nathan

[Suzanne D.]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by Suzanne D.
news:nathansanders-

Post by Nathan Sanders
If that's where you reside. Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

That's actually an interesting question. They have to be allowed to vote,
as they are Americans, yet you have to have a legal residence in order to
vote.
Is there some provision whereby homeless people can give a legal residence,
such as a shelter?

One would hope that that is a viable option.

Much, MUCH better than "Homeless people and people who rent their homes
instead of own them shouldn't be allowed to vote."
--S.

[zob]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:15:47 -0600, "Suzanne D."

Post by Suzanne D.
news:nathansanders-

Post by Nathan Sanders
If that's where you reside. Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

That's actually an interesting question. They have to be allowed to vote,
as they are Americans, yet you have to have a legal residence in order to
vote.
Is there some provision whereby homeless people can give a legal residence,
such as a shelter?
--S.

I'm involved in my church's outreach to the homeless. It's a large
denominational downtown church, and close to 1/3 of our congregation
are homeless. We have a large "soup kitchen" where many of these
people eat their meals.Some used the church as their home address for
voter registration purpose.

[Cheri]

Post by zob
I'm involved in my church's outreach to the homeless. It's a large
denominational downtown church, and close to 1/3 of our congregation
are homeless. We have a large "soup kitchen" where many of these
people eat their meals.Some used the church as their home address for
voter registration purpose.

That makes sense to me.

[Vandar]

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles...
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside. Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

A shelter.

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by Vandar

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles...
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside. Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

A shelter.

I agree.

But I don't see much of a practical difference between that and a park
been to avoid the fears that hordes of homeless people will go around
registering in different parts of the country.

But yeah, shelters should be allowed.

Nathan

[Vandar]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by Vandar

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles...
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside. Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

A shelter.

I agree.
But I don't see much of a practical difference between that and a park
been to avoid the fears that hordes of homeless people will go around
registering in different parts of the country.
But yeah, shelters should be allowed.

I doubt any homeless will be traveling aorund the country voting in
various districts tuesday, but not because the Obama campaign couldn't
afford it.

That said, there is an established criteria that one must meet in order
to qualify to vote. In most cases, that criteria is over 18, competent,
not a felon, legal residency. That last is why the homeless voting is
questionable, imo. A park bench doesn't have a specific address. You
can't deliver mail there. You don't pay property taxes or rent if you
live there. I can't see a bench being considered a legal residence for
the purposes of voting.
Now, if a homeless person who lives on a bench wishes to list a shelter
as their legal residence (with the shelter's approval, of course), then
I have no problem with them being allowed to vote as long as they meet
the other criteria as well.

[Salad]

Post by Vandar

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles...
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside. Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

A shelter.

Not every homeless person uses a shelter. I know that when it gets
bitterly cold some simply won't go to a shelter for the warmth even with
concerted efforts to get the homeless to one.

[Vandar]

Post by Salad

Post by Vandar

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles...
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ð A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

If that's where you reside. Where do *you* think a homeless person's
"legal residence" should be?

A shelter.

Not every homeless person uses a shelter. I know that when it gets
bitterly cold some simply won't go to a shelter for the warmth even with
concerted efforts to get the homeless to one.

Then they haven't established residency in that district and shouldn't
be permitted to vote there.

[topcat]

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles...
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?
Nathan

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!

****************

As far as I know, there is no "national" voter registration list, so think
about the ramifications of letting someone say they live in Ohio or Florida
based solely on their attachment to a park bench. Hundreds of Obama
supporters who don't live in Ohio or Florida could register there simply by
saying they're homeless. ACORN probably loves this.

TC

[daveparks]

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeles...
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double - and
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?
Nathan

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!
****************
As far as I know, there is no "national" voter registration list, so think
about the ramifications of letting someone say they live in Ohio or Florida
based solely on their attachment to a park bench. Hundreds of Obama
supporters who don't live in Ohio or Florida could register there simply by
saying they're homeless. ACORN probably loves this.
TC

Yup - "I live in Central Park, third bench from the Monkey Bars today,
but next week I'll be vacationing in Yellow Stone and plan to list a
bench overlooking Old Faithful."

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by daveparks

news:59e68c6b-3f3d-45d4-a891-

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
<d0d1df95-2a76-4013-a903-d2ec3e2a9...

@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-

homel

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
es.

..

