Oh I don’t know, maybe they could raise these questions like six months ago not right before the elecetion and file lawsuits to attempt to suppress votes from democrat areas. Isn’t your wrist getting tired from all this hand waiving?
FactCheck has a whole article on ACORN here.
I think some of the “associations” are pretty sketchy, but it otherwise seems pretty balanced.
How would the votes be suppressed? Any challenge to a vote gets a provisional ballot.
And this is Great Debates, not the PIT. Your hand waiving comment is an invitation to ramp it up a notch which hopefully is not your intent.
I’m not sure what “hand waving” means in this context. It seems to mean “arguments that I cannot otherwise refute” when you use it.
Here, let me show you how one refutes an argument:
Raising questions six months ago and not now: perhaps the people in question moved only three months ago? And if the challenges were raised six months ago, that means that people who moved out of the voting district within the past six months but still illegally maintained their registrations there would be unchallenged, yes? It seems much more useful to accumulate information as close to the election as possible. In any event, while I have no doubt that his actions are designed to decrease voter turnout in areas that vote heavily Democratic, he is entitled (like anyone else) to insist that the law concerning voter registrations be followed, isn’t he?
“Suppressing” votes: if a challenged voter believes he is incorrectly challenged, he must be permitted to cast a provisional ballot; he may then prove his eligibility and his vote will be counted. So how does this tactic “suppress” legitimate votes, anyway?
I completely missed this. The registrations in question weren’t made 6 months ago. They were made recently as part of a get-out-the-vote effort in conjunction with early voting. Questionable votes need to be screened NOW, not 6 weeks from now.
ACORN has been around a long time so their activities are nothing new. The State is responsible to it’s citizens to maintain a system that is open and free of fraud and should have dealt with this without being badgered into it.
Provisional ballots are often disallowed; depending on the state, the voter might or might not ever learn of this; and it is especially likely to happen to African-Americans’ ballots.
ACORN is not the victim of bad employees as FactCheck implies in the above link. They push quota’s on then:
From the New York Post
**“Every day, there was pressure on us. Every single day,” said Teshika Elder, a Cleveland single mom of three who worked for ACORN this summer.
“We had meetings every morning where they’d go over your quota; they’d yell at you if you were low,” said Elder, 21. “They’d sit us down and say if you didn’t do better, they’d suspend you. They’d say, ‘Try harder next time,’ [and] if you didn’t get it, you’d be fired.” **
ACORN is front and center in tactics that bring in fraudulent voters.
See post #546.
That’s the purpose of the provisional ballot, to weed out fraud. How else are you going to do this? If a voter is challenged then they vote provisionally until their status is verified.
It slows things down, and that is precisely the point of the tactic. Note that it is a tactic to suppress, not to prevent.
Our current system is already a disgrace. The citizen of an economically disadvantaged district is far, far more likely to face a forbidding burden of time when it comes to vote. He may very well spend 4 hours or more. In itself, this discourages many voters who might otherwise make their voices heard.
If the Pubbies succeed, they will position poll watchers to challenge and harass voters, thus slowing the process and suppressing those voters who simply don’t have the options available to their more advantaged counterparts.
Put baldly, they aren’t about trying to prevent a few hundred questionable voters from voting. They are about preventing thousands of legitimate voters from going to all the trouble and hassle. And brothers and sisters, pals and gals, it works like a charm.
That we tolerate such an unequal system for our most sacred secular rite, voting, is something we should be ashamed about. That it is further leveraged to the advantage of one political party is enough to make the ghost of Tom Paine puke his ectoplasmic guts out.
But, but, but… none of that is illegal is it?
Quite true, but the pattern strongly suggests such ballots are not being legitimately and honestly disallowed.
Well, of course not! Our system is founded on the Golden Rule: the guy who’s got the gold, he makes the rules…
Ok. In post #546, you said:
Yet neither of your links makes this case. Both links refer to Greg Palast (one his speech; one is his actual article). Nowhere in either link does it say that provisional ballots are “often disallowed.” And certainly he doesn’t provide any evidence that provisional ballots are disallowed when they should be allowed. That is, if a voter casts a provisional ballot, and later it develops that the voter is in fact not eligible to vote, then I presume the provisional ballot would be “disallowed” – as well it should be!
