RNC vote suppression...

[Deudalus]

How intimidating can they be when they don't actually get to see what they write on the paper?

Last I checked you don't need to be filling out paperwork to be intimidated by two dudes with clubs.

Rodney King for example, I'm fairly certain he was not filling out paperwork when the cops pulled him over and beat the shit out of him.

Ask yourself this, if a lone person wearing a McCain '08 shirt tried to walk into that polling place would there have been an issue?

Maybe a lone minority person walking into a polling place with an Obama shirt on in Alabama with the Klan was hanging out at the doors with clubs?


Would either group have beaten anyone up? Who knows. Were the clubs there just for show? Possibly so.

Would the Klan receive more press than these two Black Panther members did? YOU BET.

But the whole point is that its illegal to intimidate voters and especially heinous when you are quite obviously brandishing a weapon.

 

[highland145]

Well I think we have our next James O'Keefe video

Can I see the ho first?

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm not saying the two are equal.

What I am ASKING is if the OP also has a problem with voter intimidation when it benefits the libs.

Is he worried about voter fraud and voter intimidation as a whole or just when it doesn't benefit him.

Basically this is a "do you think like Craig" test.

Of course I have a problem with this and all forms of voter intimidation. But the broader point you are trying to make is that there is a hypocrisy, outrage directed at one side and not the other. That is a fallacy, because the amount of attention people pay to these various vote tampering/fraud/intimidation issues varies depending on the actual magnitude of the issue.

In every presidential election, I read about numerous incidents on the ground where this person or that does something inappropriate near a polling station, or where people in certain neighborhoods are called and told that the vote won't occur until the next day, etc. Cumulatively, they are *all* disturbing. However, there are so many of them you can't seriously expect someone to come out and individually condemn every one. However, when it's the RNC/DNC or a candidate's actual campaign doing it, and on a large scale, that is another issue entirely, and you can well expect to hear more specific attention paid and more specific condemnation delievered.

Putting up an anecdotal case where the so-called "other side did it" in a thread like this is pretty sophomoric. Come up with something that is even remotely near a band of equivalency to the OP's issue and we'll talk.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

Whose votes were suppressed? Was there somebody who showed up to vote but was prevented because they weren't on the list any more? I honestly don't know, so don't take that as a rhetorical question. I would have expected it to be headline news if it had actually happened though. If it did I think we need to deal with these efforts with as much brutality as the courts can wield, but if there are no complainants* then exactly whose votes were suppressed?

* or potential complainants - if this effort never actually came to fruition but would have affected real people if it ended up culling the lists. The article didn't seem 100% clear to me as to whether the efforts actually resulted in any lists being culled. If the efforts were made but didn't end up affecting the lists, then I would agree that there would still be cause for alarm if there were any real people who were included in the failed attempt.

Good questions. This issue is not addressed in the linked article, and but it ought to be addressed before anyone claims that someone "stole" an election. Perhaps "attempted to steal" would be a better way to put it until your questions are answered.

- wolf

 

[Deudalus]

Of course I have a problem with this and all forms of voter intimidation. But the broader point you are trying to make is that there is a hypocrisy, outrage directed at one side and not the other. That is a fallacy, because the amount of attention people pay to these various vote tampering/fraud/intimidation issues varies depending on the actual magnitude of the issue.

In every presidential election, I read about numerous incidents on the ground where this person or that does something inappropriate near a polling station, or where people in certain neighborhoods are called and told that the vote won't occur until the next day, etc. Cumulatively, they are *all* disturbing. However, there are so many of them you can't seriously expect someone to come out and individually condemn every one. However, when it's the RNC/DNC or a candidate's actual campaign doing it, and on a large scale, that is another issue entirely, and you can well expect to hear more specific attention paid and more specific condemnation delievered.

Putting up an anecdotal case where the so-called "other side did it" in a thread like this is pretty sophomoric. Come up with something that is even remotely near a band of equivalency to the OP's issue and we'll talk.

- wolf

Point taken and its a valid one.

Granted the OP's point is that far more people are effected, and that's fine and impossible to disagree with.

That said to me people standing outside of polling places with weapons is more heinous just because of what it symbolizes.