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that
counti

es

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other
locations that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional
ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement
between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In
return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify
provisional ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and
now park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double
- an

d

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because
they can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a
sufficient amount of money should have a voice?
Nathan

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!
****************
As far as I know, there is no "national" voter registration list, so
thin

k

about the ramifications of letting someone say they live in Ohio or
Flori

da

based solely on their attachment to a park bench. Hundreds of Obama
supporters who don't live in Ohio or Florida could register there
simply

by

saying they're homeless. ACORN probably loves this.
TC

Yup - "I live in Central Park, third bench from the Monkey Bars today,
but next week I'll be vacationing in Yellow Stone and plan to list a
bench overlooking Old Faithful."

Given a few park benches and a Grayhound bus pass, one could vote in
several swing states on any given election day!

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by daveparks

news:59e68c6b-3f3d-45d4-a891-

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
<d0d1df95-2a76-4013-a903-d2ec3e2a9...

@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-

homel

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
es.

..

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that
counti

es

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other
locations that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional
ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement
between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In
return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify
provisional ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and
now park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double
- an

d

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because
they can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a
sufficient amount of money should have a voice?
Nathan

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal residence?
LOL!!
****************
As far as I know, there is no "national" voter registration list, so
thin

k

about the ramifications of letting someone say they live in Ohio or
Flori

da

based solely on their attachment to a park bench. Hundreds of Obama
supporters who don't live in Ohio or Florida could register there
simply

by

saying they're homeless. ACORN probably loves this.
TC

Yup - "I live in Central Park, third bench from the Monkey Bars today,
but next week I'll be vacationing in Yellow Stone and plan to list a
bench overlooking Old Faithful."

Given a few park benches and a Grayhound bus pass, one could vote in
several swing states on any given election day!

Yeah, because homeless people have the money to blow on a Greyhound
for the sake of casting extra votes in Ohio and Florida.

Nathan

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by daveparks

news:59e68c6b-3f3d-45d4-a891-

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
<d0d1df95-2a76-4013-a903-d2ec3e2a9...

@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-

homel

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
es.

..

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that
counti

es

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other
locations that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional
ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement
between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In
return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify
provisional ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of

provisional

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and
now park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double
- an

d

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because
they can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a
sufficient amount of money should have a voice?
Nathan

Do you think a 'park bench' should be considered a legal

residence?

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by daveparks

LOL!!
****************
As far as I know, there is no "national" voter registration list, so
thin

k

about the ramifications of letting someone say they live in Ohio or
Flori

da

based solely on their attachment to a park bench. Hundreds of Obama
supporters who don't live in Ohio or Florida could register there
simply

by

saying they're homeless. ACORN probably loves this.
TC

Yup - "I live in Central Park, third bench from the Monkey Bars today,
but next week I'll be vacationing in Yellow Stone and plan to list a
bench overlooking Old Faithful."

Given a few park benches and a Grayhound bus pass, one could vote in
several swing states on any given election day!

Yeah, because homeless people have the money to blow on a Greyhound
for the sake of casting extra votes in Ohio and Florida.
Nathan

I'm sure ACORN could subsidize a few hundred thousand round trip passes.
There is probably even a group rate available.

[i***@yahoo.com]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Given a few park benches and a Grayhound bus pass, one could vote in
several swing states on any given election day!

What could that possibly accomplish?

Are you really afraid there are legions of homeless people massing to
game the election?

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
Given a few park benches and a Grayhound bus pass, one could vote in
several swing states on any given election day!

What could that possibly accomplish?
Are you really afraid there are legions of homeless people massing to
game the election?

Why must they be homeless in order to do so?

[i***@yahoo.com]

Post by daveparks
Yup - "I live in Central Park, third bench from the Monkey Bars today,
but next week I'll be vacationing in Yellow Stone and plan to list a
bench overlooking Old Faithful."

It really burns you up that a homeless person's vote counts the same
as yours, doesn't it...?

[Suzanne D.]

Post by daveparks
Yup - "I live in Central Park, third bench from the Monkey Bars today,
but next week I'll be vacationing in Yellow Stone and plan to list a
bench overlooking Old Faithful."
It really burns you up that a homeless person's vote counts the same

as yours, doesn't it...?

Did someone say "Elitist"?
--S.

[daveparks]

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by daveparks
Yup - "I live in Central Park, third bench from the Monkey Bars today,
but next week I'll be vacationing in Yellow Stone and plan to list a
bench overlooking Old Faithful."

It really burns you up that a homeless person's vote counts the same
as yours, doesn't it...?

Not near as much as someone addressing the possibility of voter fraud
seems to do to you. LOL!..

[i***@yahoo.com]

Post by topcat
Hundreds of Obama
supporters who don't live in Ohio or Florida could register there simply by
saying they're homeless.

But not McCain supporters...?

[Cheri]

Post by topcat
Hundreds of Obama
supporters who don't live in Ohio or Florida could register there simply by
saying they're homeless.

