Republicans attempt to limit college students' votes

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 1:02 PM GMT
    OK, so older people don't just vote with their feelings then...What about people without college educations? Did they vote with their brains or their hearts?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602662.htmlNew Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.

    "Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack "life experience," and "they just vote their feelings."

    New Hampshire House Republicans are pushing for new laws that would prohibit many college students from voting in the state - and effectively keep some from voting at all.

    One bill would permit students to vote in their college towns only if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there - requiring all others to vote in the states or other New Hampshire towns they come from. Another bill would end Election Day registration, which O'Brien said unleashes swarms of students on polling places, creating opportunities for fraud.

    The measures in New Hampshire are among dozens of voting-related bills being pushed by newly empowered Republican state lawmakers across the country - prompting partisan clashes akin to those already roiling in some states over GOP moves to curb union power.
    ...
    Average taxpayers in college towns, he said, are having their votes "diluted or entirely canceled by those of a huge, largely monolithic demographic group . . . composed of people with a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce."

    Their "youthful idealism," he added, "is focused on remaking the world, with themselves in charge, of course, rather than with the mundane humdrum of local government."


    What happened to being responsive to the future generation if you ignore their votes? Sounds like triumphalism for incumbent special interests rather than planning for the future, as Zakaria wrote in this week's TIME

    It's unconstitutional to boot!States that require voter IDs also must be willing to pay for them, the result of a court ruling that declared part of Georgia's ID law unconstitutional because people lacking IDs would have to pay for cards themselves - creating, in effect, a poll tax. A legislative analysis shows the Wisconsin measure would cost the state $2.7 million a year.

    The Wisconsin bill is poised for passage in the state Senate but is stalled because of the legislative standoff between Republican Gov. Scott Walker and state Senate Democrats over his plan to roll back public-sector unions' collective-bargaining rights.

    The outcome could be particularly critical in Wisconsin. Though Obama won the state easily in 2008, strategists in both parties expect his reelection contest to be much closer. In 2004, the Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), won there by just 11,000 votes, a margin easily covered just by the 17,000 out-of-state students who attend the University of Wisconsin's campus in Madison.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 07, 2011 1:05 PM GMT
    Well, lets just say if it passes, I would expect it'll be fought right up to the Supreme Court if need be.

    Trying to rob students of their electoral rights on a technicality...it won't fly!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 1:32 PM GMT
    To paraphrase a common saying:

    If you lack life experience and vote conservative, you have no heart.
    If you have life experience and vote liberal, you have no brain.

    Another definition

    Conservative - A former Liberal who has been mugged.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Mar 07, 2011 1:38 PM GMT
    I think many younger people develop their voting habits based on their parent's views or those who they may respect. Peer's emotion and views
    certainly are a part.

    Many of those young people may not be able to articulate a position as to why they are voting or have voted the way they have. Some do, but many
    wouldn't.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 1:40 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidI think many younger people develop their voting habits based on their parent's views or those who they may respect. Peer's emotion and views
    certainly are a part.

    Many of those young people may not be able to articulate a position as to why they are voting or have voted the way they have. Some do, but many
    wouldn't.

    Probably a first. I agree with you completely. This may not happen again so I thought it should be documented.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 2:01 PM GMT
    The condescension displayed by the old is remarkable, but alas nothing new.

    In all honesty I have rarely encountered such articulate arguments on politics--from both sides--as among college students. They're pretty aware that the older generation is leaving them a very raw deal indeed with unfunded entitlements, demographic time bombs etc. They're certainly infinitely more rational in their voting than the bible-thumpers, and many of you!

    But quite a few of them *don't* vote. And *aren't* interested in politics. I'm quite certain it's statements like these that fuel their apathy. Shame shame on O'Brien for his calculated cynicism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 3:09 PM GMT
    Republican NJ state house speaker is dead on! That has always been the way it is. But we know that when many of these kids get older they turn conservative, otherwise there never would be conservatives, because the vast majority of young people are liberals.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 3:39 PM GMT

    If they are of legal age to vote, and they are prevented by new rules, whatever party applies these rules is pretty well guaranteeing the denied voters will vote against them when they eventually can.

