Voter fraud or taking advantage of a loophole?

[Just Jack]

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/pennington-county-voters-list-walmart-as-address/article_37a5c1e3-bee5-56a0-9846-6016eb4fb2be.html

 

Quote

 

The two candidates for auditor of Pennington County disagree about the legality of dozens of voter registrations that list the north-side Rapid City Walmart as an address.

...

Forty-one of those voters are considered inactive, which means they have not voted in at least four years, and have not responded to mailings from the Auditor’s Office, and could be removed from the voter rolls after another four years of inactivity.

...

Walmart address originated many years ago with people who traveled full-time in recreational vehicles and sometimes stayed overnight in Walmart parking lots.

...

The number of the registrations was formerly higher, but many RVers who register to vote in South Dakota now do so with the help of mail-forwarding companies, such as Americas Mailbox in Box Elder. There are currently 5,042 active registered voters at that company’s address. Besides utilizing the mail-forwarding service, some RVers use the company's help to establish full residency in South Dakota because of the state’s lack of an income tax and relatively cheap vehicle licensing and registration fees.

 

 

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, Just Jack said:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/pennington-county-voters-list-walmart-as-address/article_37a5c1e3-bee5-56a0-9846-6016eb4fb2be.html

 

 

 

Have been to that Walmart.  Don't recall seeing ANY RV's there in the parking lot.

[unbillievable]

27 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Have been to that Walmart.  Don't recall seeing ANY RV's there in the parking lot.

 

There has been a mini-explosion of minimalists who renovate SUV/Vans instead of living in an RV.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by unbillievable

[Paulus]

Not allowing them to vote would be 1000 times worse, and illegal. Change the law, if you dont like it. But, don't arbitrarily enforce it. 

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, Paulus said:

Change the law, if you dont like it. But, don't arbitrarily enforce it. 

 

[Doc]

5 hours ago, Paulus said:

Not allowing them to vote would be 1000 times worse, and illegal. Change the law, if you dont like it. But, don't arbitrarily enforce it. 

 

Sorry but Walmart is not a valid/legal residence for anyone.

[TakeYouToTasker]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Sorry but Walmart is not a valid/legal residence for anyone.

 

What about the homeless?  Should they be permitted to vote, or is being in poverty so grave a crime that it should strip an individual of their rights?

[Paulus]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

What about the homeless?  Should they be permitted to vote, or is being in poverty so grave a crime that it should strip an individual of their rights?

Exactly... You don't gotta be a landowner to vote anymore.

[Doc]

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What about the homeless?  Should they be permitted to vote, or is being in poverty so grave a crime that it should strip an individual of their rights?

 

Fair point.  Of course they should be permitted to vote. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Fair point.  Of course they should be permitted to vote. 

 

I was pretty sure that would be your answer when I asked.

 

Voting is a complicated issue.  If an individual believes the franchise is a fundamental right, residence, or lack there of, is an unjust barrier as it serves to disenfranchise our most vulnerable citizens.

 

If, however, the franchise is a privilege earned by merit there is a valid conversation to be had about restricting the vote to those who are stakeholders (net tax-payers) and those who serve.

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

What about the homeless?  Should they be permitted to vote, or is being in poverty so grave a crime that it should strip an individual of their rights?

 

The difference between the homeless and the RVers is that the homeless generally live in the district they're voting in. The RVers apparently do not.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

The difference between the homeless and the RVers is that the homeless generally live in the district they're voting in. The RVers apparently do not.

 

I don't think arguing that transients aren't transient is going to be a big winner.

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I don't think arguing that transients aren't transient is going to be a big winner.

 

So you're discriminating against the transients for moving between cardboard boxes?

 

You monster!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

If, however, the franchise is a privilege earned by merit there is a valid conversation to be had about restricting the vote to those who are stakeholders (net tax-payers) and those who serve.

 

In my perfect world, this is how it would work.

 

Only, I'd restrict the vote to veterans and those currently on active duty.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

13 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

In my perfect world, this is how it would work.

 

Only, I'd restrict the vote to veterans and those currently on active duty.

 

 

A valid opinion, though I disagree.  I'll explain:

 

The main reason I disagree with this stance is because it is harder to become a member of the service than it is to get into college (ADD, flat feet, asthma, or poor vision among dozens of other medical reasons can prevent you from being accepted); and the inability to serve, which is necessarily determine by the military itself, should not, in itself, preclude the franchise.  As such there needs to be an equitable merit based alternative, and becoming a productive net-contributing member of society seems reasonable.

Edited May 21, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

A valid opinion, though I disagree.  I'll explain:

 

The main reason I disagree with this stance is because it is harder to become a member of the service than it is to get into college; and the inability to serve, which is necessarily determine by the military itself, should not, in itself, should not preclude the franchise.  As such there needs to be an equitable merit based alternative, and becoming a productive net-contributing member of society seems reasonable.

 

Very loosely, I have a "skin in the game" mindset.

 

Landowners, members of the military, registrants for selective service, net taxpayers, some combination of the above, etc.

 

It's not well-formed yet.

Edited May 21, 2018 by LeviF91

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Very loosely, I have a "skin in the game" mindset.

 

Landowners, members of the military, registrants for selective service, net taxpayers, some combination of the above, etc.

 

It's not well-formed yet.

 

I go back and forth on landowners, as that reeks of a hereditary aristocracy, and if the franchise is truly to be merit based, it should be merit based along individual lines, not dynastically through inheritance.