But not McCain supporters...?

=============

I didn't know there *were* any homeless McCain supporters. LOL

Cheri

[topcat]

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by topcat
Hundreds of Obama
supporters who don't live in Ohio or Florida could register there simply by
saying they're homeless.

But not McCain supporters...?
=============
I didn't know there *were* any homeless McCain supporters. LOL
Cheri

There are no McCain supporters. Only Palin supporters.

TC

[Suzanne D.]

Post by topcat

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by topcat
Hundreds of Obama
supporters who don't live in Ohio or Florida could register there simply by
saying they're homeless.

But not McCain supporters...?
=============
I didn't know there *were* any homeless McCain supporters. LOL
Cheri

There are no McCain supporters. Only Palin supporters.

And not even really many of those.
--S.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-

homeless

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
-voters_ N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double -
and leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?
Nathan

At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-

homeless

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
-voters_ N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double -
and leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Why do you hate democracy?

Nathan

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Why do you hate democracy?
Nathan

How many times does the word "democracy" or "democratic" appear in the US
Constitution? Zero. Why? Because we're not a pure democracy, we're a
republic; a republic that worked much better when the right to vote wasn't
handed out to people sleeping on park benches.

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Why do you hate democracy?

How many times does the word "democracy" or "democratic" appear in the US
Constitution? Zero. Why? Because we're not a pure democracy, we're a
republic; a republic that worked much better when the right to vote wasn't
handed out to people sleeping on park benches.

So why do you hate democracy?

Nathan

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Why do you hate democracy?

How many times does the word "democracy" or "democratic" appear in
the US Constitution? Zero. Why? Because we're not a pure
democracy, we're a republic; a republic that worked much better when
the right to vote wasn't handed out to people sleeping on park
benches.

So why do you hate democracy?
Nathan

I don't hate democracy; I hate the political correctness which labels as
haters those who believe in protecting the integrity of our democratic
system by aggresively cracking down on vote fraud. And further, it's hard
to argue (as you seem to be discovering) that our system of government
didn't work better when the above was the case. If you allow leeches and
bums to vote, they will elect representatives of equally low calibur. Kind
of intuitive, no?

[i***@yahoo.com]

Post by b***@gmail.com
I don't hate democracy; I hate the political correctness which labels as
haters those who believe in protecting the integrity of our democratic
system by aggresively cracking down on vote fraud.

Why is a vote cast by a homeless person a fraudulent vote?

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
I don't hate democracy; I hate the political correctness which labels as
haters those who believe in protecting the integrity of our democratic
system by aggresively cracking down on vote fraud.

Why is a vote cast by a homeless person a fraudulent vote?

It may or may not be. You are equally confused by the difference between
invalid and fraudulent. But either way, it is still ridiculous and it
needs to be fixed. People who contribute nothing to society have no
business electing our leaders.

[i***@yahoo.com]

 People who contribute nothing to society have no
business electing our leaders.

Who gets to decide who's a contributor to society?

YOU?

[zob]

Post by i***@yahoo.com

 People who contribute nothing to society have no
business electing our leaders.

Who gets to decide who's a contributor to society?
YOU?

I've had Brian killfiled for months, because it was obvious to me that
he has no meaningful contributions to anything. He should not be
allowed to vote by his own standard.

[Mickey]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Why do you hate democracy?

How many times does the word "democracy" or "democratic" appear in the US
Constitution? Zero. Why? Because we're not a pure democracy, we're a
republic; a republic that worked much better when the right to vote wasn't
handed out to people sleeping on park benches.

So why do you hate democracy?

It would seem our founders hated democracy, as well, or at least your
vision of it, which approaches being mob rule. We are a democracy, a
representative republic with retained vestiges from the confederacy
which preceded it. For a large heterogeneous country, it was and is an
excellent compromise, one folk of your bent would dismantle in favor of
some sort of intractable socialist utopia.

The Other Mickey

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by Mickey

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Why do you hate democracy?

How many times does the word "democracy" or "democratic" appear in the US
Constitution? Zero. Why? Because we're not a pure democracy, we're a
republic; a republic that worked much better when the right to vote wasn't
handed out to people sleeping on park benches.

So why do you hate democracy?

It would seem our founders hated democracy, as well, or at least your
vision of it, which approaches being mob rule. We are a democracy, a
representative republic with retained vestiges from the confederacy
which preceded it. For a large heterogeneous country, it was and is an
excellent compromise, one folk of your bent would dismantle in favor of
some sort of intractable socialist utopia.

Giving every person a vote isn't socialist. It's just the right thing
to do.

