“HR1” Introduced By The Pelosi-Led Democrats In The House Is A Power Grab Dressed Up As “Election Reform"!

[Reagan]

From the article:  "

Mandated:

“No excuse” mail-in voting for all voters in all states.

15 days of early voting for any election including federal offices.

Automatic voter registration — unless the individual opts out — upon the submission of personal information (name, address) to any state agency for any purpose.

Online voter registration up to and including on election day.

Automatic restoration of voting rights to felons.

Allowing “ballot harvesting” by third parties.

Counting of illegal aliens among state populations fo purpose of determining number of congressional districts in each state.

Public financing by creating “$6 to $1” match of federal funds against small-donor campaign contributions of $200 or less.

Prohibited:

No voter ID requirements.

No purging of voter rolls.

No signature matching for mail-in ballots.

No redistricting by legislative bodies in the States — only by non-partisan commissions.

No disqualification of ballots for “out of precinct” voting."

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[InMAGAWeTrust]

Exhibit A - one party wants to make it as hard as possible to vote, while the other wants to make it as easy as possible.. interesting.

Which POLITICAL TEAM do I choose?! Reagan - please let me know what gatewaypundit thinks about this 

[Reagan]

43 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Exhibit A - one party wants to make it as hard as possible to vote, while the other wants to make it as easy as possible.. interesting.

Which POLITICAL TEAM do I choose?! Reagan - please let me know what gatewaypundit thinks about this 

Not hard:  One party wants to make rules for permanent cheating.  You decide which it is!

Let me help you:  From the Dims:  Automatic restoration of voting rights to felons.  No voter ID requirements.  “No excuse” mail-in voting for all voters in all states (for the purpose of fraud).

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Exhibit A - one party wants to make it as hard as possible to vote, while the other wants to make it as easy as possible.. interesting.

What are they (the right, I assume) asking for that is difficult?

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

What are they (the right, I assume) asking for that is difficult?

I’ll answer because he won’t, nothing.

[baddog]

3 hours ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Exhibit A - one party wants to make it as hard as possible to vote, while the other wants to make it as easy as possible.. interesting.

Which POLITICAL TEAM do I choose?! Reagan - please let me know what gatewaypundit thinks about this 

These are all facts. To question the source is simply juvenile. 

[SmashMouth]

10 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I’ll answer because he won’t, nothing.

Of course, the question was rhetorical. What’s wrong with having to have an id and a signature that can be justified? What’s wrong with having to request a ballot? And what’s wrong with having to have it sent in on time?

[Reagan]

6 hours ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Exhibit A - one party wants to make it as hard as possible to vote, while the other wants to make it as easy as possible.. interesting.

Which POLITICAL TEAM do I choose?! Reagan - please let me know what gatewaypundit thinks about this 

Let me add these:   

No signature matching for mail-in ballots.

No disqualification of ballots for “out of precinct” voting."

Counting of illegal aliens among state populations fo purpose of determining number of congressional districts in each state.

[Reagan]

from the article:  "Moochelle Obama Urges Senate to Vote for HR1 – The Democrat Bill that Brings Communist Third World Voting Rules to US Elections.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[BS Wildcats]

On 3/4/2021 at 6:29 PM, SmashMouth said:

Of course, the question was rhetorical. What’s wrong with having to have an id and a signature that can be justified? What’s wrong with having to request a ballot? And what’s wrong with having to have it sent in on time?

All those things you mentioned would make it harder for Dems to cheat.

[Hagar]

🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

[BS Wildcats]

On 3/4/2021 at 2:54 PM, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Exhibit A - one party wants to make it as hard as possible to vote, while the other wants to make it as easy as possible.. interesting.

Which POLITICAL TEAM do I choose?! Reagan - please let me know what gatewaypundit thinks about this 

What is wrong with having a valid ID and having signatures match when voting?  This is something every American should want, unless you’re a Dem, it seems.

[PAMFAM10]

It’s not like only democrats can vote without ID or anything named. It goes both ways. Let the voters vote.

