From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Rhino  wrote:   
      
   >>. . .   
      
   >I remember hearing a British commentator saying that he was pretty sure   
   >that mail-in ballots from Muslim households were mostly being filled in   
   >by the man of the house; he strongly suspected that the voting-age women   
   >were either told who to vote for or the man simply filled in all their   
   >forms on their behalf, probably without even asking them.   
      
   That was always the argument about giving women the franchise. But the   
   law cannot prevent illegal activity, only punish after the fact. It's   
   like making marriage illegal to prevent domestic violence in marriage.   
      
   >That should   
   >outrage at least all the feminists. It seems like a good argument for   
   >minimizing mail-in voting so that women have to vote in person and can   
   >then vote for whoever they like. (Of course hubby could still tell them   
   >but if he can be kept a distance away, she can vote for whoever she   
   >likes and tell him he voted for whoever he instructed her to choose.   
   >Mind you, he'd probably take advantage of the rules to say he HAS to go   
   >with her to interpret and even fill out the ballot because she's   
   >illiterate.)   
      
   As an election judge, we were supposed to prevent voter assistance   
   without an affidavit and from assistance in which the assistant was   
   influencing the voter.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)