Tories introduce bill to ban veiled voting

now you have a problem with mail in ballots ? whats ever been considerd wrong with those ?

Reread her post, ryan.

now you have a problem with mail in ballots ? whats ever been considerd wrong with those ?

Reverse your perceptions. Lily's got a point.

now you have a problem with mail in ballots ? whats ever been considerd wrong with those ?

Reverse your perceptions. Lily's got a point.


well i was being a little harsh , but veiled voting for whatever reasons is considered more controversal since voter enters polling station hiding their face . and it was just allowed , mail in voting well i'm not sure of exact details but its been used for years so it can't have too many problems or why would it be allowed ?

Good.

Are they going home yet ?

Only so many ballots can be mailed to a certain address before it attracts attention. But if veiled voting is allowed then what stops someone wearing a burqha from voting and then leaving, putting on a different burqha, and returning to vote again? And then repeating the process not just at one precinct, but at several across a town? With an organized effort 100 people could easily vote in a large city 1,000 times and no one would be able to prove anything wrong happened.

1,000 votes are often enough to decide an awful lot of elections.

Had such a thing been going on in Florida or Ohio the US would have a different President today.

Well philosophically I am against this but that seems a bit much.

What we need is to introduce laws that state when identification is required then only these are deemed acceptable:

(insert various ID sources).

It should further state that an acceptable ID will contain certain information and bear a detailed photograph and signature.

We aren't forcing them to vote or drive or whatever. If they want that priveledge then they obey our rules governing them.

If that is unacceptable then the doors is thataway.

Of course this kind of attitude cannot be easily defended when we invade their countries and tell them what to do.

If we want to demand "they"obey our laws then we cannot dispute "their" right to enact and enforce laws in their country regardless of how we feel about them.

In other words, if we want the right to force them not to wear burkas (for our reasons) then we cannot ever ever object to their right to force women to wear them.

Its blackletter logic.

I think presented this way Bart you would have to agree.

And what good is an ID when you can't match it to a face? Because with a veil or a burqha you can't see the person's face.

And comparing signatures does you little good if the person's legal signature is in Arabic.

And what good is an ID when you can't match it to a face? Because with a veil or a burqha you can't see the person's face.

And comparing signatures does you little good if the person's legal signature is in Arabic.

I wonder how long before thumbprint ID will become as commonplace as a sig?

It would certainly dispense with this type of argument.

And what good is an ID when you can't match it to a face? Because with a veil or a burqha you can't see the person's face.

And comparing signatures does you little good if the person's legal signature is in Arabic.

I wonder how long before thumbprint ID will become as commonplace as a sig?

It would certainly dispense with this type of argument.

Or, as they do in Iraq and any other place where veiled women are allowed to vote, everyone has to have their thumb stained with indelible ink after they vote. This prevents the scenarios I presented rather effectively.

And what good is an ID when you can't match it to a face? Because with a veil or a burqha you can't see the person's face.

And comparing signatures does you little good if the person's legal signature is in Arabic.

I wonder how long before thumbprint ID will become as commonplace as a sig?

It would certainly dispense with this type of argument.

Or, as they do in Iraq and any other place where veiled women are allowed to vote, everyone has to have their thumb stained with indelible ink after they vote. This prevents the scenarios I presented rather effectively.

I think permenant purple ink might just push our stellar voter turnouts even lower.

Go back and read my earlier post. I already covered that one.



To people who read and write Arabic, no.

To people who don't read and write Arabic they can't tell the difference between a person's signature and a .

That's a completely different problem. I know that in Iraq when they had the parliamentary election earlier this year the turnout was something like 98% as an average with 100% in some areas. And some people were killed for proudy sporting purple thumbs and voting despite terrorist threats.

It seems that when you haven't had a real democracy you appreciate it all the more.

In Canada and the USA the ever decreasing voter turnout causes me to worry about the future and if the right to vote will someday be voted away as an inconvenience to one's busy day of commuting, shopping at Wal Mart, and watching mindless sports and pornography on TV.

Go back and read my earlier post. I already covered that one.



To people who read and write Arabic, no.

To people who don't read and write Arabic they can't tell the difference between a person's signature and a

I think its still actually legal here to use an X for a signature.

Now a person could match the signature on a voter card with that on a license means that arabic sigs might not be a problem.

Of course the average person is incapable of matching signatures in english.

Ever sign your credit card receit badly and still get your purchase without any eyebrows raised?

I have.