[SmashMouth]

1 minute ago, PAMFAM10 said:

It’s not like only democrats can vote without ID or anything named. It goes both ways. Let the voters vote.

I agree. Let the VOTERS vote. The only way to ensure that is to identify who is voting. 

[PAMFAM10]

It never ends. USA has been trying to control who votes since the beginning.

[SmashMouth]

3 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

It never ends. USA has been trying to control who votes since the beginning.

I don’t want to control who votes legally. I just don’t want voting to be based on the “trust” system. 
 

Do you have any good reasons why someone shouldn’t either a) have to vote in person with an id or b) absentee vote with a signature match?

[PAMFAM10]

Will it be a signature expert at every poll ( honestly how will that work). My signature changes every day.

 And there are elderly and less fortunate folks with no needs of transportation. ( people don’t even leave there homes to make groceries anymore)

I think with technology we could figure out a better solution to stop voter fraud ( if that’s even a serious thing because the experts say it’s not).

 And here’s a question how many legal votes of voters would not have been counted if these things where in place.

To be fair Hillary lost big to trump in upsetting fashion. Dems still refuse to change laws (To be fair the republicans had presidency and both house and changed nothing).

 It’s something imaginary for us to argue about.

[CardinalBacker]

16 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

It never ends. USA has been trying to control who votes since the beginning.

It needs to be secure.  Everybody that has the right to vote should be allowed to vote.  Once.  

Believe it or not, some people would prefer that low-information voters be excluded from voting.  People that think that way exist and would like to see any barrier to keep the "great unwashed" from participating.  On the other hand, there are people who are licking their chops at the thought of less oversight making ballot harvesting and voter fraud easier.  Those people exist, too.

You should be required to provide an ID if you want to vote.  That's just commons sense.  Anybody who argues otherwise is not being honest about whether they believe our elections should be secure.  You should also be an American Citizen if you want to vote in our elections, IMO.  It's nutty how we wanted to impeach the former president over "foreign interference" in our elections, but then fight for the rights of non-citizens to vote in our elections.  It's just puzzling.

The bigger problem is this... if peoples' right to vote is wasted because they weren't allowed to vote OR their vote was canceled by a fraudulent one, then our democracy will fail.  That's just a fact.  That's why it was so dangerous for Trump to allege fraud with no proof.  

[CardinalBacker]

9 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Will it be a signature expert at every poll ( honestly how will that work). My signature changes every day.  No.  You don't need a signature expert if people are voting in person with a photo id.

 And there are elderly and less fortunate folks with no needs of transportation. ( people don’t even leave there homes to make groceries anymore) Those are the ones for which mail-in ballots should be provided when requested.  The problem is that some jurisdictions were just mailing a ballot to everyone on the roll whether they requested it or not.   You could literally mail in your ballot, then show up on election day to vote again and if your local election official (who didn't bother to verify anything) didn't mind, vote twice.  Or ballots could be stolen, used by relatives, etc...

I think with technology we could figure out a better solution to stop voter fraud ( if that’s even a serious thing because the experts say it’s not).  I think that you get where you need to be by requiring ID, mail-in ballots by request, etc... the fact that so many people are alleging that the machines are rigged is doing a huge disservice to everyone.  Those same people don't mind using their debit card at a gas pump, but technology is the debbil when it comes to voting.

 And here’s a question how many legal votes of voters would not have been counted if these things where in place.  There's also the question of how many fraudulent ones would have been discarded if these things were in place.  But to answer your question, none of the legal ones would get tossed.. only the ones that don't comply with the letter of the law. 

To be fair Hillary lost big to trump in upsetting fashion. Dems still refuse to change laws (To be fair the republicans had presidency and both house and changed nothing).  Yes, but no... they didn't have the votes to flip over the Electoral College (and still don't).  But they did make sure that many, many thousands of un-requested ballots went out to the public in battleground states this time around, then did nothing to verify the legality/authenticity of those ballots upon their return on/after election day.  You can't verify the signature on the ballot and the request if there isn't a request upon which to compare. 

 It’s something imaginary for us to argue about.