    D'oh.

  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Mar 07, 2011 4:39 PM GMT
    How will they limit voting rights? As in what criteria? This is only going to affect state and local elections- most students don't vote in these.

    This actually makes me suspicious. Are they planning on putting to election some way of raising tuition and are banning student from voting against it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 4:55 PM GMT
    SB you remind me of a one eyed chicken poking myopically in the barnyard. Too bad you never read the rest of the OP's post.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 5:02 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidTo paraphrase a common saying:

    If you lack life experience and vote conservative, you have no heart.
    If you have life experience and vote liberal, you have no brain.

    Another definition

    Conservative - A former Liberal who has been mugged.




    A Gay Conservative - Self Loathing
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 6:54 PM GMT
    Since Cato the elder, a certain type of maturity has shown up
    when one starts blaming the new generation for "shallowness" and
    praising the previous one for its "values".--Taleb
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 7:26 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidNobody is proposing denying college students their right to vote.

    It's about protecting the actual citizens of that state / municipality.

    A college student attending school in New Hampshire can still vote - in their home district by either returning there on election day or by voting absentee.


    This.

    Because it is all about keeping the franchise where it belongs for each voter; thousands of transient students voting on ballot issues and for pols who are not of their proper domicile of record is hardly fair to the lifetime residents of the college towns.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 7:38 PM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    southbeach1500 saidNobody is proposing denying college students their right to vote.

    It's about protecting the actual citizens of that state / municipality.

    A college student attending school in New Hampshire can still vote - in their home district by either returning there on election day or by voting absentee.


    This.

    Because it is all about keeping the franchise where it belongs for each voter; thousands of transient students voting on ballot issues and for pols who are not of their proper domicile of record is hardly fair to the lifetime residents of the college towns.


    I do not hear a national outcry from the residents of college towns to save them from the students. The usual complaint is to save them from the surrounding [typically rural, conservative] voters.

    There is no question that students are the raison d'etre for most college towns. It is nothing short of insane to deny them a voice in how the municipality is run---they don't merely vote for themselves but on behalf of future students. This is how representative democracy is supposed to work, after all.

    My suggestion is that if residents of college towns are maddened by students voting---and I almost certain that this is a sham!---they preclude the students from *living* there as well. For most college towns, this would mean that the town itself would... disappear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 7:43 PM GMT
    College students are obviously very valuable to a college town, but unless they become affiliated with the university in some other capacity, they are a transient population without any long-term allegiance to the town. They would be voting on people and measures that would impact the town long after they're gone. That doesn't seem fair.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 7:51 PM GMT
    Phht- it goes both ways. Yes, college kids tend to vote liberally, but there are also tons of kids who vote republican. Fail.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 07, 2011 8:25 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidAnd as usual, NONE of the liberal posters here actually can grasp the point.


    We heard you. It's not taking away their right to vote, but rather it is about establishing their residency. If a student has their permanent address at the college town (i.e. living in a nearby apartment), then they ought to be seen as resident of that town. But if their permanent address is that of their parents', then they should be seen as residents of whatever town that address is located in.

    According to the article, the law requires that a student can vote if they or their parents had previously established permanent residence.

    Here's something I found:

    Assistant Attorney General Matthew Mavrogeorge said it clearly would run afoul of a 1972 New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in which a Dartmouth College student from Hawaii struck down a one-year residency requirement prior to voting here.


    http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/newsstatenewengland/910274-227/students-decry-residency-voting-bill.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 9:04 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidCollege students are obviously very valuable to a college town, but unless they become affiliated with the university in some other capacity, they are a transient population without any long-term allegiance to the town. They would be voting on people and measures that would impact the town long after they're gone. That doesn't seem fair.


    College students should vote in their college town because they *AS A DEMOGRAPHIC* require representation. In effect, their vote counts not merely for their own selves, but for the students who will be there *after* them and otherwise would have no voice at all.

    This is an elementary principle of how representative democracy is supposed to function.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 9:07 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidAnd as usual, NONE of the liberal posters here actually can grasp the point.


