LogFAQs > #903218243

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Supreme Court upholds controversial Ohio voter-purge law.
Zeus 06/14/18 2:06:52 AM #17:	Yeah, I can't say that I see much of an issue especially given that the law was designed to fix an existing problem. BlackScythe0 posted... ParanoidObsessive posted... Considering what happens when people in this country vote, perhaps we should purge more of them. So that we get more Trumps? Wouldn't the reverse be true? If it's just political insiders voting, that favors establishment candidates. adjl posted... Giving inactive voters an opt-out option would probably be better, even if it'd result in a lower deactivation rate than doing it automatically. It wasn't meant to purge people for being inactive, it was designed more to correct outdated records. When people move or die, their names can still show in the system (or, at least, that's how it was explained during the NPR segment) Yellow posted... ParanoidObsessive posted... Considering what happens when people in this country vote, perhaps we should purge more of them. The 2016 election voter turnout was abysmal. This is just a sleazy way to give old people the edge, people who already vote more than young people. idk, seems like it would favor the young because they're more likely to have recently enrolled in the first place. Given that the focal point of the story is a voter who is noted as having voted in 2004, it's not likely that he's all that young. Plus he was going out to vote against marijuana legalization, which also suggests that he's older (since it's more of a hotbutton issue for young voters) --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:903218243] in Supreme Co... [t:76696982]...</cite> <quote>Yeah, I can't say that I see much of an issue especially given that the law was designed to fix an existing problem. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Considering what happens when people in this country vote, perhaps we should purge more of them. </quote> So that we get more Trumps?</quote> Wouldn't the reverse be true? If it's just political insiders voting, that favors establishment candidates. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Giving inactive voters an opt-out option would probably be better, even if it'd result in a lower deactivation rate than doing it automatically.</quote> It wasn't meant to purge people for being inactive, it was designed more to correct outdated records. When people move or die, their names can still show in the system (or, at least, that's how it was explained during the NPR segment) <cite>Yellow posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Considering what happens when people in this country vote, perhaps we should purge more of them.</quote> The 2016 election voter turnout was abysmal. This is just a sleazy way to give old people the edge, people who already vote more than young people.</quote> idk, seems like it would favor the young because they're more likely to have recently enrolled in the first place. Given that the focal point of the story is a voter who is noted as having voted in 2004, it's not likely that he's all that young. Plus he was going out to vote against marijuana legalization, which also suggests that he's older (since it's more of a hotbutton issue for young voters) --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1