Both are very deplorable though and both should be prosecuted to the extent of the law.

 

[werepossum]

Since no one else is saying it, I will: Everything "The Raw Story" puts out is "An exclusive!" because even MSNBC isn't as loony as these folks.

Sheesh! And you guys call shenanigans on FoxNews!

 

[nonlnear]

Good questions. This issue is not addressed in the linked article, and but it ought to be addressed before anyone claims that someone "stole" an election. Perhaps "attempted to steal" would be a better way to put it until your questions are answered.

- wolf

The bigger problem is that neither side actually wants my question to be answered, so neither side will actually push for an investigation into those details of the case (which are clearly the only details that REALLY matter). The GOP strategists don't want to know if their hands are dirty, and the Dems want to continue their charade that the voter rolls themselves are somehow sacrosanct and do not merit any fact based oversight.

 

[BoberFett]

Democrat president. Democrat congress. And still the number one topic around this forum is Republicans.

Anyone else think Democrats are so terrified that people might actually pay attention to what they're doing RIGHT NOW that they're still talking about what happened ten years ago?

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the acts of individuals and the acts of public servants, making the much publicized photo of supposed black panthers pretty much a non issue in this thread... well, except for those desperately seeking a distraction. For all we know, they could have been actors hired for a photo shoot... wouldn't be the first or last time repub operatives employed shills...

Purging voter rolls and employing blackbox electronic voting machines from partisan corporate entities is another matter entirely, although I'm sure that circular reasoning among Righties prevents them from seeing that...

 

[woolfe9999]

Point taken and its a valid one.

Granted the OP's point is that far more people are effected, and that's fine and impossible to disagree with.

That said to me people standing outside of polling places with weapons is more heinous just because of what it symbolizes.

Both are very deplorable though and both should be prosecuted to the extent of the law.

I sort of understand you seeing it that way. It kinds of reminds one of the way they handle elections in third world countries, where thugs stand around polling sites.

Of course, if the dems and reps do it, then it's all behind closed doors and "civilized." We seem to have figured out that the pen is a fair mightier way of corrupting the system than the sword. I'm being facetious here, of course.

- wolf

 

[nonlnear]

Point taken and its a valid one.

Granted the OP's point is that far more people are effected, and that's fine and impossible to disagree with.

It is possible to disagree with because the article doesn't actually demonstrate that anyone was affected. Maybe there were and maybe there weren't but 30000 names on a list is not the same as 30000 people, or 20 people, or one person. The article simply doesn't say anything conclusive about any real victims, or even what really happened.

 

[woolfe9999]

It is possible to disagree with because the article doesn't actually demonstrate that anyone was affected. Maybe there were and maybe there weren't but 30000 names on a list is not the same as 30000 people, or 20 people, or one person. The article simply doesn't say anything conclusive about any real victims, or even what really happened.

You're correct that the particular article says nothing about it. The article is narrowly focused on the topic of whether an RNC attorney lied when she testified that the RNC hadn't violated a consent decree to stay away from policing voter rolls. What is unknown is whether there is another source of information on this which does answer your questions. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that there isn't more complete information available.

I do also think that what the article focuses on is relevant in and of itself as even an unsuccessful attempt at vote tampering is newsworthy. You are just raising important questions that the article doesn't happen to address.

- wolf

 

[Fern]

You are comparing two random guys at one voting location to a coordinated effort by the RNC and government officials to suppress votes on a mass scale? Really? You could have at least gone with some ACORN bullshit.

In 1982, the RNC agreed to settle the lawsuit by entering a consent decree that prohibited it from using "ballot security" measures, meaning any efforts to prevent allegedly unqualified voters from casting a ballot.

What's wrong with preventing "allegedly unqualified voters from casting a ballot"?

Apparently nothing. I noticed the Ohio party who did that was not in trouble, at least that's what I get from the article.

So, to say that the RNC was engaged in voter suppression is inacurate in the least, and dishonest at worst.

What they are in trouble for is participating in "using "ballot security" measures" (which don't seem illegal) after they settled a lawsuit by promising they wouldn't. So they're in trouble for breaking a promise, not "voter suppression".

