[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Oct 28 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

mikeh, on Oct 27 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 22 2008, 10:02 AM, said:

Only pipsqueaks and scum approve of tactics like this. Not all republicans are like those mentioned in the article.

I readily accept that assertion. But, surely, continued membership in and financial support (let alone voting support) of the party that is most heavily implicated in this amounts to condonation of the practice?

Staying silent, while sending in donations, or giving one's vote.. how is that different, in effect, from 'supporting' it?

how far are you willing to take this?

Personally, I try very hard not to do business with any companies (or associate with individuals) that make disproportionate donations to the Republican party or Conservative causes.

No Walmart
No Home Depot
No Dominos
No Bank of America

the list goes on

[TimG]

mikeh, on Oct 27 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 22 2008, 10:02 AM, said:

Only pipsqueaks and scum approve of tactics like this. Not all republicans are like those mentioned in the article.

I readily accept that assertion. But, surely, continued membership in and financial support (let alone voting support) of the party that is most heavily implicated in this amounts to condonation of the practice?

Staying silent, while sending in donations, or giving one's vote.. how is that different, in effect, from 'supporting' it?

Would a disclaimer along with the check (or vote) mean that the supporter were not condoning all activities of the organization?

Surely the vast majority who vote for a Republican or a Democrat do not agree with all planks of the party's platform. Same is likely true of contributors.

By paying our ACBL dues to we condone all of the actions of the organization?

I think that by enabling or supporting, we take on some of the responsibility, but that does not mean we condone. Nor do I think we have to be particularly vocal in our condemnation of certain activities in order to stand opposed.

Of course, you may be right that in the case of voter fraud or tactics which prevent fair elections, we should be more vocal than we are. But, I still don't think that giving a check or a vote to the Republican or Democratic party means that the supporter condones all party activity.

[mikeh]

helene_t, on Oct 28 2008, 04:47 AM, said:

mikeh, on Oct 28 2008, 01:28 AM, said:

But, surely, continued membership in and financial support (let alone voting support) of the party that is most heavily implicated in this amounts to condonation of the practice?

Staying silent, while sending in donations, or giving one's vote.. how is that different, in effect, from 'supporting' it?

I think this a little unfair. I think it is OK to take other things than election fraud into consideration when deciding which party to vote for.

There was a time when my then favorite party was involved in large-scale corruption in Copenhagen. Obviously I didn't vote for that party at local elections, but I did vote for them sometimes at national and EP elections. They had a lot of good people, too.

That's a valid point. I think that it depends upon the response of the 'good people' to the scandal. I assume that in the Copenhagen scandal, the bad guys were expelled from the party, or the good guys in the party made it clear that the corruption was not condoned.

Here, unfortunately, in the (several) articles I have read on the (almost uniformily) Republican efforts to purge or deter voters from segments of the pupulation likely to vote Democrat, I recall no significant sanction ever being imposed on the bad guys, and no leading republican ever criticizing the practices. If your party had reacted to the copenhagen scandal with expressions of outrage that the scandal had been revealed, rather than outrage that some had betrayed the party... if the leaders of the party had defended the scandalous practices, would you still have voted for them?

Of course, this is also a little unfair, since McCain doesn't come out endorsing the conduct of the republican partisans.. but neither does he speak out against them, and he has to know it's going on.


As a side note, this campaign, going back to the primaries and reaching a nadir with the selection of Palin, has been a horrific demonstration of the corrosive effect of ambition on character... McCain has thrown away everything that was admirable about him as a political figure.

[helene_t]

mikeh, on Oct 28 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

That's a valid point. I think that it depends upon the response of the 'good people' to the scandal.

Yeah, you're right. Also on this forum it is only the Obama-supporters who express outrage about it.

Then again, people become very partisan before an election. You don't see democrats criticizing democrats either. Maybe after the election it will be easier to raise a bipartisan effort to stop the purges.

