Get ready for massive recounts

[TheeSublimeOne]

Originally Posted by Fonzy13

Exactly. Register out of a shelter, a food pantry, the YWCA. Cool. A bench? Good lord that's scary.

Makes sense to me, let's put this in as a MOFO law.

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

The scary part is, if Ohio is decided by less than the amount of registrations that were being questioned, they won't look into them, and they will stay on the books in future elections.

they didn't look into irregualrities when Bush beat Kerry, so why would you expect them to this time?

[lgm6986]

Originally Posted by Fonzy13

Incorrect. I will depart from my normal group of miscreant fellow Conservatives on this one. I do believe that homeless people should have the right to vote. I have zero problem with it, provided they are registered from a shelter. There is no way on God's green earth they should be eligible to vote for a park bench, with zero oversight.

First of all, let me clarify: I don't consider people who live in a shelter to be homeless, at least not in the context of this discussion. If you are living in a shelter, presumably the shelter has an address, you are registered as a resident there, you can receive correspondence when necessary, etc. I see no reason why people living in a shelter shouldn't be allowed to vote if they otherwise are qualified.

Secondly, apart from whether it makes sense or not, I don't believe what I stated to be incorrect. To wit:

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

Now, is this ruling an abomination? Certainly. But can't the homeless man in question use it as precedent if he is denied the right to vote because he listed "bench" as his residence? It would appear to me that the judge in this instance had little choice but to grant him the right to vote. That being said, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not sure how much leeway the judge had, or whether or not the cited ruling is inclusive of the entire nation or just the district from which it originated.

Denny?

Metboi, if all else fails? You know everything.

[NeilAllen]

Originally Posted by Fonzy13

A bench? Good lord that's scary.

I say in that case we appoint Jersey in charge of the post office so he can figure out how to deliver mail to all of these park benches.

[lgm6986]

Originally Posted by TheeSublimeOne

That's an opinion, but the law states otherwise.

Considering I'm the one who first mentioned and then posted the law, or at least what the NCH believes to be the law, I'm aware of that. And if this really is law, it needs to be changed immediately. It's a load of horsesh*t.

[Fonzy13]

Originally Posted by lgm6986

First of all, let me clarify: I don't consider people who live in a shelter to be homeless, at least not in the context of this discussion. If you are living in a shelter, presumably the shelter has an address, you are registered as a resident there, you can receive correspondence when necessary, etc. I see no reason why people living in a shelter shouldn't be allowed to vote if they otherwise are qualified.

Secondly, apart from whether it makes sense or not, I don't believe what I stated to be incorrect. To wit:



Now, is this ruling an abomination? Certainly. But can't the homeless man in question use it as precedent if he is denied the right to vote because he listed "bench" as his residence? It would appear to me that the judge in this instance had little choice but to grant him the right to vote. That being said, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not sure how much leeway the judge had, or whether or not the cited ruling is inclusive of the entire nation or just the district from which it originated.

Denny?

Metboi, if all else fails? You know everything.

I stand corrected. And ****ing baffled.

[lgm6986]

Originally Posted by Fonzy13

And ****ing baffled.

That makes two of us.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by Jersey Shore

they didn't look into irregualrities when Bush beat Kerry, so why would you expect them to this time?

Because in 2004, ACORN didn't admit to massive registration fraud.

[Paulie Cee]

Originally Posted by TheeSublimeOne

I don't think anybody "chooses" to be homeless.

Uh, lunatics do.

No matter what state the economy is in, there will always be homeless people. Some are physically able to work, but do not because they are lazy. I doubt they WANT to be homeless, but they just do not have the drive to go out and do something about it.

People who are "down on their luck" or just plain lazy but are otherwise at least semi-normal stay in shelters. They are not "homeless" because their home, however temporary, is the shelter.

For the ones that have mental or physical handicaps, we shouldn't shun these people away from society.

Who's "shunning" them? Do you want to send a Nut Wagon out to forcibly remove them from the streets? Nobody is forced to live on the streets. Those who do, do so of their own free will.

They need help, and a lot of them clearly aren't getting the proper help, attention, and proper medical care they need. This is not the fault of Republicans or Democrats, it's a fault of the whole system.

What "system" are you referring to, the US Constitution?

Maybe we should spend less money overseas and take care of our own first.

Of course, let's throw more money at it. It worked so well with eradicating hunger and poverty in the '60's.

[Jersey Shore]

Originally Posted by NeilAllen

I say in that case we appoint Jersey in charge of the post office so he can figure out how to deliver mail to all of these park benches.

was the debate about receiving mail or registering to vote?

[Mule]

Sorry, surprisingly I'm going to have to be the neanderthal here....a YMCA, shelter, etc. isn't permanent housing, it's transient. That alone doesn't satisfy the requirement most jurisdictions have of having to be a resident for a certain period of time before being able to vote in that jurisdiction. Maybe if you can prove you've been a resident at Shelter X for the six weeks or whatever requirement prior, I could maybe see that, but I'm still not totally kosher with that.

You're voting on the representation all the way down to the local level of that jurisidiction...if you're not realistically a full time resident of that jurisidiction, you've got no business helping decide who runs it.

(edited for grammar)

[kingdiggler]

Originally Posted by Mule

Sorry, surprisingly I'm going to have to be the neanderthal here....a YMCA, shelter, etc. isn't permanent housing, it's transient. That alone doesn't satisfy the requirement most jurisdictions have of having to be a resident for a certain period of time before being able to vote in that jurisdiction. Maybe if you can prove you've been a resident at Shelter X for the six weeks or whatever requirement prior, I could maybe see that, but I'm still not totally kosher with that.

You're voting on the representation all the way down to the local level of that jurisidiction...if you realistically not a full time resident of that jurisidiction, you've got no business helping decide who runs it.

I second that Mule.

[lgm6986]

I guess the reason I don't find a shelter as objectionable is because there might be people there who lost their home to a flood, or who were barely making ends meet when they got laid off and are actively looking for work. I can't see those people being denied the right to vote.

[kingdiggler]

Originally Posted by lgm6986

I guess the reason I don't find a shelter as objectionable is because there might be people there who lost their home to a flood, or who were barely making ends meet when they got laid off and are actively looking for work. I can't see those people being denied the right to vote.

You let people vote who list "bench" or "underpass" as their address, then do you have to let people who list their residence as "casket" a vote?

[kingdiggler]

I guess you could let them vote if they have participated in "bum fights" during the past year.