Fern

 

[Fern]

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the acts of individuals and the acts of public servants, making the much publicized photo of supposed black panthers pretty much a non issue in this thread...
-snip-

That's great and all...except she obviously wasn't a public servant then, so you have no point (in trying to explain away the Black Panthers' acts).

Fern

 

[nonlnear]

You're correct that the particular article says nothing about it. The article is narrowly focused on the topic of whether an RNC attorney lied when she testified that the RNC hadn't violated a consent decree to stay away from policing voter rolls. What is unknown is whether there is another source of information on this which does answer your questions. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that there isn't more complete information available.

I think there is a good chance facts will come out eventually. Whether they make it into the news is another matter...

I do also think that what the article focuses on is relevant in and of itself as even an unsuccessful attempt at vote tampering is newsworthy. You are just raising important questions that the article doesn't happen to address.

You are right there. It certainly is relevant as a matter of law enforcement and professional ethics. However the fact that the legal issue is so far removed from the actual questions of fact that underlie the issue is an indication of how bad the patchwork of voter registration procedures and regulations is in this country. It is really not that hard to design a system that would totally avoid the need for massive registration drives, lawsuits to challenge the rolls, and the myriad of different federal ballots.

Seriously, there is a regulation in place stipulating that the factuality of a voter roll may only be questioned as long as the community's ethnic make-up satisfies whatever criteria? This is ludicrous! The only thing that should matter when it comes to reviewing the accuracy of the lists is the accuracy of the lists. The rules as they are create a situation in which it could be criminal to attempt to correct mistakes in the system. Why? Because communities are construed to have rights. This is incredibly problematic when the only rights that matter are those of individual voters. Show me a voter whose right to vote was violated and I'll be first in line to destroy the careers of every lawyer who came within a mile of the motions which contributed to the suppression. However if no actual voters were affected, then this is all just procedural hoopla and posturing over purely rhetorical positions.

 

[woolfe9999]

What's wrong with preventing "allegedly unqualified voters from casting a ballot"?

Apparently nothing. I noticed the Ohio party who did that was not in trouble, at least that's what I get from the article.

So, to say that the RNC was engaged in voter suppression is inacurate in the least, and dishonest at worst.

What they are in trouble for is participating in "using "ballot security" measures" (which don't seem illegal) after they settled a lawsuit by promising they wouldn't. So they're in trouble for breaking a promise, not "voter suppression".

Fern

The premise of that lawsuit was the election officials, not political parties, should be in charge of "ballot security measures," for reasons which should be obvious. More to the point, when a political party annoints itself as the "ballot security police," what do you think their real motive is? Somehow I don't think the integrity of elections is not the foremost concern of any political party.

- wolf

 

[nageov3t]

If a '04 Kerry loss meant an '08 Obama victory, then it was a good trade off.

I'd trade Obama for 4 fewer years of Bush in a heartbeat.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'd trade Obama for 4 fewer years of Bush in a heartbeat.

Maybe for the first 4.

 

[Fern]

The premise of that lawsuit was the election officials, not political parties, should be in charge of "ballot security measures," for reasons which should be obvious. More to the point, when a political party annoints itself as the "ballot security police," what do you think their real motive is? Somehow I don't think the integrity of elections is not the foremost concern of any political party.

- wolf

I don't see how making challenges in any way changes the fact that election officials are in charge. Aren't the challenges submitted to election officials who then rule on them?

Yeah, I understand their motive is to get rid of unqualified voters, and primarily those likely to vote for the other party. Since the election officials are in charge of who gets purged I'm not too concerned about it, because I assume that they are purging people who need to be purged.

BTW: You are aware that most election officials are partisans themselves, in democratic areas the officials are Democrats and vice-versa, so I can't agree with any assertion that election officials are somehow unquestionably nonpartisan or subjective.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I don't see how making challenges in any way changes the fact that election officials are in charge. Aren't the challenges submitted to election officials who then rule on them?

Yeah, I understand their motive is to get rid of unqualified voters, and primarily those likely to vote for the other party. Since the election officials are in charge of who gets purged I'm not too concerned about it, because I assume that they are purging people who need to be purged.