[PassedOut]

Both major US political parties have lawyers ready to litigate voting issues: Party Lawyers Ready to Keep an Eye on the Polls

Republicans:

Quote

The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee declined to say how many lawyers they had enlisted. Sean Cairncross, the committee’s chief counsel, said: “We will have enough lawyers to respond to any contingency. We have a great nationwide volunteer core of lawyers ready to help. On Election Day, we will be engaged at every level.”

Mr. Cairncross said Republican lawyers would be on the lookout for voter fraud, and would work to halt such previous stunts as having busloads of voters show up to keep polls open beyond their statutory closing time.

At our polls in Michigan, everyone in line at closing time gets to vote, whether they arrive by bus or by other means. Here the object is to let registered voters who show up actually cast their ballots.

Democrats:

Quote

“We have a selective, but ferocious legal strategy,” said Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign’s legal program. “Rather than waiting for Election Day, we’ve had lawyers working from the beginning. We’ve used them for a massive voter education program, so that people know their rights and what to do on Election Day.”

...

Democrats say their lawyers have already had an impact. In Montana, a federal judge upheld a Democratic challenge to a Republican attempt to purge 6,000 voters from the rolls. And in Detroit, a court settlement was reached over allegations that Republicans were going to use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters.

With these organizations in place, it seems that both parties should be satisfied that the election won't swing upon fraudulent voting or upon the disqualification of eligible voters.

The problems that I anticipate are those having to do with votes being dropped or being incorrectly recorded. And I hope that very few problems of that kind occur.

[cherdano]

PassedOut, on Oct 28 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

With these organizations in place, it seems that both parties should be satisfied that the election won't swing upon fraudulent voting or upon the disqualification of eligible voters.

There will always be the tension between
- having as many voters vote as possible is good for democracy, and
- having as many voters vote as possible is bad for the Republican party.

Unless every Republican decides that they would rather lose an election than hurt democracy, there will always be fights about voter purges etc., which are itself bad for democracy.

[Lobowolf]

[quote name='cherdano' date='Oct 28 2008, 12:53 PM'] [quote name='PassedOut' date='Oct 28 2008, 10:25 AM']
- having as many voters vote as possible is bad for the Republican party. [/quote]
This can be somewhat mitigated by restricting the set to "as many legally eligible voters as possible."

[matmat]

[quote name='Lobowolf' date='Oct 28 2008, 06:02 PM'] [quote name='cherdano' date='Oct 28 2008, 12:53 PM'] [quote name='PassedOut' date='Oct 28 2008, 10:25 AM']
- having as many voters vote as possible is bad for the Republican party. [/QUOTE]
This can be somewhat mitigated by restricting the set to "as many legally eligible voters as possible." [/quote]
i managed to convince sleepy, dopey, happy, doc, sneezy and bashul to vote for Obama. Grumpy still supports McCain.

[cherdano]

[quote name='Lobowolf' date='Oct 28 2008, 05:02 PM'] [quote name='cherdano' date='Oct 28 2008, 12:53 PM'] [quote name='PassedOut' date='Oct 28 2008, 10:25 AM']
- having as many voters vote as possible is bad for the Republican party. [/QUOTE]
This can be somewhat mitigated by restricting the set to "as many legally eligible voters as possible." [/quote]
Ok, let me rephrase:
- having as many legally eligible voters vote as possible is bad for the Republican party.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Oct 28 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 28 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 28 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

- having as many voters vote as possible is bad for the Republican party.

This can be somewhat mitigated by restricting the set to "as many legally eligible voters as possible."

Ok, let me rephrase:
- having as many legally eligible voters vote as possible is bad for the Republican party.

Not to mention, having as many ineligible voters remain ineligible as possible. After all, why else would the focus be so much on excluding those people and so little on giving them a pathway to eligibility?

[Lobowolf]

That one probably depends on the reason(s) for their ineligibility.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Oct 28 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

That one probably depends on the reason(s) for their ineligibility.

