Should a bill be introduced to remove voting booths from Churches

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: mwtgg
*sigh*

What does it matter?

Agreed, and I wouldn't have responded here further except I see I made it into your sig 😀

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: mwtgg
*sigh*

What does it matter?

Agreed, and I wouldn't have responded here further except I see I made it into your sig 😀

Too bad you don't deserve to be in there with the other asshat.

 

[raildogg]

if it is handled properly, then why?

 

[Ryan]

I voted in a church. I'm agnostic, and didn't have any problem with it. Who cares? :roll:

 

[miketheidiot]

They might as when put the polls in republican campaign offices.

But I supose as long as they take done any way literature ie posters of even remote political signifigance, I fine with it. Even if they had the polls in a republican campaign office.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
If there's a civic center and a church, use the civic center, if not, there's no real problem with the church. Here in Canada, most of the polling places seem to be schools, but that might just be my experience, and it might not be done in the US, I don't know.

I unnderstand .. and I am guessing that 99% of areas that held voting in churches could have used a school instead.

Voting is usually on a Tuesday...schools just happen to be open on Tuesday. Soooo....buy having the school be a polling place you end up disrupting the school. Happened in my precinct......one year they moved voting to the school because the church that is the normal polling place had been flooded the week before by a water line break. The end result......they disrupted the school due to the voting taking place there. The school administration vowed to never let it happen again after many kids and parents complained.

Was this in a really small rural area?

Why can't they use just the school gymnasium.. no need to close the school for that.

No.

That's what they did, but it disrupted the gym classes, the cheerleading practice, wrestling practice, basketball practice, and various other things...

Those poor children.. Can't miss one day for the most important day for Americans?

Why should they have to? My property taxes pay to keep that school open....that's what it should be used for.....school.

Irrelevant to this discussion -


the kids did not need to stay home.. just no P/E for a day.


Your property taxes are also higher because the Church doesn't have to pay any.

Why should they have to miss PE when there is a perfectly godo building across the street that can be used for voting without disrupting anyone?

No, my property taxes are higher because the idiots in Oklahoma City gave the county assesors the right to raise our property taxes by 5% every year for no freaking reason...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why should they have to miss PE when there is a perfectly godo building across the street that can be used for voting without disrupting anyone?

No, my property taxes are higher because the idiots in Oklahoma City gave the county assesors the right to raise our property taxes by 5% every year for no freaking reason...

They should miss PE because the school building is owned and operated by the government, and entails not even the slightest hint of partisanship, nor the sligthest possibility of proucing discomfort in people who feel they 'don't really belong there'. I have no problem with churches as polling stations, but schools are unequivocably better choices.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Tom
as long as the election officials are properly trained, appointed, etc. i don't see a problem.

Should be done on PUBLIC land with PUBLIC officials and PUBLIC funding. I am shocked to hear that this occurs anywhere in the US.

I swear. I should start a list of reasons America is Fed up. I swear I could beat sales of the 365 uses of duct tape calander.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Yeah, I've considered that before. I've always voted at the local civic center, school, or community college - never had to use a church. But then again, it's just a building. You'd have to be pretty whiny to think you were being badgered by religion by simply walking into a church and pulling a lever.

Think of it this way. Go to church every week? What is to talk about? The election on Tusday. Are you coming? In smaller neighborhoods, it's just one of those things you have to do in order to fit in.

But if you don't go to church you're probably more apt to talk about football than Tuesdays election.

So this does in fact favor hte religious right of this country, which is against everything our forefathers were against.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Tom
as long as the election officials are properly trained, appointed, etc. i don't see a problem.

Should be done on PUBLIC land with PUBLIC officials and PUBLIC funding. I am shocked to hear that this occurs anywhere in the US.

I swear. I should start a list of reasons America is Fed up. I swear I could beat sales of the 365 uses of duct tape calander.

I tend to agree... we need elections to be held on public property with non-partisan workers with only bi-partisan observation (not intervention). Registration must be made universal and simplified... no more incidents like in NV, OR, etc....

Counting of the votes must be made collectively inside a county in a open arena. Only paper ballots and only hand counting... no more scanning machines, no more touchscreens.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why should they have to miss PE when there is a perfectly godo building across the street that can be used for voting without disrupting anyone?

No, my property taxes are higher because the idiots in Oklahoma City gave the county assesors the right to raise our property taxes by 5% every year for no freaking reason...

They should miss PE because the school building is owned and operated by the government, and entails not even the slightest hint of partisanship, nor the sligthest possibility of proucing discomfort in people who feel they 'don't really belong there'. I have no problem with churches as polling stations, but schools are unequivocably better choices.