Nathan

[Cheri]

Post by Nathan Sanders
Giving every person a vote isn't socialist. It's just the right thing
to do.
Nathan

Now you sound like Wilford Brimley pitching Quaker Oats. ;-)

Cheri

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by Cheri

Post by Nathan Sanders
Giving every person a vote isn't socialist. It's just the right thing
to do.
Nathan

Now you sound like Wilford Brimley pitching Quaker Oats. ;-)

Hahaha, totally!

Nathan

[Vandar]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by Cheri

Post by Nathan Sanders
Giving every person a vote isn't socialist. It's just the right thing
to do.
Nathan

Now you sound like Wilford Brimley pitching Quaker Oats. ;-)

Hahaha, totally!

Do you want to talk to us about "diabeetus"?

[Mickey]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by Mickey

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Why do you hate democracy?

How many times does the word "democracy" or "democratic" appear in the US
Constitution? Zero. Why? Because we're not a pure democracy, we're a
republic; a republic that worked much better when the right to vote wasn't
handed out to people sleeping on park benches.

So why do you hate democracy?

It would seem our founders hated democracy, as well, or at least your
vision of it, which approaches being mob rule. We are a democracy, a
representative republic with retained vestiges from the confederacy
which preceded it. For a large heterogeneous country, it was and is an
excellent compromise, one folk of your bent would dismantle in favor of
some sort of intractable socialist utopia.

Giving every person a vote isn't socialist. It's just the right thing
to do.

I'm not convinced of rightness of it, unless the officials elected are
willing to adopt Edmund Burke's philosophy of a legislator:

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement;
and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your
opinion."

I see scant evidence of men of such character these days in Washington
D.C., so until I do, I would just as soon see the vote reserved to the
better informed parts of the electorate, whether they agree with me or not.


BTW, anyone who is curious as to what I'm about politically might go to

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edmund_burke.html

for a sampling or to any writing by or about Burke. Burke provides an
excellent model of what we should expect from our government.

For Nathan, a cautionary word, again from Burke:

"In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising
the most cruel oppressions upon the minority."

Connected up to what I quoted earlier from de Tocqueville and you've
pretty well have what concerns me about recent elections.


The Other Mickey

[daveparks]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by Mickey

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
the

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Why do you hate democracy?

How many times does the word "democracy" or "democratic" appear in the US
Constitution?  Zero.  Why?  Because we're not a pure democracy, we're a
republic; a republic that worked much better when the right to vote wasn't
handed out to people sleeping on park benches.  

So why do you hate democracy?

It would seem our founders hated democracy, as well, or at least your
vision of it, which approaches being mob rule. We are a democracy, a
representative republic with retained vestiges from the confederacy
which preceded it. For a large heterogeneous country, it was and is an
excellent compromise, one folk of your bent would dismantle in favor of
some sort of intractable socialist utopia.

Giving every person a vote isn't socialist.
Nathan

No one is denying anyone a vote - the OP was simply addressing the
possibility of voter fraud by allowing something as trivial IMO as a
park bench to be used as a legal residence; surely you can admit that.

Post by Nathan Sanders
It's just the right thing to do.

So who in your opinion is it that gets to decide what "the right thing
to do" should be?

[i***@yahoo.com]

Post by b***@gmail.com
we're a
republic; a republic that worked much better when the right to vote wasn't
handed out to people sleeping on park benches.  

So we can assume that if you --for some unforeseen reason --found
yourself living on a park bench, you would happily forfeit your right
to vote...?

Because I know some pretty talented computer hackers who could make
that happen...

[zob]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:26:43 -0400, Nathan Sanders

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-

homeless

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
-voters_ N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double -
and leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent? Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?

At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Why do you hate democracy?
Nathan

That's exactly what it is, he hates democracy. In America's history
it was already tried, allowing only white male landowners to vote in
elections. It was decided long ago that this was unconstitutional and
un-American. Brian is one of those who really does need to move to
Iran or Saudi Arabia. He'd love living someplace where the government
has absolute power over the people, and individuals don't have any say
in their own fate.

[daveparks]

Post by daveparks

Post by Nathan Sanders
In article

Post by daveparks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-

homeless

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by daveparks
-voters_ N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) ‹ A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots
can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between
the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State
Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's
voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return,
Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional
ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional
ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
--- end
First, the whole "Brunner vs Pugs voter verification" thing, and now
park benches as "legal addresses"?!
Whatever it is that they're drinking in Ohio; make mine a double -
and leave the bottle for "you know who".

