Patiod
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-01-08 02:10 PM
Original message |
I'll make you a deal. I'll support photo-ID to prevent "fraud" |
|
if you'll support voting machines that are verifiable, safe, impossible to hack, and impossible to rig.
I don't support photo-ID because the states make it so damned difficult to GET photo ID, but I'll swap that for verifiable voting.
|
LisaM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-01-08 02:12 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I'll support photo ID if it's free and available |
iconoclastic cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-01-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Don't do it! That's a horrible compromise! nt |
hootinholler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-01-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. I would support it for Hand counted paper ballots. |
|
Nothing less will do.
-Hoot
|
Teaser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-01-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message |
3. who you making the deal with? |
nels25
(636 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-01-08 03:08 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Not going to matter much though.
If I recall correctly the SCOTUS is going to rule on this excat issue this session.
With the current make up of the court is there any question how it will rule??
Especially since if I remember correctly Roberts had something to do with an issues similar to this in NJ and that came up in his confirmation hearings. He seems to be favorable to this approach. :eyes:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 12:38 AM
Response to Original message |