In short, I don't know if there was widespread fraud.  I know that there's no proof of it, and that's what we have to live with.  I strongly believe that election integrity shouldn't be a political hatchet used to further either parties' chances of success or we're all in big trouble... and I'm not talking about a lost election, I'm talking about a new form of government because voting didn't work. 

[PAMFAM10]

2 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

It needs to be secure.  Everybody that has the right to vote should be allowed to vote.  Once.  

Believe it or not, some people would prefer that low-information voters be excluded from voting.  People that think that way exist and would like to see any barrier to keep the "great unwashed" from participating.  On the other hand, there are people who are licking their chops at the thought of less oversight making ballot harvesting and voter fraud easier.  Those people exist, too.

You should be required to provide an ID if you want to vote.  That's just commons sense.  Anybody who argues otherwise is not being honest about whether they believe our elections should be secure.  You should also be an American Citizen if you want to vote in our elections, IMO.  It's nutty how we wanted to impeach the former president over "foreign interference" in our elections, but then fight for the rights of non-citizens to vote in our elections.  It's just puzzling.

The bigger problem is this... if peoples' right to vote is wasted because they weren't allowed to vote OR their vote was canceled by a fraudulent one, then our democracy will fail.  That's just a fact.  That's why it was so dangerous for Trump to allege fraud with no proof.  

The government review everybody tax returns. Check for fraud the whole 9 yards they get this job done in usually 2 to 4 weeks after you file. No ID is required for this. Why can’t we have a system where when you register to vote (a month earlier) everything gets reviewed put in a database. When votes come in that’s not in database or raises a red flag. They get pushed to side for verification.( that’s 3 months they’ll have to verify every single vote if they so chose to.

[baddog]

3 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

The government review everybody tax returns. Check for fraud the whole 9 yards they get this job done in usually 2 to 4 weeks after you file. No ID is required for this. Why can’t we have a system where when you register to vote (a month earlier) everything gets reviewed put in a database. When votes come in that’s not in database or raises a red flag. They get pushed to side for verification.( that’s 3 months they’ll have to verify every single vote if they so chose to.

You don’t think your SSN identifies you?

[SmashMouth]

5 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Check for fraud the whole 9 yards they get this job done in usually 2 to 4 weeks after you file.

No they don’t. They just pay you or take your money. Then they choose a small sample to audit based in certain risk criteria. If you’re telling me that our voting should be based on the integrity of how people file their taxes, then we are in big trouble. 
Their are lots of things that identify you: employer’s records, financial records, property records, business records, so in & so forth. You’re comparing apples to oranges. 

[CardinalBacker]

1 minute ago, PAMFAM10 said:

The government review everybody tax returns. Check for fraud the whole 9 yards they get this job done in usually 2 to 4 weeks after you file. No ID is required for this. Why can’t we have a system where when you register to vote (a month earlier) everything gets reviewed put in a database. When votes come in that’s not in database or raises a red flag. They get pushed to side for verification.( that’s 3 months they’ll have to verify every single vote if they so chose to.

That's kinda where we are now in some states (like Texas) but other states will allow their residents to register and vote on the same day.  This federal legislation is seeking to force all states to allow day-of-election registrations.  

All kidding aside, there ARE people who want to make if harder for people to vote because they think that they can predict which candidates will benefit from those "low information" votes.  That's just as wrong as voter fraud, IMO.  

 

FWIW, they do a really crappy job of reviewing tax returns... two separate years we dealt with a non-custodial parent running down and claiming kids that lived with us... they got paid and we got our refund hung up for months until we provided all of the proof that the IRS was wanting.  I guess the system did work eventually, but it sucked in the meantime.

[CardinalBacker]

Here's a thought though... they long since outlawed "poll taxes" because they were keeping people from voting.  

I guess I still wonder how smart it is to have people who pay no taxes participate in the decision-making process with people who do, in fact, pay taxes.  

It's like being in the car with your wife and three kids out looking for food, but you keep getting out-voted by the kids in the back seat. 

 

Literally. 

[PAMFAM10]

The tax return is apple to Oranges I’m just curious of other alternatives. I believe it’s possible.