I wonder in how many cases the reason is "they are poor", or at least something that stems from that.

[matmat]

jdonn, on Oct 28 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 28 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

That one probably depends on the reason(s) for their ineligibility.

I wonder in how many cases the reason is "they are poor", or at least something that stems from that.

if people can't afford to vote, that's their problem.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Oct 28 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 28 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

That one probably depends on the reason(s) for their ineligibility.

I wonder in how many cases the reason is "they are poor", or at least something that stems from that.

I'd guess not very often. I've never heard anyone espouse the idea that poor people should be ineligible to vote. I can't think of a good reason anyone would go along with it.

In contrast, I have heard the proposal set forth from at least one major university that illegal immigrants should be permitted to vote. I can think of a few reasons to oppose that one.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Oct 28 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 28 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 28 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

That one probably depends on the reason(s) for their ineligibility.

I wonder in how many cases the reason is "they are poor", or at least something that stems from that.

I'd guess not very often. I've never heard anyone espouse the idea that poor people should be ineligible to vote. I can't think of a good reason anyone would go along with it.

Really, you can't? Like not, for example, that poor people (or the particular ones targeted) on average tend to favor one party, and rich people on average tend to favor another?

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Oct 29 2008, 04:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 28 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 28 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

That one probably depends on the reason(s) for their ineligibility.

I wonder in how many cases the reason is "they are poor", or at least something that stems from that.

I'd guess not very often. I've never heard anyone espouse the idea that poor people should be ineligible to vote. I can't think of a good reason anyone would go along with it.

In contrast, I have heard the proposal set forth from at least one major university that illegal immigrants should be permitted to vote. I can think of a few reasons to oppose that one.

I recommend that you take a look at the history of the poll tax...
You might find this illuminating

You also might want to consider the very existence of the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution. Hard to imagine why this was necessary if no one ever tried to disenfranchise people based on income.

As for the proposal from "at least one major university"...

I'd be very curious to know whether this is an example where the University itself recommended this as public policy or - alternatively - this is an article published by a couple professors, some random statement by the student senate, what have you.

Regardless, this posting is yet another ridiculous attempt to create a false equivalence between systemic policy abuse and some random thing that someone on the left may have said.

This got really old a few months back

[FrancesHinden]

matmat, on Oct 29 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 28 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 28 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

That one probably depends on the reason(s) for their ineligibility.

I wonder in how many cases the reason is "they are poor", or at least something that stems from that.

if people can't afford to vote, that's their problem.

I don't know enough about the US system to comment, but here in the UK, some of the reasons that the very poor have a tendency to become disenfranchised is

- the electoral register is based on your home address. That gives homeless people a bit of a problem.
- seasonal workers, construction workers and similar, who move around a lot looking for work, are often not at their home address when the register is complies, or the polling cards are delivered
- not being able to read and speak decent English

(there are official ways to avoid this problem, but they require a bit of effort to sort out - if you are apathetic to start with, or struggling to manage on a low income, voting is unlikely to be your top priority)

It's quite fun reading this thread. We've had our own scandals, but people trying to rig the vote here tend to use a different approach (one favourite has been to pressurise people into giving proxy votes, or applying for a postal vote and then "helping" them fill the form in). Getting people removed from the register (roll) is not such a common occupation.

[PassedOut]

One reason people suspect that republicans use challenges to suppress legitimate voting is the lack of evidence of illegal voting by anyone fraudulently registered: GOP offers scant proof of voter fraud

Quote

For weeks, Republican leaders have warned that widely reported problems with fake voter registrations could result in a flood of phony votes in pivotal states.

But Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee, said in an interview that he could not name a single instance in which this had occurred.

Thinking over my own experience as an election official in Michigan, the biggest hole I see is the possiblity that someone legitimately registered in one precinct could move and legitimately register in another while the first registration remains on the books. If dishonest, the voter could conceivably vote in both locations.

