American Dirty Political Tricks

on Sep 23, 2004

Totally false, and untrue, this is just a tactic that is used by both sides to discredit the other.

In fact one side that uses the MoveOn.org ads has gone so far as to use Racism as a reason not to elect someone. The problem is not dirty politicians; so much as it is dirty political organizations. These political organizations need to be done away with in the United States, because they seek to drag politics even further down than candidates have ever gone.

-GX

2

Bungy32

on Sep 23, 2004

The simple answer to this is volunteering for your party. Each polling place is supposed to have representatives from both parties. With enough informed volunteers at the actual polling places, it is harder to turn folks away for specious reasons. As for the misinformation tactics (i.e. "you'll be arrested at the polls if you haven't paid your bills"), counter messages help. In black (and many other) communities, churches can do a lot to dispell these myths and misinformation without crossing the line to advocacy. Counter flyers and mailings can also help. And then there is the long slow process of law suits, which actually do have positive effects when leveled against this sort of behavior. Finally, legislative reform between elections might address the ex-felon issue -- or at the very least determine under what circumstances an ex-felon might regain the right to vote.

But there is no form of government yet that has proven to be impervious to corruption. Maybe the best we can hope for is the ability to keep corruption visible and continue to fight it. And personally, I think I'd take our system (problems and all) to Malaysia or China or Zimbabwee. But then I suspect you were just being dramatic.

Seriously, though, I think we ought to get the UN to monitor this election. Can't you just hear the GOP screaming over that idea?

3

Bungy32

on Sep 23, 2004

Totally false, and untrue, this is just a tactic that is used by both sides to discredit the other.

What is totally false? The whole article? Which tactic, specifically? Because the mixup in Florida is a matter of public record. It really happened. Thousands of perfectly legal voters were denied the right to vote because their names matched names on a list of felons. There were also several investigations into voter intimidation tactics in Florida that turned up credible evidence. What is not clear is that this was an organized conspiracy. It only takes one guy with some chutzpah, free time, and a serious grudge to intimidate folks in line.

These tactics can be countered, regardless of your "side." And those folks who manage the polls are mostly just volunteers (ever notice how many of them seem to be retired or without day jobs?).

4

Phoenixboi

on Sep 23, 2004

Totally false, and untrue, this is just a tactic that is used by both sides to discredit the other.

How can you say that with the amount of voters turned away in the last election?

5

Phoenixboi

on Sep 23, 2004

I suspect you were just being dramatic.

Me? Dramatic??

Seriously, though, I think we ought to get the UN to monitor this election.

I agree... but I doubt it would ever be allowed to happen. Imagine what would be uncovered!

6

Grim Xiozan

on Sep 23, 2004

How can you say that with the amount of voters turned away in the last election?

Do you seriously think one million voters turned away is a REAL number, oh come on, unless you are adding deployed soldiers and guardsmen to those numbers that number is not real, of course are they counting voters turned away by both major parties, and what factual proof is there, is the proof empirical evidence of is it just somebody's elucidated belief?

What is totally false? The whole article? Which tactic, specifically? Because the mixup in Florida is a matter of public record. It really happened. Thousands of perfectly legal voters were denied the right to vote because their names matched names on a list of felons. There were also several investigations into voter intimidation tactics in Florida that turned up credible evidence. What is not clear is that this was an organized conspiracy. It only takes one guy with some chutzpah, free time, and a serious grudge to intimidate folks in line.

If it is not one side turning ones away, it is one side druming up the dead, cats, dogs, and multiple voter registrations, do we really need to go down into that cesspool in a discussion of politics. Why just Florida if you want to wade in, there are more states in the United States than just Florida. Why JUST Florida, to afraid to look at a bigger picture?

But there is no form of government yet that has proven to be impervious to corruption. Maybe the best we can hope for is the ability to keep corruption visible and continue to fight it. And personally, I think I'd take our system (problems and all) to Malaysia or China or Zimbabwee. But then I suspect you were just being dramatic.

Well to have a uncorrupted government, that government would have to have NO power, because 'All power corrupts'.

Seriously, though, I think we ought to get the UN to monitor this election. Can't you just hear the GOP screaming over that idea?

Here's the kicker though, if the shoe was on the other foot and you were in the RNC's shoes would or could you accept? Realistically think of it don't just guess, what if the DNC was in power and the RNC wanted to do that, you know you would oppose it, after all it does amount to having a the World choose an American President, is that right? Is that how the system was intended to be used? How do you know that the UN would be objective when they already clearly back one candidate? How can you guarantee no direct harmful interference from the UN?

*NAIL*
*HAMMER*
*BANG!*

- GX

7

Bungy32

on Sep 23, 2004

Why just Florida if you want to wade in, there are more states in the United States than just Florida. Why JUST Florida, to afraid to look at a bigger picture?