So you think citizens should be denied the right to vote because they
can't afford to buy a house or pay rent?  Only those with a sufficient
amount of money should have a voice?
Nathan

At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

I've always thought along what Cat' wrote.
If you are homeless, then at least show a minimum of responsibility in
getting to and registering himself at a proper Shelter. IMO, the
shelter then should be responsible for recording an individual's
registration, personal vitals, and lacking any officially recognized
method of identification, take an individual's fingerprints. The
shelter then could issue a bar-coded ID card which could be scanned at
the place of voting to authorize ID.

The fingerprinting could be used not just as a record of identity for
the individual, but by law enforcement in their capacity to address
crimes.

If an individual is unwilling to take even the slightest and minimal
of measures to lessen the possibility of Voter Fraud, then IMO he
revokes his right to vote.

[zob]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:32:37 -0700 (PDT), daveparks

Post by daveparks
If you are homeless, then at least show a minimum of responsibility in
getting to and registering himself at a proper Shelter. IMO, the
shelter then should be responsible for recording an individual's
registration, personal vitals, and lacking any officially recognized
method of identification, take an individual's fingerprints. The
shelter then could issue a bar-coded ID card which could be scanned at
the place of voting to authorize ID.
The fingerprinting could be used not just as a record of identity for
the individual, but by law enforcement in their capacity to address
crimes.

OMG, this is unbelievable! You don't honestly mean this, do you?!!

You need to pick yourself up a copy of Orwell's "1984" and read it.

[Mickey]

Post by zob
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:32:37 -0700 (PDT), daveparks

Post by daveparks
If you are homeless, then at least show a minimum of responsibility in
getting to and registering himself at a proper Shelter. IMO, the
shelter then should be responsible for recording an individual's
registration, personal vitals, and lacking any officially recognized
method of identification, take an individual's fingerprints. The
shelter then could issue a bar-coded ID card which could be scanned at
the place of voting to authorize ID.
The fingerprinting could be used not just as a record of identity for
the individual, but by law enforcement in their capacity to address
crimes.

OMG, this is unbelievable! You don't honestly mean this, do you?!!
You need to pick yourself up a copy of Orwell's "1984" and read it.

It's a work of fiction. The year is 2008. So much for the predictive
powers of the left.

The Other Mickey

[Salad]

Post by Mickey

Post by zob
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:32:37 -0700 (PDT), daveparks

Post by daveparks
If you are homeless, then at least show a minimum of responsibility in
getting to and registering himself at a proper Shelter. IMO, the
shelter then should be responsible for recording an individual's
registration, personal vitals, and lacking any officially recognized
method of identification, take an individual's fingerprints. The
shelter then could issue a bar-coded ID card which could be scanned at
the place of voting to authorize ID.
The fingerprinting could be used not just as a record of identity for
the individual, but by law enforcement in their capacity to address
crimes.

OMG, this is unbelievable! You don't honestly mean this, do you?!!
You need to pick yourself up a copy of Orwell's "1984" and read it.

It's a work of fiction. The year is 2008. So much for the predictive
powers of the left.

I wonder if an Obama presidency will be as secretive as the bush
administration? I wonder how many millions of emails will be lost under
an Obama administration or if an Obama administration will employ backup
technology? I believe his administration will be more open than a bush
or McCain administration.

Post by Mickey
The Other Mickey

[Vandar]

Post by Salad

Post by Mickey

Post by zob
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:32:37 -0700 (PDT), daveparks

Post by daveparks
If you are homeless, then at least show a minimum of responsibility in
getting to and registering himself at a proper Shelter. IMO, the
shelter then should be responsible for recording an individual's
registration, personal vitals, and lacking any officially recognized
method of identification, take an individual's fingerprints. The
shelter then could issue a bar-coded ID card which could be scanned at
the place of voting to authorize ID.
The fingerprinting could be used not just as a record of identity for
the individual, but by law enforcement in their capacity to address
crimes.

OMG, this is unbelievable! You don't honestly mean this, do you?!!
You need to pick yourself up a copy of Orwell's "1984" and read it.

It's a work of fiction. The year is 2008. So much for the predictive
powers of the left.

I wonder if an Obama presidency will be as secretive as the bush
administration? I wonder how many millions of emails will be lost under
an Obama administration or if an Obama administration will employ backup
technology? I believe his administration will be more open than a bush
or McCain administration.

Then why won't he release the list of people who have donated to his
campaign. like McCain and even Bush did?

[Mickey]

Post by Salad

Post by Mickey

Post by zob
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:32:37 -0700 (PDT), daveparks

Post by daveparks
If you are homeless, then at least show a minimum of responsibility in
getting to and registering himself at a proper Shelter. IMO, the
shelter then should be responsible for recording an individual's
registration, personal vitals, and lacking any officially recognized
method of identification, take an individual's fingerprints. The
shelter then could issue a bar-coded ID card which could be scanned at
the place of voting to authorize ID.
The fingerprinting could be used not just as a record of identity for
the individual, but by law enforcement in their capacity to address
crimes.

