Can anyone name any defensible, legitimate value to "voter suppression"?

I bolded some of the goofier bits; Some Dems claim to ‘have heard stories’, and I am supposed to take that as a sign that my party is going Nazi on me? Color me less-than-impressed with the veracity of Mr.Gardner’s claims. I am a bit skeptical of claims that the MIB were trying to scare voters (or that the MIB are in fact Republicans for that matter) or that ‘whisper campaigns’, (presuming that they exist, and are in fact started by Republicans, certainly neither of which are proven to be the case) constitute ‘voter intimidation’ any more than the cries of Democrats that Republicans/Bush want to ‘Take away Medicare’ or any other scare-tactic that is used.

I don’t believe that a campaign of voter-intimidation is occurring. I would even cede that perhaps some individuals may be doing some unethical things (may being the keyword, little, if anything, is proven), but deal with them on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to defend the GOP against such spurious claims.

As for the ID bit, I just don’t see it. So African-Americans are purportedly less likely to have state-issued ID? So what? How about we fix that problem, rather than use it to keep the potential for vote fraud open? Perhaps some of those people worrying about ‘whisper campaigns’ could start a ‘whisper campaign’ that you really should have a state-issued piece of identification. It is well within the realm of reason to ask a person to prove that they are who they say they are when voting. In the great state of Michigan, they cost $10.00. Surely the simpler solution is just to make arrangements for those who truly cannot afford a ID card to have the state (or concerned citizens, for that matter), to pay for them. Non-issue, in my eyes.

Because it slows down the voting process, and leads to longer lines outside the polling place. And that will cause some people who see a long line for voting to turn around and leave without voting.

And there is a likely party component to this. Conventional wisdom is that it is more likely to be Democratic voters than Republican ones who leave when there are long waits to vote. The reasons given are that:

  1. Democratic voters are more likely to be rushed than Republican voters: more work factory jobs than office jobs, so being late is more serious; more are poor and dependent on public transportation, etc.
  2. Busy polling places with long waits are more likely in larger cities, which tend to vote more Democratic than suburban & rural areas.

Well I am a bit suspicious of that as well, but…Let’s assume that’s true. What makes more sense: Drop the ID requirement, and supposedly speed things up (it does take precious seconds to whip out a ID card, I admit), or work to get more polling places opened? If the system is broke in places, the solution isn’t to break it further.

Just to add to the mix, here are a few more items.

This is from a New York Times Opinion column:

========

========

Here’s more about the Leon Country weirdness:

========

========

Jim Hightower weighs in (Opinion piece)

========

In other states’ news, check out this absentee ballot from Michigan, the same place that doesn’t like Michael Moore’s newly signed-up voters, and who would really really like to give Detroit to Canada. Look at it very very closely. Look at the arrows. Look who you’d be voting for if you wanted to vote for Kerry/Edwards.

I hope few Democrats voted absentee in Michigan.

But that’s what this thread is about, Brutus. I am challenging anyone who dares to defend such voter-suppression practices on principle, regardless of what party or faction is doing them.

And there was a time in America – up to, say, 40 or even 30 years ago – when a lot of debaters would have been all too eager to defend voter-suppression tactics on principle, as good and necessary things. Even some of the debates over the more recent motor-voter legislation reflected a certain fear of the prospect of certain groups of people voting in unprecedented numbers. I’m just trying to find out if we have outgrown that attitude entirely, or reached a point where voter suppression has become one of those hypocritical practices that some political activists do in secret but would never, ever think of defending on principle in public.

Ha ha! The article I mentioned previously has turned up on another newspaper’s site. Read it before it too goes subscription-only: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3596205&thesection=news&thesubsection=world Some highlights:

On voter intimidation:

On the electronic voting machines:

On the felon list:

On voter registration:

and

On ballot fraud:

And finally:

Note that while in this instance Republicans and their supporters seem to be engaged in more than their share of questionable practices, there are a fair number of Democrats doing so as well. It’s a sad day for democracy.

True dat! :frowning:

No cites, but I’ve heard people brag about voting twice by being registered in both Maryland and Washington, D.C.

There are continuing problems with party activists who troll nursing homes for votes. They send in an application for an absentee ballot for a resident, and then fill out the ballot themselves.

Electoral fraud is alive and well in the United States. The Democratic Party is its main beneficiary. When Republicans try to do something about it, they are immediately smeared as being racists.