Well, Florida is a good example of a state where a few hundred let alone a few thousand votes would have made the difference in the last US Presidential election. I'm not afraid to look at the bigger picture. I just think it is cynical and opportunistic to implicitly claim that all the corruption balances out in the end. You keep "pounding home" the power of REAL numbers. What solid evidence do you have that it balances out? You asserted "it" (referent?) was "totally false." I'm just trying to figure out what you mean and then figure out if you can back up any of what you mean with any of your own evidence. Or is this just an all you can stomach buffet of so-above-it-all cynicism?

it is one side druming up the dead, cats, dogs, and multiple voter registrations, do we really need to go down into that cesspool in a discussion of politics.

Yes. Yes, I think we do. Because our history of tracking these things has led to some serious and effective reforms in monitoring elections and catching voter fraud. And our relaxation in that regard (especially when inspired by devil-may-care cynicism) has only allowed it to prosper. I am so sorry the smell offends you. It must be nice up there in that high and mighty tower, so above it all. I am sorry the rest of us down here in the gutter clammering to have our vote count offends you.

Realistically think of it don't just guess, what if the DNC was in power and the RNC wanted to do that, you know you would oppose it, after all it does amount to having a the World choose an American President, is that right?

Given that Jimmy Carter, the Saint of the Dems (okay, that's probably overstating things a bit), has served as a UN monitor for elections in other countries, I think there is evidence that, of the two parties, the DNC would be the party most likely to accept UN monitoring, even if they were in power. See, the Dems are not the party that tends to run campaigns and platforms based on xenophobia. And we know that UN monitors do not make the selection, but observe the election process and preserve peoples' right to vote. And what is your evidence that the UN "clearly backs one candidate"? But of course, I can only guess at any of this. Because, "realistically," I am not a bigwig in the DNC. And I can't guarantee a lack of harmful intereference from the UN because I am not an operative of the UN. But then, these aren't the sort of concerns we raise when we want the UN to intervene in another country, are they? And this was all a highly unlikely hypothetical, wasn't it?

*NAIL*
*HAMMER*
*BANG!*

GX, you need to stop hammering those nails in your head. I don't think they are having the effects you suppose.

8

Muggaz

on Sep 23, 2004

I think we ought to get the UN to monitor this election. Can't you just hear the GOP screaming over that idea?

I almost spat the food out of my mouth!!!

too funny!

I felt the same when I read this article PB... I hope it isn't true...

BAM!!!

9

Grim Xiozan

on Sep 23, 2004

Yes. Yes, I think we do. Because our history of tracking these things has led to some serious and effective reforms in monitoring elections and catching voter fraud. And our relaxation in that regard (especially when inspired by devil-may-care cynicism) has only allowed it to prosper. I am so sorry the smell offends you. It must be nice up there in that high and mighty tower, so above it all. I am sorry the rest of us down here in the gutter clammering to have our vote count offends you.

Neither of us has solid EMPIRICAL proof but both sides should be looked at and not just one, both Voter Fraud and having Voters being able to vote.

I don't give a damn about your vote, go ahead and vote, what stopped you last time, nothing stopped me, no WHITE MAN held me down and stopped my vote, and I am freakin' Hispanic (No Hablo Espanol).

Both sides should be looked at and glazing over that matter is what I am trying to point out or is that not a good enough ideal for your high and mightiness?

Good grief, look at the bigger picture, I didn't want to go into it, but since you started slinging, there I shall go.
What about the supposed thousands of National Guardsmen or Military who did not have their votes counted, or do you only count votes for your candidate? What is the science behind a dimple or chad? Was it lawful to count dimpled voter ballots when the only way to produce a dimple on the voter ballot was if you had multiple voter ballots together and than tried to punch them through. I will damn both sides for their ignorance, not just one, or is your party spirit too strong to care for the TRUE IDEALS of American voters?

And this was all a highly unlikely hypothetical, wasn't it?

Yes it was, I don't expect the UN to run inspections on elections anytime soon and either side of the hypothesis is bad, because it is just a guess.

What EMPIRICAL evidence do any of us have that person did or did not vote, and also what voter fraud is evident, we don't know and will not know until all sides look at both sides of the coin to get something done, or is that wrong to only look at one side?

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT

10

jesusstayscrunchy

on Sep 23, 2004

I don't think people who vote should be arrested for outstanding bills.

On the whole, though, I gotta go with GX on this one. I need to see more evidence of this.

11

Bungy32

on Sep 23, 2004

What EMPIRICAL evidence do any of us have that person did or did not vote, and also what voter fraud is evident, we don't know and will not know until all sides look at both sides of the coin to get something done, or is that wrong to only look at one side?