OMG, this is unbelievable! You don't honestly mean this, do you?!!
You need to pick yourself up a copy of Orwell's "1984" and read it.

It's a work of fiction. The year is 2008. So much for the predictive
powers of the left.

I wonder if an Obama presidency will be as secretive as the bush
administration? I wonder how many millions of emails will be lost under
an Obama administration or if an Obama administration will employ backup
technology? I believe his administration will be more open than a bush
or McCain administration.

Well, maybe they'll reveal all their funding sources to a true believer
like you. As is just starting leak out, some of the funds collected by
the Obama campaign came from foreign (i.e., illegal) sources, how much
is not clear at this point, but once the press gets bored with the
President they manufactured whole cloth, they will turn on him and start
digging. Once that starts, the Obama administration will become
increasingly secretive, and when you consider how little is really known
about him now, that will be very secretive, indeed. The Obama camp will
step up their efforts kicking sand over the inconvenient truths. The
only question will be how long before the public notices the smell.

The Other Mickey

[daveparks]

Post by zob
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:32:37 -0700 (PDT), daveparks

Post by daveparks
If you are homeless, then at least show a minimum of responsibility in
getting to and registering himself at a proper Shelter.  IMO, the
shelter then should be responsible for recording an individual's
registration, personal vitals, and lacking any officially recognized
method of identification, take an individual's fingerprints.  The
shelter then could issue a bar-coded ID card which could be scanned at
the place of voting to authorize ID.
The fingerprinting could be used not just as a record of identity for
the individual, but by law enforcement in their capacity to address
crimes.

OMG, this is unbelievable!  You don't honestly mean this, do you?!!

Instead of whining about it, feel free to post your own ideas for a
solution - unless you don't have a problem with a park bench being
recognized as a legal residence.

Post by zob
You need to pick yourself up a copy of Orwell's "1984" and read it.

[i***@yahoo.com]

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Who's going to do all this tax-based voter screening?

You??

It sounds like you're in favor of another massive government
bureaucracy.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Who's going to do all this tax-based voter screening?
You??
It sounds like you're in favor of another massive government
bureaucracy.

Ummm, who registers voters?

[zob]

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Who's going to do all this tax-based voter screening?
You??
It sounds like you're in favor of another massive government
bureaucracy.

No, it's just that he knows that most homeless people would vote
Democratic, so he wants to disenfranchise that group of voters as they
have tried to do with others.

[daveparks]

Post by zob

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Who's going to do all this tax-based voter screening?
You??
It sounds like you're in favor of another massive government
bureaucracy.

No, it's just that he knows that most homeless people would vote
Democratic, so he wants to disenfranchise that group of voters as they
have tried to do with others.

What's the difference whetheer someone votes Democratic or
Republican? Should avenues to prevent even the simplest possibility
of fraud in the process not be pursued?

Why would you be against any attempts to prevent voter fraud? Oh
yeah, because year after year, attempted voter fraud is what ACORN and
the Democratic party rely on to win elections.

[i***@yahoo.com]

Why would you be against any attempts to prevent voter fraud?  Oh
yeah, because year after year, attempted voter fraud is what ACORN and
the Democratic party rely on to win elections.

Where is the fraud happening...and how?

It's touching how worried about "fraud" the GOP is now. They weren't
a bit worried when the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen out the
back door in Florida and Ohio.

Now they see a nearly un-stealable victory looming for Dems and
suddenly its all carve a B on your face and call the cops....

[daveparks]

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Why would you be against any attempts to prevent voter fraud?  Oh
yeah, because year after year, attempted voter fraud is what ACORN and
the Democratic party rely on to win elections.

Where is the fraud happening...and how?

If you don't recognize that using park benches as legal residence in
order to allow the homeless to vote as an opportunity for fraud,
you're even dumber than your posts.

Post by i***@yahoo.com
It's touching how worried about "fraud" the GOP is now.  They weren't
a bit worried when the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen out the
back door in Florida and Ohio.

What proof do you have and to whom have you reported it?

Post by i***@yahoo.com
Now they see a nearly un-stealable victory looming for Dems and
suddenly its all carve a B on your face and call the cops....

You are aware that the nutball was found to have a history of pulling
stupid crap like this and has no ties to the McCain campaign?

