Bill Clinton likens new Voting Laws to Jim Crow Laws

[Cowlesy]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/bill_clinton_likens_proposed_voting_laws_in_florid a_nh_to_jim_crow.html


"There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the voter Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit a franchise that we see today," Former President Bill Clinton said at Campus Progress conference in Washington, D.C.

Jim Crow laws, enacted after the Civil War until the mid-1960s, suppressed the black vote because it required them to take literacy tests and pay poll taxes in order to vote.

Clinton also pandered to minority communities who have "paid their price" already:

"Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they've paid their price?" Clinton asked. "Because most of them in Florida were African Americans and Hispanics and would tend to vote for Democrats, that's why."

Clinton was referring to a proposed law in New Hampshire that would not allow college students from registering in that state, where they attend school, instead of their home state.


See the video at the link here... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/bill_clinton_likens_proposed_voting_laws_in_florid a_nh_to_jim_crow.html)

You got to fight these people. They don't want fair elections, they want whatever garners them the most votes.

Give an inch, they take 10 more.

[acptulsa]

The first time I ever voted in a presidential election I was a student registered far from home. Since the first Tuesday in November happens during a normal school schedule, it seemed like the right thing to do.

I have to go with Slick Willie on this one.

[Krugerrand]

I can't see why any community would want people who are only passing through for a couple of years to determine their political representatives.

[Krugerrand]

Plus, I like the poll tax - if we can eliminate all other taxes.

[dannno]

If I go to college somewhere I should be able to vote there. I have heard a lot of arguments saying students shouldn't be able to vote in their own college community and they are completely illogical.

Here's why:

Many argue that the students will be gone in 4 years so they won't vote in the interest of the community, or they will vote in the interest of the school/students.

The students will vote in the best interest of the school and the students there, yes. But the excuse that they won't be there in 4 years is invalid. In four years, ANOTHER STUDENT will be there to take their place. So the students should vote in their own best interest for the benefit of those who will take their place in 4 years.

[acptulsa]

I can't see why any community would want people who are only passing through for a couple of years to determine their political representatives.

Is that guaranteed? Is it a given? Has no one decided to settle in the place where they went to college?

Seems to me like more than a few people who are attending college out of their home state are ready to relocate. It hardly makes sense to alienate these soon-to-be educated people.

[Krugerrand]

If I go to college somewhere I should be able to vote there. I have heard a lot of arguments saying students shouldn't be able to vote in their own college community and they are completely illogical.

Here's why:

Many argue that the students will be gone in 4 years so they won't vote in the interest of the community, or they will vote in the interest of the school/students.

The students will vote in the best interest of the school and the students there, yes. But the excuse that they won't be there in 4 years is invalid. In four years, ANOTHER STUDENT will be there to take their place. So the students should vote in their own best interest for the benefit of those who will take their place in 4 years.

I disagree. You still have transients controlling local politics. That's not good.

[dannno]

I can't see why any community would want people who are only passing through for a couple of years to determine their political representatives.

See my post above.. it is because when they leave in a few years, there will be more students there to take their place, so the student body SHOULD get representation in the local community. Why shouldn't they??

[dannno]

I disagree. You still have transients controlling local politics. That's not good.

That's absolute bologna. The student body should absolutely have a say in local politics in the community. They may be transient, but their are always more coming in, to say that the ones coming in shouldn't have representation is ludicrous.

[Krugerrand]

Is that guaranteed? Is it a given? Has no one decided to settle in the place where they went to college?

Seems to me like more than a few people who are attending college out of their home state are ready to relocate. It hardly makes sense to alienate these soon-to-be educated people.

Personally, I'd rather go back to only land owners vote.

[amy31416]

"Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they've paid their price?" Clinton asked. "Because most of them in Florida were African Americans and Hispanics and would tend to vote for Democrats, that's why."


I'm a bit sleep-deprived, so forgive me if it's obvious, but WTF is he talking about here? Who's disenfranchised and why? Who's paid what price?

[dannno]

The students PAY TAXES LOCALLY. There is no good argument for not allowing them a say in the community. Basically, it allows the local community to inflict tyranny on the students. They can make really strict rules about partying and such, even though the students may have their own 'zone' for partying and it doesn't really affect the community.

[Krugerrand]

That's absolute bologna. The student body should absolutely have a say in local politics in the community. They may be transient, but their are always more coming in, to say that the ones coming in shouldn't have representation is ludicrous.

So, every year I hold a month long education program in November in your community. People can enroll in my program and live on campus. Should these people get to vote in your community, too?

[dannno]

Personally, I'd rather go back to only land owners vote.

If you pay taxes and you're a citizen you should get to vote.

[Krugerrand]

The students PAY TAXES LOCALLY. There is no good argument for not allowing them a say in the community. Basically, it allows the local community to inflict tyranny on the students. They can make really strict rules about partying and such, even though the students may have their own 'zone' for partying and it doesn't really affect the community.

Your way allows the students to inflict tyranny on the permanent residents.