Actually, the original article from Reuters cited quite a bit of EMPIRICAL evidence. You just dismissed it. Why on earth should I think any numbers from me will persuade you further?

I am not concerned only about the votes lost for "my party." I am concerned that in the evidence provided in that article, the brunt of voter disenfranchisement is felt in African American communities. The cited studies also suggest that that tends to affect Dems more than GOP. But if it was the other way around, I would be equally concerned if republican votes weren't being counted. National Guardsmen should have their votes counted. White people who are citizens should have their votes counted. Hispanic people who are citizens should have their votes counted. And so forth...

But go on. Tell me Reuters is liberally biased. It's all just "Totally False" because you say so. Whatever.

Question evidence. Challenge it. But don't just dismiss it with sweeping generalizations like "Totally False." That will get us (both of us!) nowhere.

12

drmiler

on Sep 23, 2004

Reply #3 By: Bungy32 - 9/23/2004 2:29:19 AM
Totally false, and untrue, this is just a tactic that is used by both sides to discredit the other.

What is totally false? The whole article? Which tactic, specifically? Because the mixup in Florida is a matter of public record. It really happened. Thousands of perfectly legal voters were denied the right to vote because their names matched names on a list of felons. There were also several investigations into voter intimidation tactics in Florida that turned up credible evidence. What is not clear is that this was an organized conspiracy. It only takes one guy with some chutzpah, free time, and a serious grudge to intimidate folks in line.

These tactics can be countered, regardless of your "side." And those folks who manage the polls are mostly just volunteers (ever notice how many of them seem to be retired or without day jobs?).

Here we go yet *again*! It's already been proven that most of the voters that were denied were *felons*! And in the state of Florida *if* your a convicted felon you don't get to vote!

13

Wingman412

on Sep 24, 2004

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the THOUSANDS of military residents of Florida who were deployed around the world at the time and had their absentee ballots thrown out for lack of post-marks (because the military does not use a USPO post mark)?

Any how many liberal news organizations have to recount the ballots themselves only to repeat Rivera's stunt at Al Capone's vault? Every recount shows Bush winning no matter how they slice and dice the votes.

Yes some votes did not get counted. No more on the left than on the right right.

And as for Carter and his UN monitoring. His track record is abysmal. The tinyest backwater leaders have been pulling the wool over his eyes for years and it is no seceret. I'll get you some article links if you want.

14

Grim Xiozan

on Sep 24, 2004

Actually, the original article from Reuters cited quite a bit of EMPIRICAL evidence. You just dismissed it. Why on earth should I think any numbers from me will persuade you further?

Yes it did, partially, it cited an organization that said they polled supposed voters and found some problems.
What they did not tell you, were the people registered voters? Exact numbers? How do they know the person was registered and did not vote?

Hell I could say I did not vote if they came around asking me and needed damning evidence toward someone I hated.
They need to address those questions above for it to be good and accurate research. Without looking at the voting record what proof can actually back up their claim, hearsay?

I am not concerned only about the votes lost for "my party." I am concerned that in the evidence provided in that article, the brunt of voter disenfranchisement is felt in African American communities. The cited studies also suggest that that tends to affect Dems more than GOP. But if it was the other way around, I would be equally concerned if republican votes weren't being counted. National Guardsmen should have their votes counted. White people who are citizens should have their votes counted. Hispanic people who are citizens should have their votes counted. And so forth...

But go on. Tell me Reuters is liberally biased. It's all just "Totally False" because you say so. Whatever.

Question evidence. Challenge it. But don't just dismiss it with sweeping generalizations like "Totally False." That will get us (both of us!) nowhere.

Without addressing the problems with the research above, they cannot entirely prove their point, making it a half-true statement, is something that is half-true equal to the truth. I am all about getting people to vote, but will not look the other way when it comes to the truth, I personally would have asked that person, asked that person to show that they were registered to vote, look at the district's voting record and checked it altogether before I just said some many did not get the right to vote.

Only after research that addresses the problems with their initial research AND having Certified True Copies that backs up those individual's claims will I than take that on board as "Totally True".

What do you believe that research into a matter such as this be done half-ass?

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT

15

jesusstayscrunchy

on Sep 24, 2004

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the THOUSANDS of military residents of Florida who were deployed around the world at the time and had their absentee ballots thrown out for lack of post-marks (because the military does not use a USPO post mark)?

Agreed, wingman.

Not to mention the Democrats are having a field day this year trying to disenfranchise Nader voters, which I've posted about on another thread. Dems can't complain about Florida voting practices when they are doing everything possible to keep Nader off the Ballot in that state, as well as 13 others.