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/27/ashley-todd-pulled-h.html
Ashley Todd pulled hoax hijinks in Ron Paul campaign, too

When you're too whacked-out for the Ron Paul campaign, you really do
have a problem. Snip from an article about previous victim-
hallucination hijinks by Ashley "A Giant Black Man Carved A B Into My
Face for Barack" Todd:
"In March, Ms. Todd was asked to leave a grass-roots group of Ron
Paul supporters in Brazos County, Texas, group leader Dustan Costine
said. He said Ms. Todd posed as a supporter of former Arkansas
governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and called the local
Republican committee seeking information about its campaign
strategies.

"She would call the opposing campaign and pretend she was on their
campaign to get information," Mr. Costine said last night. "We had to
remove her because of the tactics she displayed. After that we had
nothing to do with her."

About a month earlier, he said, Ms. Todd sent an e-mail to the Ron
Paul group saying her tires were slashed and that campaign
paraphernalia had been stolen from her car because she supported Mr.
Paul. "She's the type of person who wants to be recognized," Mr.
Costine said."
--- end

[i***@yahoo.com]

Post by daveparks
If you don't recognize that using park benches as legal residence in
order to allow the homeless to vote as an opportunity for fraud,
you're even dumber than your posts.

...and selling guns in WalMart is an opportunity for murder...but we
risk it.

[daveparks]

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by daveparks
If you don't recognize that using park benches as legal residence in
order to allow the homeless to vote as an opportunity for fraud,
you're even dumber than your posts.

...and selling guns in WalMart is an opportunity for murder...but we
risk it.

W-M also sells knives, alcohol, poisonous substances, drugs, and
conducts on-site auto-repairs - your point?

[topcat]

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by daveparks
If you don't recognize that using park benches as legal residence in
order to allow the homeless to vote as an opportunity for fraud,
you're even dumber than your posts.

...and selling guns in WalMart is an opportunity for murder...but we
risk it.

W-M also sells knives, alcohol, poisonous substances, drugs, and
conducts on-site auto-repairs - your point?

****************

My WM doesn't sell alcohol but the drug store always has a long line of old
people.

TC

[daveparks]

Post by daveparks

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by daveparks
If you don't recognize that using park benches as legal residence in
order to allow the homeless to vote as an opportunity for fraud,
you're even dumber than your posts.

...and selling guns in WalMart is an opportunity for murder...but we
risk it.

W-M also sells knives, alcohol, poisonous substances, drugs, and
conducts on-site auto-repairs - your point?
****************
My WM doesn't sell alcohol but the drug store always has a long line of old
people.
TC

Do you even wonder if the WM's near Sanna & Callen sell booze?

[topcat]

Post by daveparks

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by daveparks
If you don't recognize that using park benches as legal residence in
order to allow the homeless to vote as an opportunity for fraud,
you're even dumber than your posts.

...and selling guns in WalMart is an opportunity for murder...but we
risk it.

W-M also sells knives, alcohol, poisonous substances, drugs, and
conducts on-site auto-repairs - your point?
****************
My WM doesn't sell alcohol but the drug store always has a long line of old
people.
TC

Do you even wonder if the WM's near Sanna & Callen sell booze?

************

If it doesn't, it's prolly BYOB.

TC

[Vandar]

Post by daveparks

Post by daveparks

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by daveparks
If you don't recognize that using park benches as legal residence in
order to allow the homeless to vote as an opportunity for fraud,
you're even dumber than your posts.

...and selling guns in WalMart is an opportunity for murder...but we
risk it.

W-M also sells knives, alcohol, poisonous substances, drugs, and
conducts on-site auto-repairs - your point?
****************
My WM doesn't sell alcohol but the drug store always has a long line of old
people.
TC

Do you even wonder if the WM's near Sanna & Callen sell booze?

I think it's obviuous they don't.
http://tinyurl.com/noboozeatWM

[daveparks]

Post by daveparks

Post by daveparks

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by daveparks
If you don't recognize that using park benches as legal residence in
order to allow the homeless to vote as an opportunity for fraud,
you're even dumber than your posts.

...and selling guns in WalMart is an opportunity for murder...but we
risk it.

W-M also sells knives, alcohol, poisonous substances, drugs, and
conducts on-site auto-repairs - your point?
****************
My WM doesn't sell alcohol but the drug store always has a long line of old
people.
TC

Do you even wonder if the WM's near Sanna & Callen sell booze?

I think it's obviuous they don't.http://tinyurl.com/noboozeatWM

Someone needs to inform Callen that Crocs are SO last Wednesday.

[i***@yahoo.com]

Post by daveparks
You are aware that the nutball was found to have a history of pulling
stupid crap like this and has no ties to the McCain campaign?

LOL ! OK pal...

[Suzanne D.]

Post by zob

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Who's going to do all this tax-based voter screening?
You??
It sounds like you're in favor of another massive government
bureaucracy.