Yes it is owned by the govt.....and it's purpose is to educate kids. No partisanship at schools? That's freaking hilarious!!!

So lets say we move voting into schools....no more voting in churches is allowed. Fine.....but one thing. How is voting in schools going to make the illiterate feel?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Why is election reform so hard to discuss for the right? Do you like the secretive manner in which are run? If so, why?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Tom
as long as the election officials are properly trained, appointed, etc. i don't see a problem.

Should be done on PUBLIC land with PUBLIC officials and PUBLIC funding. I am shocked to hear that this occurs anywhere in the US.

I swear. I should start a list of reasons America is Fed up. I swear I could beat sales of the 365 uses of duct tape calander.

I tend to agree... we need elections to be held on public property with non-partisan workers with only bi-partisan observation (not intervention). Registration must be made universal and simplified... no more incidents like in NV, OR, etc....

Counting of the votes must be made collectively inside a county in a open arena. Only paper ballots and only hand counting... no more scanning machines, no more touchscreens.

Uh huh....while we are at it why don't we just roll those clocks on back to 1758? Scanning machines are where it is at. Unless you are a total drooling idiot you cannot mess up a scantron type ballot and the machines...well...they just work.

Jeez....non partisan people counting the votes? Do you really think that is possible? The people doing the counting will have voted for someone......oh golly....that means they are partisan.

Honestly this whole idea that the voting system in this country is full of fraud and underhanded tricks is laughable......sure it happens in certain places....of that I am sure...but it is not widespread and no matter what new system you go to you are not going to make it better. There is always a way to cheat...build a better mousetrap you know...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Yes it is owned by the govt.....and it's purpose is to educate kids. No partisanship at schools? That's freaking hilarious!!!

So lets say we move voting into schools....no more voting in churches is allowed. Fine.....but one thing. How is voting in schools going to make the illiterate feel?

That's a non-sequitar - literacy and religion are not comparable attributes of people.

You don't have to have school staff run polling booths (so partisanship need not be an issue), anymore than you need church staff to run churches; but there is no particular value judgement represented by schools as buildings, while there is a certain salience of religion that can't be avoided in a church building.

And if you read my earlier posts you will see that I do not support banning churches as polling places. What I did was provide a series of arguments for why schools are a better choice, when practical.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Why is election reform so hard to discuss for the right? Do you like the secretive manner in which are run? If so, why?

It's not - however when you have rabid leftists constantly bleating their conspiracy theories( "secretive manner" :roll: ), it makes things a tad difficult to "discuss".

CsG

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Tom
as long as the election officials are properly trained, appointed, etc. i don't see a problem.

Should be done on PUBLIC land with PUBLIC officials and PUBLIC funding. I am shocked to hear that this occurs anywhere in the US.

I swear. I should start a list of reasons America is Fed up. I swear I could beat sales of the 365 uses of duct tape calander.

I tend to agree... we need elections to be held on public property with non-partisan workers with only bi-partisan observation (not intervention). Registration must be made universal and simplified... no more incidents like in NV, OR, etc....

Counting of the votes must be made collectively inside a county in a open arena. Only paper ballots and only hand counting... no more scanning machines, no more touchscreens.

Uh huh....while we are at it why don't we just roll those clocks on back to 1758? Scanning machines are where it is at. Unless you are a total drooling idiot you cannot mess up a scantron type ballot and the machines...well...they just work.

Jeez....non partisan people counting the votes? Do you really think that is possible? The people doing the counting will have voted for someone......oh golly....that means they are partisan.

Honestly this whole idea that the voting system in this country is full of fraud and underhanded tricks is laughable......sure it happens in certain places....of that I am sure...but it is not widespread and no matter what new system you go to you are not going to make it better. There is always a way to cheat...build a better mousetrap you know...

From the sound of it is that you applaud your party for coming up with a great way to cheat. Nice.

Oh and btw, where did I say that only non-partisan people would be counting the votes? Hmmm....

How much fraud is acceptable to you? Give me a number of times... give me a number of votes. I'd really like to hear how much fraud you like.

How about this? Instead of building a better mousetrap for someone to defraud, why not eliminate the mouse trap?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Why is election reform so hard to discuss for the right? Do you like the secretive manner in which are run? If so, why?

Why is election reform such a hot topic for the left? Didn't seem to be an issue when Clinton won his 2 terms. Hmmm....must be because THEY LOST AGAIN AND CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DID NOT LIKE THEIR CANDIDATE.

