more voter purges

[ElFenix]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...suppression/index.html


why the hell does crap like this happen? why is it so hard to design a system that does so few things:

ensure that anyone elligible to vote can vote (but no one else)
make sure that anyone who does vote votes once
make sure that any vote that is cast counts

why is that hard? other countries don't seem to have a problem with it.

 

[techs]

Heres' a hint. The name the Bushies give a law is the exact opposite of what it is really designed to do.
Hence, the "help America vote act" is full of ways to disqualify new voters, because new voters tend to be young and Democratic.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...suppression/index.html


why the hell does crap like this happen? why is it so hard to design a system that does so few things:

ensure that anyone elligible to vote can vote (but no one else)
make sure that anyone who does vote votes once
make sure that any vote that is cast counts

why is that hard? other countries don't seem to have a problem with it.

Because the Republicans do better the fewer the people that vote, and so they don't want the system to 'work well', and they have the power and willingness to act on that interest.

That's the main answer. But some problems are not political in nature, but just the occasional issue of competence and budget and such.

For example, one common problem is that many black districts have older voting machines more prone to error while white districts have newer, more accurate machines.

But you will find the reason for this - the black districts have Democratic leaders - often is an issue of budget more than of intent to supress votes.

However, other cases, like the 'felon purge list' in the 2000 Florida election, are engineered for voter suppression. The 'butterfly ballot' problem was accidental.

One difference with other countries may be our having a decentralized system.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElFenix
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...suppression/index.html


why the hell does crap like this happen? why is it so hard to design a system that does so few things:

ensure that anyone elligible to vote can vote (but no one else)
make sure that anyone who does vote votes once
make sure that any vote that is cast counts

why is that hard? other countries don't seem to have a problem with it.

Because the Republicans do better the fewer the people that vote, and so they don't want the system to 'work well', and they have the power and willingness to act on that interest.

i see that bandied about a lot, but i've also seen reputable sources debunk it as a myth

That's the main answer. But some problems are not political in nature, but just the occasional issue of competence and budget and such.

For example, one common problem is that many black districts have older voting machines more prone to error while white districts have newer, more accurate machines.

But you will find the reason for this - the black districts have Democratic leaders - often is an issue of budget more than of intent to supress votes.

However, other cases, like the 'felon purge list' in the 2000 Florida election, are engineered for voter suppression. The 'butterfly ballot' problem was accidental.

One difference with other countries may be our having a decentralized system.

you've got a good point about the money being spent. however, the wealthier districts seem to have bought up computer machines that have more holes than a good emmenthal.

so the question, i guess, is what is everyone else doing right that we can adopt inexpensively? is our wish to count 100+ million votes on one day part of the problem?

Originally posted by: techs
Heres' a hint. The name the Bushies give a law is the exact opposite of what it is really designed to do.
Hence, the "help America vote act" is full of ways to disqualify new voters, because new voters tend to be young and Democratic.

Here endeth the lesson.

i wasn't aware george bush was able to vote 92 times in the senate and 357 times in the house.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElFenix
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...suppression/index.html


why the hell does crap like this happen? why is it so hard to design a system that does so few things:

ensure that anyone elligible to vote can vote (but no one else)
make sure that anyone who does vote votes once
make sure that any vote that is cast counts

why is that hard? other countries don't seem to have a problem with it.

Because the Republicans do better the fewer the people that vote, and so they don't want the system to 'work well', and they have the power and willingness to act on that interest.

That's the main answer. But some problems are not political in nature, but just the occasional issue of competence and budget and such.

For example, one common problem is that many black districts have older voting machines more prone to error while white districts have newer, more accurate machines.

But you will find the reason for this - the black districts have Democratic leaders - often is an issue of budget more than of intent to supress votes.

However, other cases, like the 'felon purge list' in the 2000 Florida election, are engineered for voter suppression. The 'butterfly ballot' problem was accidental.

One difference with other countries may be our having a decentralized system.

:laugh: bush won in 2004 with massive turnout. You libs need to retool your talking points -they are tired and dated.


IMO - roles need to be kept up to date across the US so it can all be checked and verified. It might also make sense to have expiration dates on registration cards so data is kept up to date. I happened to check(on a whim) my previous voter registration where I used to live - I was still registered there and I hadn't lived there in many years. Seems they didn't purge them after I moved. I called them to tell them I moved.... many years ago. They said they'd look into it... :roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

i see that bandied about a lot, but i've also seen reputable sources debunk it as a myth

I don't think that article begins to 'debunk' the issue, but regardless, I should clarify that Republican efforts are primarily aimed at poor/black voters who *do* vote democratic.

you've got a good point about the money being spent. however, the wealthier districts seem to have bought up computer machines that have more holes than a good emmenthal.

so the question, i guess, is what is everyone else doing right that we can adopt inexpensively? is our wish to count 100+ million votes on one day part of the problem?

Of course you and I agree we should do what you suggest, but you need to be aware of what's in the way of it happening.

You're not going to see the Republicans *say* they're doing this, you're going to need to do a little research and then fight for what you think is right.

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta love it when Cad says bush won in 2004 with massive turnout. You libs need to retool your talking points -they are tired and dated.

As the dems are likely to win 2008 with massive turn out. I can hardly wait to see the republirat excuses.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Gotta love it when Cad says bush won in 2004 with massive turnout. You libs need to retool your talking points -they are tired and dated.

As the dems are likely to win 2008 with massive turn out. I can hardly wait to see the republirat excuses.

There wasn't massive turn out?


Analysts expect voter turnout numbers to beat 2004 levels -- when 60 percent of all eligible citizens came out to the polls --

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:laugh: bush won in 2004 with massive turnout. You libs need to retool your talking points -they are tired and dated.

It's a generalization - on average. Of course, who is targeted as new voters matters. I'm talking about 'random' or 'general' voter registration drives, not targeted ones.

'Get out the vote' drives in Republican areas will likely, of course, get more new Republican votes on average.

Kerry got more votes than any candidate of either party in history - except one, George Bush the same election. Both parties had effective voter recruitment.

But the common wisdom is that the non-voting public who gets registered with registration campaigns tends to be democratic.

We had the same thing in CA (a mostly democratic state) - what is a non-controversial issue to someone who simply supports democracy, changes to get more people voted by allowing people to register at DMV IIRC, was a political issue because Republicans opposed it knowing it would increase voters and therefore the number of democrats voting.