But your comment makes it seem as though legitimately-cast provisional ballots are not being counted, somehow. Yet nowhere in either link is that case made.
So perhaps, in addition to a link, you could provide the quote from the link that you believe provides support for your position.
I supposed it depends on what one thinks the purpose of an election is. Many of us, I think, view it as a national poll of the preferences of U.S. citizens. As with any poll, those who wish it to be an accurate measure must take care not to skew the sample.
If, as reported, these gentlemen attempted to eliminate a class of registered voter from heavily Democratic areas, but made no attempt to similarly eliminate voters of the same class in other areas, it is difficult to believe that their interest lies in an accurate sample of the electorate. One must conclude that they wish to skew the sample.
Yes, you can argue that they’re not suppressing legitimate votes, but even under the most charitable characterization, they are preferentially suppressing illegitimate votes to the same effect.
On the other hand, if one views an election as contest in which anything not expressly forbidden is not just permitted, but peachy keen, these gentlemen may have done nothing wrong.
What pattern is that, precisely?
OK, I agree. I am sure they are focusing on areas that they believe will favor them, in much the same way that a football coach will vigorously argue to the referees that the opposing receiver stepped out of bounds, but not say a word if his own player’s foot was close to the line.
Nonetheless, they are entitled to do that, because the rules are the rules, and if the player stepped out of bounds, he cannot continue to advance the ball.
Here, their job is partisan, and they are seeking to ensure that the opposition receives only legal votes.
Sorry, but you’ll not find me crying because someone preferentially suppressed illegitimate votes. It’s for the each side to have a vigorous advocate that the rules be followed. They are not generous do-gooders; they’re partisan workers. ACORN doesn’t register folks in Republican-leaning areas – are they “preferentially” increasing Democratic votes? Of course they are – same analysis. As long as both sides follow the law, then there’s no room for complaining.
Yet, ACORN would argue that they’re trying to correct the traditional underrepresentation of lower-class urban citizens in the sample, and that it just happens that doing so would increase the number of Democratic votes (rolleyes permitted.) Whether or not such a correction is ACORN’s true intent, and whether or not lower-class urban voters are underrepresented are indeed quite debatable topics.
But what is the corresponding problem with the sample that these gentlemen in Montana can claim to be trying to address? Is there any evidence that illegitimately registered voters are more of a problem in Democratic districts? If not, here there is no debate, and their motivation stands naked.
With respect to the argument that an election should be a contest, with “both” sides free to, and responsible to, skew the sample as best they can within the rules according to their means, boy, is the Libertarian party screwed. But, yeah, it’s not a perfect system.
Let me see if I understand this position and your advocacy of it.
When Ken Blackwell during the 2004 election, as Secretary of State of Ohio (also co-chair of the Ohio Committee to re-elect George W. Bush), not only unilaterally threw out provisional ballots which were cast because of the voter being in the wrong precinct,* but also ordered poll workers not to even provide provisional ballots to voters who they were not satisfied about where they lived,** then who has the power and far-reaching imprimatur to vigorously advocate “following the rules” for the other side?
Further, the Secretary of State – presumably an office which represents all citizens – should not be partisan at all. And according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Blackwell, at least in part, broke the law. Additionally, his actions in his role as Secretary of State, incited at least sixteen related lawsuit related to that election, conflicts of interest and his program of disenfranchisement.
- Utlimately, ruled permissible in above-mentioned court.
** According to section 302 of HAVA, such data is to be confirmed following the casting of the provisional ballot and which act, the Sixth Circuit ruled Blackwell violated.
Here’s why voter registration organizations s shouldn’t be allowed to throw out suspicous registrations:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/right-wing_pundit_on_voter_fra.php
It turns out there really is a voter named Duran Duran. No voter registration org has or should have the resources to confirm that information.