Roll Call: Who is voting early? Who is waiting til Nov. 5 (and why?)

[GQNC]

I assisted my wife canvassing for the Harris campaign in Concord today. We knocked on 26 campaign office selected doors in a mixed but predominately black neighborhood, and I made the following observations:
1) at only three houses had the residents already voted (they voted for Harris and Stein)
2) at 8-9 houses the residents had not voted but were going to vote for Harris and Stein and in several it was 1-3 higher resident count than the campaign office had listed
3) the black men were very enthusiastic about voting for Harris and it was mostly black men that we talked with
4) the majority of people are not home on a weekday afternoon
5) canvassing is pretty cool - we plan to do another neighborhood this weekend.

 

[rodoheel]

On this very thread, a link was shared that said the amendment is somehow being used to spread “anti immigrant rhetoric”. It’s not anti immigrant rhetoric to say that you have to be a citizen of the United States to vote. The results of this vote will show just how far off the deep end 30% or so of the state has gone (whatever percentage votes no for it)

That is a complete non-answer. Let me try again. What do you understand will be changed or benefitted by the amendment? Do you even know what the state constitution already says?

here is the current language:

"Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, 18 years of age, and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided."

Here is the proposed amended language:

"Only a citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age and otherwise possessing the qualifications for voting shall be entitled to vote at any election in this State."

So what change do you think is being made? And why do you think the ballot initiative doesn't even include the current language or tell voters that this is amending language that already exists in the Constitution? Why do you think Republicans feel the need to mislead voters about the need for this amendment?

 

[uncsig]

too important

Well, he does live in Costa Rica. So there's that.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

You can @ me next time and not misrepresent my position.

I said that I think localities should be allowed to decide whether they want non citizens to vote in local elections. Notice nothing in that says anything about whether they’re an illegal or legal immigrant.

I’m not even saying you’re wrong or crazy, just pointing out to others that there are definitely folks who don’t support the “you must be 18 and must be a citizen to vote”. You don’t support either of those rules.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

I mean, in your second paragraph you used my position to claim that the Democratic Party had “gone off the rails” on the immigration issue. That sounds to me like you think my position is crazy. And we both know full well that my position isn’t indicative of the position of the Democratic Party.

Ok you’re right, I do think you are off the reservation crazy for that one position. I did say that. But I like you as a poster despite our differing viewpoints so it’s nothing personal against you - just think the ideas are crazy, not the person, if that makes sense.

 

[heelfan108]

I’m not even saying you’re wrong or crazy, just pointing out to others that there are definitely folks who don’t support the “you must be 18 and must be a citizen to vote”. You don’t support either of those rules.

Big difference between requiring citizenship to vote for President of the US and requiring citizenship to vote for your local school board. Are you able to discern the difference?

EDIT to Add: We are letting HY2012 derail this thread - probably should be its own thread so I will not respond here any further.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

I think if you’d engage a bit with the idea of non-citizen residents voting in local elections instead of dismissing it out of hand, you’d realize it’s not crazy.

Not saying you’d agree with it, but it’s not a crazy position to have. There are localities in the U.S. that allow it as we speak.

One of the reasons I like you more than I like most posters here is because I get the impression that me, you & CFord could all grab beers and talk about our different (sometimes significantly different) viewpoints without going at each other’s throats and taking it personally.

I have a cousin who is a Bernie Bro and he gets along with my dad (who is a Fox News-watching Trump supporter) really well. They mercilessly make fun of each other’s political beliefs but they recognize that family/friendships supersede political differences.

I don’t mean to put words in your mouth if you disagree with that and you’d actually tell me to just fuck off even in real life. But I get the impression that you come to the conversation with a less combative disposition than most here, and for that I appreciate the discourse with you!

Truly didn’t mean to say anything bad about you personally even if I do think it’s absurd to let non citizens vote in our elections (even if just local ones).

 

[HeelYeah2012]

Big difference between requiring citizenship to vote for President of the US and requiring citizenship to vote for your local school board. Are you able to discern the difference?

EDIT to Add: We are letting HY2012 derail this thread - probably should be its own thread so I will not respond here any further.

I do see the difference but I disagree with it in both cases. Happy to drop the subject and get this back on topic about early voting.

 

[rodoheel]

I do see the difference but I disagree with it in both cases. Happy to drop the subject and get this back on topic about early voting.

Conveniently without ever actually answering the question of what you think the purpose of this amendment actually is?

 

[Calheel]

HeelYeah was the guy PT Barnum was referring to when he said there is a sucker born every minute. He's now outraged that people wouldn't vote for a law that's already a law. He falls for every MAGA canard that comes along.