[dannno]

So, every year I hold a month long education program in November in your community. People can enroll in my program and live on campus. Should these people get to vote in your community, too?

Of course not, these students are LIVING at the campus for years on end. Big difference. If the school has 20k students, then in 4 years they will have 20k students, all living there. Your plan is just a scam to bring in voters.

[dannno]

Your way allows the students to inflict tyranny on the permanent residents.

Only to the extent that Democracy is tyranny, but I never said the people in the community didn't get to vote, so my method is much more fair than yours, you want to take away the votes from people who LIVE there! I don't want to take away votes from anybody, I'm giving everybody a say.

[Krugerrand]

If you pay taxes and you're a citizen you should get to vote.

That's a big part of what got us into this mess. Popular vote is tyranny of the majority. That's the beauty of things like the electoral collage and when senators were not directly elected. The entire federal government is designed to prevent tyranny of the majority. On the local level, owning property was the protection. You had to be a stake-holder in the community. Own a piece of it before you can vote for somebody what is going to take it away and re-distribute it.

[Krugerrand]

Only to the extent that Democracy is tyranny, but I never said the people in the community didn't get to vote, so my method is much more fair than yours, you want to take away the votes from people who LIVE there! I don't want to take away votes from anybody, I'm giving everybody a say.

Look at the communities where the student population drastically out numbers the permanent residents. ie Boone, NC, State College, PA. The pittens that students pay in local taxes is nothing compared to the permanent residents that really have a horse in the race.

[Dr.3D]

Why not just let them use an absentee ballot like the people in the military do?

[acptulsa]

I think Willie was trying to say they're also taxpayers. But, of course, you can't expect the kind of person who can parse the word 'is' in public and with a straight face to just come out and simply say anything...


Why not just let them use an absentee ballot like the people in the military do?

Those who are planning to return to the city where their parents live can and should. But to tailor a one-size-fits-all law to them is to disenfranchise somebody else.

[dannno]

Why not just let them use an absentee ballot like the people in the military do?

Because the people in the military are in another country (or a tightly controlled military base?) and they don't have local U.S. elections to vote in.

[Krugerrand]

Why not just let them use an absentee ballot like the people in the military do?

Students are more in touch with left-ist propeganda. They're saddled with student loans. They're the ideal voter to the democratic party. They don't mind voting to save the polar bear at the expense of international taxes ... because they're sheltered from the world. If those votes are dispersed back among people that really have a vested interest in their community it will have less of an impact. But, if they can concentrate those votes, then they can start getting congressional seats and influence other races considerably.

[dannno]

Those who are planning to return to the city where their parents live can and should. But to tailor a one-size-fits-all law to them is to disenfranchise somebody else.

That's a good point.

There WERE students at my school who voted in their local elections via absentee ballots... but a lot of kids at my school weren't planning on moving back home, so why would they vote in the local elections from their home town? I happened to be one of those, I ended up staying here after I graduated. I also knew people who were from LA or somewhere else and planned to move to San Francisco or somewhere specific after college. I'm also VERY glad that students vote in this town otherwise it wouldn't be such a groovy place.

[dannno]

Look at the communities where the student population drastically out numbers the permanent residents. ie Boone, NC, State College, PA. The pittens that students pay in local taxes is nothing compared to the permanent residents that really have a horse in the race.

I'll bet if the students didn't vote there would be a big police state to control stupid things like alcohol and cannabis consumption and quiet hours where nobody gives a rats ass and the residents would be paying more in taxes anyway.

[Krugerrand]

I'll bet if the students didn't vote there would be a big police state to control stupid things like alcohol and cannabis consumption and quiet hours where nobody gives a rats ass and the residents would be paying more in taxes anyway.

Students should go to the school that is located where they want to be ... if this frightening nightmare were to become reality, the schools would sit empty and town would lose money ... and they'd change the laws as a result.

[dannno]

Students should go to the school that is located where they want to be ... if this frightening nightmare were to become reality, the schools would sit empty and town would lose money ... and they'd change the laws as a result.

Well the opposite of the scenario you laid out is the small local community would essentially be able to leach off of the student population tax-wise, because the students wouldn't have any say in the matter. Allowing students the choice to vote in their local community seems most fair, some will inevitably vote absentee anyway.

[Krugerrand]

Well the opposite of the scenario you laid out is the small local community would essentially be able to leach off of the student population tax-wise, because the students wouldn't have any say in the matter. Allowing students the choice to vote in their local community seems most fair, some will inevitably vote absentee anyway.

Sure they would have a say in the matter ... don't go to school there.

Let's suppose those nasty, hateful permanent residents institute a $150.00/text book tax. How long before students stop going to the school that will cost them an extra $1500 for the semester's text books? What if those hateful permanent residents implement a mandatory live-in rehab sentencing for pot possession ... thus guaranteeing that students would fail their courses ... students go somewhere else. Students are customers. They have a choice in where they spend their dollars.