I have no problem talking reform....what I have a problem with is talking reform when it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack/conspiracy thread regarding the last election because the left's preferred candidate lost.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Honestly this whole idea that the voting system in this country is full of fraud and underhanded tricks is laughable......sure it happens in certain places....of that I am sure...but it is not widespread and no matter what new system you go to you are not going to make it better. There is always a way to cheat...build a better mousetrap you know...

I don't know why your political parties are allowed so much input at voting time. It seems ridiculous to me to allow parties with obvious, directional interest in the outcome of the election, to essentially run the election themselves.

Elections should be run by an armslength, government funded organization with a protected, unassailable budget. It shouldn't be possible for elected officials to manipulate voter lists in any way; allowing this is asking for electioneering to be rampant.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Why is election reform so hard to discuss for the right? Do you like the secretive manner in which are run? If so, why?

Why is election reform such a hot topic for the left? Didn't seem to be an issue when Clinton won his 2 terms. Hmmm....must be because THEY LOST AGAIN AND CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DID NOT LIKE THEIR CANDIDATE.

I have no problem talking reform....what I have a problem with is talking reform when it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack/conspiracy thread regarding the last election because the left's preferred candidate lost.

Wow! Just wow! Going back to the "You lost! Get over it!" argument. How many elections have to be tainted before the "right" takes notice? Hmmm... maybe we should do it to you?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Why is election reform so hard to discuss for the right? Do you like the secretive manner in which are run? If so, why?

Why is election reform such a hot topic for the left? Didn't seem to be an issue when Clinton won his 2 terms. Hmmm....must be because THEY LOST AGAIN AND CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DID NOT LIKE THEIR CANDIDATE.

I have no problem talking reform....what I have a problem with is talking reform when it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack/conspiracy thread regarding the last election because the left's preferred candidate lost.

Wow! Just wow! Going back to the "You lost! Get over it!" argument. How many elections have to be tainted before the "right" takes notice? Hmmm... maybe we should do it to you?

Ahahahahahaha!!! That's funny....like the Democrats have never rigged an election......do a bit O looking into Chicago politics....or better yet....look at some of the stuff that went on when JFK was first elected President.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Why is election reform so hard to discuss for the right? Do you like the secretive manner in which are run? If so, why?

Why is election reform such a hot topic for the left? Didn't seem to be an issue when Clinton won his 2 terms. Hmmm....must be because THEY LOST AGAIN AND CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DID NOT LIKE THEIR CANDIDATE.

I have no problem talking reform....what I have a problem with is talking reform when it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack/conspiracy thread regarding the last election because the left's preferred candidate lost.

Wow! Just wow! Going back to the "You lost! Get over it!" argument. How many elections have to be tainted before the "right" takes notice? Hmmm... maybe we should do it to you?

Ahahahahahaha!!! That's funny....like the Democrats have never rigged an election......do a bit O looking into Chicago politics....or better yet....look at some of the stuff that went on when JFK was first elected President.

Did I say I approved of it? We can't do anything about it forty years after-the-fact, but the American people CAN do something about this in the NOW.

 

[3chordcharlie]

So now the fact theat election fraud in American history is apparently absolutely rampant, from both sides, is an argument for not trying to fix it?

Having the less popular candidate cheat their way to election once is a disaster (so let's assume for the sake of argument that this was JFK, 44 years ago); keeping intact a system that allows this to happen over and over again is a travesty.

Also, FTR, that would be the 'frist and only time JFK was elected president 😉 It's not like he got a second chance at it!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why? Oh lemme guess....separation of church and state right? Well gee......if that's the reason I suggest you look up what that really means.

Here's a hint....it's about the Federal Govt setting up an official state religion...nothing more....nothing less......all the other arguments are nothing more than mental masturbation.

I wonder what Christians would do if they were forced to vote in a mosque?

Interesting. Were there voting booths set up in synagogues and churches I'd be willing to be you'd hear from the vocal Jesus-Freaks.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Without the inflammatory connotations, there are definitely areas, especially of larger cities, which are predominantly Jewish, so: if the only polling station available to you were in a synagogue, would you have a problem with having to go there in order to vote?

 

[eigen]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why? Oh lemme guess....separation of church and state right? Well gee......if that's the reason I suggest you look up what that really means.

Here's a hint....it's about the Federal Govt setting up an official state religion...nothing more....nothing less......all the other arguments are nothing more than mental masturbation.

I wonder what Christians would do if they were forced to vote in a mosque?

Interesting. Were there voting booths set up in synagogues and churches I'd be willing to be you'd hear from the vocal Jesus-Freaks.

Better yet in a wiccan temple or perhaps we could set up the booths right by a satanic altar.Hey satanism is recognized by the US army. So why not set them up there. After all its just a building.