    As usual, it is *you* who fail to grasp elementary points. Truly pathetic. Why on earth do you bother to continue to post here?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 9:26 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    southbeach1500 saidAnd as usual, NONE of the liberal posters here actually can grasp the point.


    As usual, it is *you* who fail to grasp elementary points. Truly pathetic. Why on earth do you bother to continue to post here?


    Agreed, but equally, why do you bother to read his verbal incontinence.

    He just can´t hold it in and it stinks, but we don´t need to dignify it by taking it seriously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 9:35 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    TigerTim said
    southbeach1500 saidAnd as usual, NONE of the liberal posters here actually can grasp the point.


    As usual, it is *you* who fail to grasp elementary points. Truly pathetic. Why on earth do you bother to continue to post here?


    Agreed, but equally, why do you bother to read his verbal incontinence.

    He just can´t hold it in and it stinks, but we don´t need to dignify it by taking it seriously.


    Sigh, I actually don't. I blocked southbeach *ages* ago. But people CAN'T STOP QUOTING HIM.

    I guess it's just too much fun. He's become the Wicked Witch of the West for RealJock. I suppose every pantomime---and that's what the RJ forums have become---needs an Evil Queen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 9:50 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    I guess it's just too much fun. He's become the Wicked Witch of the West for RealJock. I suppose every pantomime---and that's what the RJ forums have become---needs an Evil Queen.



    and here we go with the name calling? As you say It's just too much fun? I would hardly call SB a queen. He has been described as "self loathing" but NEVER have I heard SB described as a queen.

    Tiger Tim, you are just one of the many name calling QUEENS on this board!icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 9:57 PM GMT
    deanaane said
    TigerTim said
    I guess it's just too much fun. He's become the Wicked Witch of the West for RealJock. I suppose every pantomime---and that's what the RJ forums have become---needs an Evil Queen.



    and here we go with the name calling? As you say It's just too much fun? I would hardly call SB a queen. He has been described as "self loathing" but NEVER have I heard SB described as a queen.

    Tiger Tim, you are just one of the many name calling QUEENS on this board!icon_lol.gif


    Every single person on this board is a Queen. Having/wanting big muscles and a constructed/reconstructed masculinity does not allow one to escape from this, rather it only serves to reinforce the fact. It's a sort of communist monarchy I suppose, if that were not a contradiction in terms.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 10:01 PM GMT
    deanaane said
    TigerTim said
    I guess it's just too much fun. He's become the Wicked Witch of the West for RealJock. I suppose every pantomime---and that's what the RJ forums have become---needs an Evil Queen.



    and here we go with the name calling? As you say It's just too much fun? I would hardly call SB a queen. He has been described as "self loathing" but NEVER have I heard SB described as a queen.

    Tiger Tim, you are just one of the many name calling QUEENS on this board!icon_lol.gif


    No.

    You are either mistaken, or you are lying:
    He was not called a queen."

    He was called "the evil queen of the pantomime."


    Try to read and understand the entire sentence without seizing on two words and (over) reacting to them out of context as though they were the whole message.

    you either have very poor reading comprehension skills (which should embarass you terribly) or you are being deliberately obtuse (which should embarass you terribly).

    Either way, you look like a bit of an intellectual underachiever in your reading comprehension skills.

    So which is it? Do you not understand the "pantomime" reference, or are you lying about what it said above?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2011 10:04 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness saidCollege students are obviously very valuable to a college town, but unless they become affiliated with the university in some other capacity, they are a transient population without any long-term allegiance to the town. They would be voting on people and measures that would impact the town long after they're gone. That doesn't seem fair.


    College students should vote in their college town because they *AS A DEMOGRAPHIC* require representation. In effect, their vote counts not merely for their own selves, but for the students who will be there *after* them and otherwise would have no voice at all.

    This is an elementary principle of how representative democracy is supposed to function.


    If the proposed limits on college student votes pass, then I would like all elections to be held around Thanksgiving when most students are back home. I wonder what that would do to the conservative bloc voting at home...icon_lol.gif