I’ve heard about some rich New Yorkers who have vacation homes in Florida being registered to vote in both states – which does not necessarily mean they vote twice in the same election; they might just vote in whatever state they happen to be in on election day. Still illegal, but less egregious than what you’re describing. I doubt many people actually maintain residences in both D.C. and Maryland – which means they’re falsifying their registration in at least one jurisdiction.

For that, I want a cite! Come on!

In my experience in the UK, voting cards speed up the voting process, rather than slow it down. Each registered voter gets a voting card a couple of weeks before the election - and you can vote if you present this and a photo-id at the polling station [for people who don’t drive, photo ID cards are supplied free on application]

Having looked at that ballot paper linked to on this thread, I’m glad we still vote the old-fashioned way - putting an X with indelible pencil at the name of the person we want - or, in local elections where the PR system is used, numbering the candidates we like in order of preference. No machines, no ambiguity.

I don’t understand why ex-felons, or even current felons are excluded from voting - surely they are still American citizens and still have a say in their choice of government. I also don’t understand why you have to register as a voter for a particular party.

You mean, in Britain felons are allowed to vote even while incarcerated?

We use party registration to facilitate the primary system. Some states are “open-primary,” meaning you can vote in the Democratic or Republican primary if you wish (but not both), but most are “closed-primary,” meaning you can vote in the Democratic primary only if you’re a registered Democrat.

Depends if they’ve been convicted or not - according to
http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/files/dms/Whocanvote_14157-6144__E__N__S__W__.pdf

you can’t vote if you’re

Once these people are released there is nothing to stop them voting.

That’s probably why I didn’t understand it, as the prime minister here isn’t voted for directly - he’s the leader of the winning party.

Wow - I agree with Brutus :eek:

I think the only valid reasons to supress voting are:

  1. To uphold the law. Felons in most states can’t vote, so keeping them off voting registers is fair.
  2. To prevent fraud. Someone who fraudulently votes, or conspires to get others to do so should never ever be allowed to vote again.

I also agree that this should include bogus get out the vote campaigns that are purely partisans, but that’s just my own little opinion. That’s the only reason I don’t support ‘Rock the Vote’ and such - it’s pandering to one side of the political spectrum. I don’t think either side should be allowed to get away with this crap, and neither side is anything close to clean on it.

But this thread is about – and only about – the suppression of legally eligible voters, Gomi. Is that ever a good thing? That’s the question.

Now we’re getting somewhere! What is wrong, exactly, with partisan get-out-the-vote drives? My thesis is that, for the sake of democratic government as an end-in-itself, anything which encourages turnout of (legally eligible) voters is good, and anything which discourages turnout of (legally eligible) voters is bad, no matter who is doing it or why. What about that proposition do you dispute?

In these difficult economic times, no one suffers more than the poor brute squad goon. His glory days from union busting are long past. He depends on the money he receives during election cycles to feed and clothe his family. Little Johnny wants a 2x4 for Christmas, but unless daddy can crack the heads of eligible voters, Little Johnny’s stocking will be empty this year.

Please, won’t someone think of the brute squad goons?

:wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

If there hasn’t already been a thread on this topic, there should be. Felony disenfranchisement laws date from the post-civil war period, when Southern states were looking for legal ways to disenfranchise ex-slaves after the Constitution was amended to give them the vote. Others ways were declared unconstitutional, but permanently disenfranchising felons was allowed. It didn’t solely apply to blacks, but it has affected minorities disproportionately.

There have been, several. Felon disenfranchisement was heavily debated a couple of months ago when Florida was planning to use a new “felons list” (ultimately scrapped) to purge the voter rolls.

ISTM nearly a catch-22. Politicians cater to interests in search of votes; they don’t cater to felons because felons can’t vote.

But any politician who proposed to enfranchise felons could hope, if he/she succeeds, to pick up the “felon vote.” Which might or might not amount to more votes than those the politician would lose from people who don’t like the idea. Still, it’s the right thing to do, if that counts for anything.

But let’s get this thread back on track.

There, there, Dewey. Chin up. The brute squad goons will be taken care of. After the Revolution, we’ll find them jobs as guards in the Reeducation Camps, and bouncers in the newly legalized hallucinogenic-drugs-and-bisexual-orgies bars! :slight_smile: