Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1 Cornyn has 29 co-sponsors to his Military Voting Protection Act, all of them Republic 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Senate Bill Aimed at Making Absentee Ballots from Overseas Count

    WASHINGTON Although roughly 6 million U.S. citizens are eligible to vote oversees using absentee ballots many of whom are serving in the military only a fraction of their ballots are being counted.

    The bipartisan Election Assistance Commission found that of the nearly 1 million absentee ballots sent out for the 2006 election, only 300,000 actually were counted. Some estimate the low return of absentee ballots meant 400,000 service members' votes overseas weren't counted.

    The problem seems to be the mail. It takes 18 days for the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail to Iraq and 18 days for it to be returned.

    Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has introduced legislation that would allow absentee ballots to be sent via Federal Express to those serving in the military, although there reportedly is resistance from the postal union.

    "It should be a national scandal that, here, our men and women in uniform who are protecting our freedom who are exposing themselves to harm are being denied the most basic civil right, and that is the right to vote," Cornyn said.

    Cornyn has 29 co-sponsors to his Military Voting Protection Act, all of them Republican.

    "I think its really a lack of focus and attention by the federal government," Cornyn said. "And, I think, the Department of Defense bares a special responsibility and my legislation's designed to see them discharge it to make sure that those votes count. ...

    "This is something that if most Americans knew existed, the current dismal state of actual opportunity to see your vote count for our men and women in uniform, they would be up in arms."

    But Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he didn't realize there was a problem.

    "I think we have a significant responsibility to encourage our men and women in uniform to vote and to enable them to vote. And so this is a high priority, and your question prompts me to go find out if things are on track ... as I have been told they are in terms of making sure that we have the ballots and things available for our for our troops,"

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,396343,00.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,247
    Gee, what a surprise that no Dems support this. After all, it's letting votes from people that, in large numbers, vote for the opposition party.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member NonConformist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
    Gee, what a surprise that no Dems support this. After all, it's letting votes from people that, in large numbers, vote for the opposition party.
    [Dem] Well thats just not fair! That means we could lose[/Dem]
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt




    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
    Gee, what a surprise that no Dems support this. After all, it's letting votes from people that, in large numbers, vote for the opposition party.
    So much for letting every vote count. This is no surprise. Remember when they sent lawyers to FL with a memo that detailed how to get military ballots disqualified? They know who their constituencies are, and who they aren't. McCain should use this issue to slam Obama.

    BTW, the Army has a secure system, Army Knowledge Online, that requires CAC Card access for certain functions (password reset, for example), as does the Navy and Air Force (I believe that the Marines are on the Navy system). There's no reason why they can't set up an AKO site to send out ballots with a digital signature, except for the law, which usually requires a manual signature (it varies from state to state). A federal mandate that, in the case of overseas military personnel, a digital signature would be the legal equivalent of a manual one (which it already is on military documents, in fact, it's the preferred method for anything that requires multiple signatures, like an OER) would pave the way for AKO voting. Democrats claim that they are in favor of internet voting, this is a workable system that would require very little in the way of modification, and it's a lot more secure than the ID requirements in a lot of states. I can't wait for them to explain why they're against it.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
    Gee, what a surprise that no Dems support this. After all, it's letting votes from people that, in large numbers, vote for the opposition party.
    They know that no self respecting American Troop would vote for a slimy traitorous Liberal Democrat Rat !
    Last edited by megimoo; 08-03-2008 at 12:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •