NH Republican/Tea Partier wants to stop youth vote

Story here.

As a summary: William O’Brian basically states “We don’t like how students vote, so they’re obviously dumb kids and we should keep them from voting.”

We’ve all seen attempts to tweak things in favor from both parties, but I’m having trouble believing this shitstain can outright state that he wants to disenfranchise young voters. It’s like they’re really trying to go back to the ‘landowner only’ voting of the earlier centuries. How can ANYONE see this as a good idea at all?

Correction: How can anyone with a brain and morals see this as a good idea?

Fixed link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602662.html

Them there kids ain’t edjumacated enough to vote. That’s why they’s in school, idn’t it?
Shee-it.

There is a loss of civility directly traceable to those darn kids with their dirty long hair, love beads and “groovy” talk. Oh wait, wrong username, wrong generation, just wrong all way round.

He doesn’t want to stop them from voting. He’s perfectly OK with those damn liberal New Yorkers voting as long as they vote in New York, and not in NH where they just go to school.

This would be a great argument if it were true. Unfortunately, that is not the stated reason he gave, and that is only part of the bill, and you completely ignored the other part of the proposal that was pretty much targeted to stop students of /any/ sort from voting.

Wisconson apparently has a similar law up for vote, but I don’t currently have a cite for it.

I’m not defending this guy’s comments. I thought that was obvious by the “damn liberal New Yorkers” part.

In principle, I don’t have any problem with prohibiting election day registration. I don’t like the idea of targeting certain voters, but there’s no reason that students can’t register in advance to vote. In my experience, colleges generally facilitate that process. If they don’t, then party operatives can take up the slack. Nothing like a target rich environment in which to hold a registration drive.

So you agree with the principal mechanics, in theory, but not the reasons for them?

Okay, I’m a reasonable guy, I can buy that.

Yeah, there’s always something like that in committee but I hope that it never passes. I went to Wisconsin for undergrad and I absolutely loved their system of registration

Here’s what it boiled down to:

  1. Show up on election day
  2. Show proof of address to where you’re currently domiciled.

Congrats! You’re registered. Here’s your ballot. Go vote.

And why shouldn’t it be that way? I’m there 9 months of the year. The elections directly affect me way more than whatever’s going on back home where I’d have to mail off an absentee ballot that never gets counted. It gets students more politically active and it gets politicians coming by campus all the time because UW voters can swing an election.

This sounds like a tangent, but to bring it back, I don’t think we should be trying to disenfranchise youth voters. If anything, we need more states with awesome registration laws like Wisconsin has.

This is a very good idea; many chieftains of the Tory party in Britain started off as prominent Young Conservatives.

Minnesota has the same registration system, and it works very well (except for the long lines to register at presidential elections). North Dakota’s system works even better:

  1. Show up
  2. Vote

No registration.

Since they’ve said repeatedly on WMUR that they want NH students to vote in their hometowns and out-of-state students to vote by absentee ballot, I’m going to go with the assumption that the goal is to make voting more of a pain in the ass than to try to prevent them from voting at all…though I’m sure they’d find it a damn shame if less student voting went on.

I for one don’t like the proposed change. It was very nice to be able to register to vote in Durham, a place I spent nine months of the year, rather than going home to vote or trying to procure an absentee ballot. The volunteers who had to register us - NH has same day registration - whined a lot about it, but fuck 'em. They had to know that volunteering in a college town would lead to a lot of new voters.

Don’t give them any ideas. Lurking on Free Republic, I’ve actually seen posts lamenting the abolition of property qualifications.

And also posts lamenting giving women the vote. Sometimes they say that if women didn’t have the vote, a Democrat would never get elected president again.

They do it out in the open too (and semi-recently).

hmm. I don’t know how I feel about this. I didn’t read the link (I’m too damn tired, sorry), but I’m assuming there is a desire to raise the age limit from 18 to (I’ll guess) 21?

How could someone possibly spin this idea to make it look like anything other than what it appears to be (a disenfranchisement of a core group of voters who tend to favor one party over the other)?

Is there any sound reasoning given in the article?

No.

Next week, Tea Party suggests slave owning would allow more people to be property-owners and thus extend the franchise.

Didn’t read the article, but there is a valid concern in some towns that a large number of voters are a constantly cycling transient population who have no particular interest in the ongoing management of the town, and often contribute little in terms of tax revenues.

And how would raising the age limit change that?

In Germany, in order to vote in a certain voting district, you need to have your primary residence for the last 3 months in that district. Of course that’s tied to our law where you have to register your residence at the city office, which is TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS or something for Americans.