In fairness to Heelyeah, California has a proposition on the ballot this year to modify the constitutional definition of marriage -- even though gay marriage is already legal in the state. And I think we did something similar with abortion the last election. So, amending the constitution to more formally codify a law is not something limited to Republicans. Democrats virtue signal, too. (I know, I know -- it is not exactly the same. But the idea that California is ever going to ban gay marriage? If that were to ever happen, the constitution would likely be amended yet again, too -- so it really is a pointless proposition other than virtue signaling).

 

[HeelYeah2012]

In fairness to Heelyeah, California has a proposition on the ballot this year to modify the constitutional definition of marriage -- even though gay marriage is already legal in the state. And I think we did something similar with abortion the last election. So, amending the constitution to more formally codify a law is not something limited to Republicans. Democrats virtue signal, too. (I know, I know -- it is not exactly the same. But the idea that California is ever going to ban gay marriage? If that were to ever happen, the constitution would likely be amended yet again, too -- so it really is a pointless proposition other than virtue signaling).

Exactly. It's virtue signaling while at the same time trying to highlight the extremism of X% of voters in the other party. It'll be funny to see how many people vote against the amendment which simply codifies that a person must be an 18 year old US citizen in order to vote.

As the one poster above said, the main reason many will vote no is because Republicans will be voting yes. They want to own the Pubs above all else!

 

[Enigma94]

In fairness to Heelyeah, California has a proposition on the ballot this year to modify the constitutional definition of marriage -- even though gay marriage is already legal in the state. And I think we did something similar with abortion the last election. So, amending the constitution to more formally codify a law is not something limited to Republicans. Democrats virtue signal, too. (I know, I know -- it is not exactly the same. But the idea that California is ever going to ban gay marriage? If that were to ever happen, the constitution would likely be amended yet again, too -- so it really is a pointless proposition other than virtue signaling).

If there’s a law already protecting gay marriage I wouldn’t care if someone voted for or against another law saying the same thing. HY is all up in his feels calling people crazy for not going along with the virtue signaling. It’s this MAGA activation that he falls for time and time again.

 

[Centerpiece]

Overall, Early voting favors Harris 2-1 thus far.

 

[superrific]

Overall, Early voting favors Harris 2-1 thus far.

Where, and source? Is it that same Suffolk poll I cited?

 

[rodoheel]

In fairness to Heelyeah, California has a proposition on the ballot this year to modify the constitutional definition of marriage -- even though gay marriage is already legal in the state. And I think we did something similar with abortion the last election. So, amending the constitution to more formally codify a law is not something limited to Republicans. Democrats virtue signal, too. (I know, I know -- it is not exactly the same. But the idea that California is ever going to ban gay marriage? If that were to ever happen, the constitution would likely be amended yet again, too -- so it really is a pointless proposition other than virtue signaling).

These two situations are not the same. The California constitution does not already contain language making clear that gay marriage is legal. In fact, California Proposition 8 is still on the books, a constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage. That amendment was ruled unconstitutional but is still on the books. This new amendment would repeal Prop 8 and enshrine gay marriage in the California constitution so that it is constitutionally protected in the state in the event Obergfell is repealed at the national level.

By contrast, the NC Constitution ALREADY LIMITS VOTING TO CITIZENS 18 OR OLDER. The amendment makes no change to the state constitution other than semantics.

 

[rodoheel]

Exactly. It's virtue signaling while at the same time trying to highlight the extremism of X% of voters in the other party. It'll be funny to see how many people vote against the amendment which simply codifies that a person must be an 18 year old US citizen in order to vote.

As the one poster above said, the main reason many will vote no is because Republicans will be voting yes. They want to own the Pubs above all else!

So even if you think the NC and California situations are the same (which, as I’ve already said, they aren’t) you are admitting that NC Republicans are just pointlessly virtue signaling the same as “woke” California. And you still aren't offended by that?

 

[Icky Mettle]

The constitution shouldn’t consist of a list of rules regarding what we the people aren’t allowed to do. That’s what statutes are for. The constitution should serve two primary functions: (2) to define the roles of our government institutions , and (2) to identify the rights of the citizens that are to be protected.

 

[ColdBlueSteel]

These two situations are not the same. The California constitution does not already contain language making clear that gay marriage is legal. In fact, California Proposition 8 is still on the books, a constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage. That amendment was ruled unconstitutional but is still on the books. This new amendment would repeal Prop 8 and enshrine gay marriage in the California constitution so that it is constitutionally protected in the state in the event Obergfell is repealed at the national level.

By contrast, the NC Constitution ALREADY LIMITS VOTING TO CITIZENS 18 OR OLDER. The amendment makes no change to the state constitution other than semantics.

So in conclusion…do what?

 

[CRHeel94]

too important

I wish I could...but not a US citizen.

 

[donbosco]

I wish I could...but not a US citizen.

I LOLlered…