Because of the very low number of fraudulent votes that could be cast this way, it would be an extremely rare election that could be changed that way. And once the statewide database of registered voters is complete and accurate, of course, that possibility too will disappear.

Canvasing door-to-door for Obama this year using the state's database sequenced by address, I did find quite a few locations with several voters registered at the same address. Sometimes people had died and still remained on the rolls. But usually one or two voters had moved away some time ago, and the other names were voters who had then moved in.

The upshot is that the database really does need to be purged of no-longer-valid registrations. However, the purge must be done reasonably - not kicking off voters because of minor variations between corresponding database fields.

And it has to be done in such a way that voters have the opportunity to learn about and call attention to errors in the purging process. I can think of some ways this could be done, and I'm sure others can think of even more ways.

In my opinion, the courts have been correct to stop the wholesale purging of registrations just before the election. By all accounts, any fraud prevented by those purges would be miniscule at best. On the other hand, the suppression of valid votes would be considerable. And those officials attempting the purges knew that.

Let me say, though, that I have never personally witnessed a case where either a republican or a democrat has tried to suppress a valid vote. On the contrary, all of the election officials I've worked with - even those I disagree with on almost every political issue - have busted their butts to make sure that every valid vote is properly counted.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Nov 2 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

One reason people suspect that republicans use challenges to suppress legitimate voting is the lack of evidence of illegal voting by anyone fraudulently registered: GOP offers scant proof of voter fraud

Quote

For weeks, Republican leaders have warned that widely reported problems with fake voter registrations could result in a flood of phony votes in pivotal states.

But Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee, said in an interview that he could not name a single instance in which this had occurred.

Thinking over my own experience as an election official in Michigan, the biggest hole I see is the possiblity that someone legitimately registered in one precinct could move and legitimately register in another while the first registration remains on the books. If dishonest, the voter could conceivably vote in both locations.

Because of the very low number of fraudulent votes that could be cast this way, it would be an extremely rare election that could be changed that way. And once the statewide database of registered voters is complete and accurate, of course, that possibility too will disappear.

Canvasing door-to-door for Obama this year using the state's database sequenced by address, I did find quite a few locations with several voters registered at the same address. Sometimes people had died and still remained on the rolls. But usually one or two voters had moved away some time ago, and the other names were voters who had then moved in.

The upshot is that the database really does need to be purged of no-longer-valid registrations. However, the purge must be done reasonably - not kicking off voters because of minor variations between corresponding database fields.

And it has to be done in such a way that voters have the opportunity to learn about and call attention to errors in the purging process. I can think of some ways this could be done, and I'm sure others can think of even more ways.

In my opinion, the courts have been correct to stop the wholesale purging of registrations just before the election. By all accounts, any fraud prevented by those purges would be miniscule at best. On the other hand, the suppression of valid votes would be considerable. And those officials attempting the purges knew that.

Let me say, though, that I have never personally witnessed a case where either a republican or a democrat has tried to suppress a valid vote. On the contrary, all of the election officials I've worked with - even those I disagree with on almost every political issue - have busted their butts to make sure that every valid vote is properly counted.

It sounds much tougher to vote fraudulently in Michigan than in California, from the experiences you've posted. In a congressional race in California not too long ago, hundreds of fraudulent votes were found to have been cast and counted, by a bi-partisan committee investigating a close result with allegations of fraud (Sanchez-Dornan); however, the number of fraudulent votes cast were not enough to have changed the outcome.

I don't have an opinion about the best way to eliminate voter fraud; it does seem to me, though, that it's not unreasonable to be concerned, particularly in light of registration fraud, that fraudulent votes will be cast.

I would think it fairly clear to reasonably intelligent people of integrity that all votes of eligible voters should be counted, and no votes of ineligible voters should be counted. Most people are concerned with either one or the other, though, depending on the desired outcome. Or, as the song goes..."Mostly say hooray for our side..."