No, it's just that he knows that most homeless people would vote
Democratic, so he wants to disenfranchise that group of voters as they
have tried to do with others.

Next on the list: Atheists and black people.
--S.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by zob

Post by i***@yahoo.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Who's going to do all this tax-based voter screening?
You??
It sounds like you're in favor of another massive government
bureaucracy.

No, it's just that he knows that most homeless people would vote
Democratic, so he wants to disenfranchise that group of voters as they
have tried to do with others.

No, it's just that you want to put words in my mouth.

[Nathan Sanders]

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Now that I think about it, let's explore your idea little more:

Only gays can vote on gay marriage.

Only women can vote on abortion.

Only NRA members can vote on gun laws.

Only people whose doctors prescribe pot can vote on medical marijuana.

Only potheads can vote on legalizing recreational marijuana.

Perhaps you're on to something!

Nathan

[zob]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:57:13 -0400, Nathan Sanders

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Only gays can vote on gay marriage.
Only women can vote on abortion.
Only NRA members can vote on gun laws.
Only people whose doctors prescribe pot can vote on medical marijuana.
Only potheads can vote on legalizing recreational marijuana.
Perhaps you're on to something!
Nathan

Brilliant!

[Mickey]

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Faulty analysis as you know quite well.

Post by Nathan Sanders
Only gays can vote on gay marriage.

You want absurd, make that "only the married can vote on marriage." or
"Only gays can vote on gayriage."

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde,

My, Nathan, you seem to be displaying signs of triviality.


The Other Mickey

[Vandar]

Post by Mickey

Post by Nathan Sanders

Post by b***@gmail.com
At the very least, those who don't pay income taxes should not be
allowed to vote on initiatives which determine how tax dollars are
spent.

Faulty analysis as you know quite well.

Post by Nathan Sanders
Only gays can vote on gay marriage.

You want absurd, make that "only the married can vote on marriage." or
"Only gays can vote on gayriage."

Gayriage? Ha!
That's where I pahk ma cah.

[Suzanne D.]

"Nathan Sanders" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nathansanders-

Post by Nathan Sanders
Only people whose doctors prescribe pot can vote on medical marijuana.

Woohoo, we're THISCLOSE to that one right now...

Post by Nathan Sanders
Only potheads can vote on legalizing recreational marijuana.

Wooh--- Um, yes. That would be fair.
--S.

[CatNipped]

"daveparks" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d0d1df95-2a76-4013-a903-***@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeless-voters_N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.

===================================================

This makes no sense! My voter registration certificate requires "Name and
Permanent Residence Address" (and repeats that, at least I'm assuming that's
what it says, in Spanish). The *permanent* address is what decides which
district I'm allowed to vote in (and who I'll be voting for for local
elections).

How can a park bench, in any reality we may imagine, be defined as a
*permanent* address? Can we move that park bench into a different district
and vote again there? How would anybody be able to check that you're not
doing that.

This is getting ridiculous! I can see the need to allow homeless people to
vote, but at least have them list a homeless shelter as an address so we can
see that "John Smith of park bench" in Harris County is not the "John Smith
of park bench" in Montgomery County.

Hugs,

CatNipped

[Salad]

Post by daveparks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeless-voters_N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.
===================================================
This makes no sense! My voter registration certificate requires "Name and
Permanent Residence Address" (and repeats that, at least I'm assuming that's
what it says, in Spanish). The *permanent* address is what decides which
district I'm allowed to vote in (and who I'll be voting for for local
elections).
How can a park bench, in any reality we may imagine, be defined as a
*permanent* address? Can we move that park bench into a different district
and vote again there? How would anybody be able to check that you're not
doing that.
This is getting ridiculous! I can see the need to allow homeless people to
vote, but at least have them list a homeless shelter as an address so we can
see that "John Smith of park bench" in Harris County is not the "John Smith
of park bench" in Montgomery County.
Hugs,
CatNipped

If the laws don't address an issue they can be ammended. If they
aren't, judges get involved.

[i***@yahoo.com]

Is there any doubt that Republicans are terrified of voters?


Can somebody explain to me why being homeless should mean forfeiture
of your most sacred Constitutional right?

[Alric Knebel]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:27:24 -0700 (PDT), daveparks

Post by daveparks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-28-homeless-voters_N.htm
Judge rules on addresses for homeless voters
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties
must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations
that aren't buildings as their addresses.

You'd have to look closer at the actual wording of the ruling. That's
probably a generalization -- one you like -- that sounds dumb when
worded loosely. Probably the ruling decreed that a person didn't have
to have a HOME to be a registered voter.

______________________________________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com