No, please, anything but that.
Now, I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories, but this is a tad suspicious, is it not? Here we go 'round the mulberry bush again…
Speak of bushes, the one in charge of Florida has no comment on the issue. Fortunately, we are no longer so naive. To quote a recent documentary, fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice…
The list obviously can’t be used, there needs to be a huge investigation, and some people need to spend a lot of time in jail over this.
O_O
Well, I certainly agree about the investigation. The spectacular nothingness that resulted from the 2000 debacle shouldn’t be repeated.
I’m kinda waiting to see how people respond to this list (SDMB isn’t helping thus far :rolleyes: )
From here:
Unless I’m misreading that quote, I think it is fair to say that any person is going to have political views one way or another. Presumably, anyone interested in voting machines is probably interested in politics as a personal matter. The question is whether the two services can be reasonably seperated–and I kind of think so, actually. Unlike, say, rigging a slot machine, rigging elections by employees (after all, it would have to be a nearly company-wide conspiracy) doesn’t really serve an obvious direct interest unless they’re all going to get huge bonuses if BushCo wins. Not that it is impossible, or even unlikely to the point where we would disregard the theory, but it isn’t something to be anything more than very wary about–something that should be done with politics and government activities in the first place.
…
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/07/03/florida/index_np.html
The paper is the Miami Herald. It requires registration.
They interviewed one guy on NPR who had voted in every election since 1986. And they were going to remove him.
As for the OP: Well, there must be some rational explanation for this. And, I for one, am anxious as all hell to hear it!
As for Reeder’s story: Well, I suppose the good news is that the error rate (of voters on the list but really should be eligible) is only about 4% (or, really at least 4%) which is already a big improvement over year 2000 when I seem to recall the error rate was on the order of something like 60-90%!
For those who don’t know the story behind the Florida voter purge list in the 2000 election, go here and click on the Chapter 1 PDF for more than you ever wanted to know! Here is a more concise version from an interview with Greg Palast. Of course, Palast is not without his own ideological biases but the facts he presented have not, as far as I can find, been disputed. And, in fact there was an out-of-court settlement on the suit brought by the NAACP and others in regards to the voter list and other aspects of minority voter disenfranchisement in Florida.
Only 4%…2100 voters.
I can’t prove it but I’d bet there were no republicans in that bunch.
And remember Bush only won Florida by some 500 votes.
Uhh… “Can’t be fooled again?”
One of the article I read on this last night said that over 1600 of those 2100 were voters who had their rights restored, but who had not re registered (apperently as required by law) and so their names were still on the list. I have no idea why the number of Hispanics is so low. But one writer speculated that there may be a lot of crossover between Hispanics and those listed as non hispanic whites. That is, many hispanic convicts may simply be listed as white on the list.
My appologies for not finding the links today. I looked last night trying to find an explanation for the Hispanic difference, assuming that most of you would see the 2100 and notice that the vast majority of those were simply not completly restored. It appears this story is a bit too new for better information.
I also read that the local election boards are required to send a letter which gives the voters an opportunity to contest their inclusion on the purge list (and their non inclusion on the voter registration lists).
Do voters not have the right to swear themselves in?
For example, in the recently concluded federal election here in Canada, if someone turned up at the polling booth and their name wasn’t on the list, all they had to do was produce two pieces of i.d. and sign a statutory declaration that they were eligible to vote.
The theory is that it’s better to err on the side of letting people vote, even if some may not be eligible, than to have a fixed list that may bar an eligible person from voting. If ineligible people do vote, well, that’s something that may be relevant to a recount.
Jebus, that’s frightening. Thank God for the eagle-eyed legislators, Dopers, newspeople, etc. who pay attention to these things. I think I need a drink.
It’s one piece of ID, not two. I only produced a driver’s license.
Nope. At least in the areas I’ve voted in you were on the books several weeks ahead of time or you didn’t vote and tough noogies.
Is it that hispanic felons are in a different database, or that republican felons are kept in a different database? Was it racial profiling or party profiling that messed up the merge?
If you’re challenged or not on the list in my state (NY), you vote by affadavit or special ballot, one filled out by hand and not using the machine everybody else does. Usually it’s just somebody who’s moved. I don’t know exactly when they’re counted.
We are not permitted to even ask for ID. I don’t know the NY law re felons. I know in MA you only permanently lost your right to vote if your felony had been related to election fraud itself.
hmmm. The Elections Canada folk out here here quoted as saying you needed two pieces. But then, they also think that the postal code where someone picks up their mail identifies the riding they’re in, so there is evidently some uncertainty in it all.