Secure, agreed. Simple, well, that is the question, isn't it? In case you had not learned, assertion is not argument. Anyway, yes, I have a problem with that. We exclude convicted felons, people who are mentally incompetent to exercise the franchise, and persons who are under age. These are all reasonable qualifications of the franchise. In fact, barriers to participation have been struck down on the grounds that they were unreasonable and discriminatory, but some, such as those above, have been upheld.
Anyway, as a practical matter, no one is excluded. They are just expected to take a little trouble to vote, instead of making it too easy. No one is judging anyone. If they show up, and are registered, they vote.
I am sorry if you find the use of the term "invite" inflammatory. I was using it in the sense that one might say that "Neocon, by making a provocative statement, invited abuse". Obviously, it was not an invitation in a narrow, literal sense. And yet, it was an easily anticipated result.
There is nothing illegal in such observations that I know of. It was in response to the notion of on- line voting. I want people to have to go to a polling place, stand up, and be counted, unless it is overburdensome. Pretty awful, huh? |