BTW: You are aware that most election officials are partisans themselves, in democratic areas the officials are Democrats and vice-versa, so I can't agree with any assertion that election officials are somehow unquestionably nonpartisan or subjective.

Fern

LOL I remember Florida 2000 in the short bus counties, with two Democrats and one Republican manually counting votes.
Democrat #1: "I see a dimple, this is a Gore vote."
Republican: "Are you nucking futs? There's no dimple!"
Democrat #2: "Yep, definitely a dimple. Majority rules, another Gore vote is manu- I mean, saved."

 

[Jhhnn]

From the article, Fern-

Yet her affidavit is submitted along with email communications showing RNC members engaging in vote caging activities in Ohio. They also demonstrate that the RNC worked in concert with state Republican Party officials. Hunter is on a few of the emails but her involvement is unclear.

The state members, among them Ken Blackwell, SoS, were cooperating with RNC efforts to cage votes. He went so far as to attempt to reject voter registration forms that weren't on the official paper... and a lot of other stuff, too.

Statewide efforts by the party currently in power obviously have a lot more impact than black panthers at 1 polling place. The black panthers are *not* affiliated with the Democratic Party, anyway.

Republican efforts in Ohio were successfully squelched by a federal court, anyway, unlike previous efforts in Florida... where tens of thousands of names were purged from the rolls.

The republican battle cry of Voter Fraud! is a form of fraud in itself, actual fraud by voters being vanishingly rare and not confined to one side or the other...

 

[cubby1223]

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0330/fec-commissioner-conceal-vote-suppression/

aka how the GOP stole the elections in 04' and 00'. Can't wait for what will happen in 2012.

This is one of the weakest arguments I've seen on P&N, and that's saying something.

Both parties try everything they can to challenge votes during elections.

One side's fraud prevention is always viewed by the other side as voter suppression.

 

[Jhhnn]

Both parties try everything they can to challenge votes during elections.

I don't think that the "They're just as Bad!" argument will fly here. Dems promote and defend organizations trying to expand the voter base and turnout, not trimming it. If you have actual counter-examples, put 'em up...

Otherwise, you're just blowin' smoke...

 

[heyheybooboo]

The Republican War on Voting

Voter fraud is actually less likely to occur than lightning striking a person...

In October 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft launched an intensive "Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative" that required all U.S. attorney offices to coordinate with local officials in combating voter fraud.

Yet even after the Justice Department declared the war against voter fraud a "high priority," only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting in federal elections between 2002 and 2005 -- and nobody was even charged by Justice with impersonating another voter. (The Justice Department declined to answer questions about more recent fraud prosecutions.)

And despite the anti-immigrant frenzy fueling photo-ID laws, only 14 noncitizens were convicted of illegally voting in federal elections from 2002 through 2005 -- mostly because of their ignorance of election law. ....

The goal of such complaints and allegations was to create a barrage of negative publicity about voter-registration groups and the voter-fraud menace that could pave the way for restrictive laws. ....

Starting in 2003, the Justice Department's civil-rights division issued a flurry of advisory letters, rulings, and lawsuits under the guise of fighting fraud that appear designed to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. Federal and state courts have struck down some of the laws shaped by policies promoted by the Justice Department, such as strict database-matching laws limiting new voters in Washington state and Florida.

Even so, Justice Department-backed secretive purging policies have targeted voter-registration applicants and current voters in several key states: In Ohio in 2006, 303,000 voters were purged in three major urban counties, while the Brennan Center reported that Pennsylvania's rigid database rules, later loosened, had excluded up to 30 percent of eligible registrants.

Karl Rove aide Tim Griffin played a major role in state GOP voter "caging" operations (that is, challenging the eligibility of registered voters) in such states as Ohio and Florida. ....

--

 

[Siddhartha]

Democrat president. Democrat congress. And still the number one topic around this forum is Republicans.

Anyone else think Democrats are so terrified that people might actually pay attention to what they're doing RIGHT NOW that they're still talking about what happened ten years ago?

Front Page Thread Topic Count
Dem\Obama 9 threads
Bush\GOP 5
Economy 1
HC 2
Other topics 13

I would be willing to combine the threads about the economy and health care in with the Dem\Obama group.