Block the vote

[jdonn]

Mike if you don't like the article, then you should do two things. Stop commenting on it, and write a better one!

[luke warm]

Mike if you don't like the article, then you should do two things. Stop commenting on it, and write a better one!

yeah mike, only comment on those reports you agree with or write one of your own - like everybody else does in the cooler

[jdonn]

What would you suggest someone do who doesn't like an article just because it didn't include the things they want to read about? Complain about it in numerous posts? Most people manage to focus on the content that was actually part of the article, and without writing any gibberish to boot. I mean I didn't like the article either because it didn't tell me anything about Lebron James, who I think is very cool.

[cherdano]

Agree with Donn, Lebron is cool.

[mikeh]

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?

[Al_U_Card]

Sometime in the not-to-distant future, historians will reflect on the rather bizarre presidency of W. Referred to as the W years, they will reflect on the cavalier and puerile style of the chief executive. Also the unprecedented and unrepeated exercise of power by the veep as well as the nefarious influence of Karl Rove. Justice department scandals, memory problems to rival microsoft, the gutting of the constitution and the bill of rights. From the Al-qaida experience to the war on terror. A most tumultuous period that led to total financial collapse as well as congressional gridlock. Fortunately they only lasted 12 years until martial law had finally restored order and the new Empire of the United States was founded in 2012. It really was the end of the world as we knew it.

[jdeegan]

:) I know this miserable berg. Leave it alone. It is the bunghole of the Southern Rockies. Without saving grace, it does not deserve any further opprobrium. Nearby Raton (rat in Spanish) is a far better place.

[helene_t]

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.

[luke warm]

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?

[helene_t]

Who has the right to vote, and so on, is in the Constitution. If states are violating the constitution, enforcement of the provisions of that document is certainly in the purview of the federal government.

Although I know the constitution plays a more prominent role in US law than in Europe, this surprises me. I would expect the constitution to come into play in the event that a state passed an unconstitutional law, say barring blacks from voting. That is not the issue, though. What happens is that state officials violate their own laws (I suppose).

 

Anyway, the article PassedOut just posted a link to is a relief. One can hope other cases can be dealt with similarly.

[hrothgar]

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]

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]

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]

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:

 

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:

 

“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]

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]

- 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."

[matmat]

- 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."

i managed to convince sleepy, dopey, happy, doc, sneezy and bashul to vote for Obama. Grumpy still supports McCain.

[cherdano]

- 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.

[jdonn]

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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?