I disagree. Apparently, Rock the Vote is OK, because they get nothing other than a rock concert or some such. How is this any different than going to a homeless shelter and giving everyone a pack of cigarettes if they register to vote?
I don’t disgagree that people should be encouraged to vote, and rock the vote and such events are fantastic for that. But they always have a partisan agenda, and that I don’t like.
How is anything wrong with going to a homeless shelter and giving everybody a pack of cigarettes if they register to vote? (I mean, apart from the encouragement of tobacco use.) Registering to vote is their civic duty anyway; added inducements are harmless; and the secret ballot ensures that the content of one’s vote can’t actually be bought.
I fully expect to be stomped for this, but I think if people can’t be arsed enough to get off their own asses and vote, then they shouldn’t be encouraged to do so. The reason I object to registration drives giving anything to potential voters is that it runs the risk of political slant to those voters.
And this I expect a lot of people to get hugely upset about - I think it should be harder to vote. Decisions get made by those who show up, and of those who show up I would really hope they at least care enough about the issues at hand to get registered and to do some background on the issues; if they can’t be arsed to do that, I would rather people not vote at all.
The only thing the ill-informed will vote for is their own comfort; that way leads madness.
So what? Every party in the election is free to run its own registration drives among its own perceived support base.
Or maybe democracy.
Well, I don’t know about voter suppression, but it may help Kerry win in Oregon (and other places).
I’ve noticed that not a lot of threads have been devoted to Democrats attempting to, and in some cases actually managing too, get Nader blocked from being on a states’ ballot for November…something thats happened in multiple states (including New Mexico where I live) Why? Well, because Nader hurts the Democrats and Kerry of course. So, where is the rightous anger BG? Where are your multiple threads blasting the Democrats for this? I’ve seen multiple threads from you on THIS subject after all (I’ve replied in many of them in fact). Making voters show proof of ID is legitimate…blocking Nader from being on the ballot because he might hurt your candidate is not.
I’m sure you have other ideas of whats fair though, ehe?
-XT
My point is, why allow this? Why allow even the appearance of impropriety to exist?
I knew I was gonna get stomped for this 
I wasn’t talking about denying people the right to vote; I was simply saying if the people are too bone-ass lazy to even register, why push them into it? Let the folks who care decide the issues; at least then, the issues might get decided with at least an inkling of forethought rather than some kind of poll-side knee-jerk reaction.
This does not apply when attempting to get previously downtrodden and denied groups registered, as during the Civil Rights movement, BTW - that was a totally different situation. That was informing people who honestly didn’t know the rules that, yes, they could in fact vote, and how to go about it.
I’m not defending any efforts to keep Nader off the ballot. I’m all for liberalized ballot-access laws that make it just as easy for a third-party nominee or nonpartisan independent to get on any ballot as a Republicrat nominee – as well as instant-runoff voting so the “spoiler” problem does not arise. Under our present plurality system, of course, Nader’s candidacy is ill-conceived and only takes votes away from Kerry, which is why the Pubs are backing his ballot-access efforts. (Now there’s some real hypocrisy, coming from a group of people who don’t give a shit about fairness in ballot access, nor about anything else in politics, to judge by their actions in Texas.) But I still think Nader’s candidacy might be good for the Dems, in that it gives them an incentive to pitch their appeal to the left and move away from Clinton’s free-trade neoliberalism.
But all that is irrelevant to this thread. Candidate suppression and voter suppression are two different things.
You’ve had several threads with a similar theme in the past month or so, so you know where I stand on this anyway. And I DO think my point indirectly relates to your OP of ‘voter suppression’ (though obviously not to the details as you layed them out). If you take away the guy I WANT to vote for and force me to choose between guys I don’t want or not vote, you’ve essentially disenfranchised me, no? Would be the same as if the Republicans were getting Badnarik removed from the ballot in New Mexico…then I’d be FORCED to choose between Bush/Kerry and I’d probably go to the polls, stand in line and leave without casting a vote. However, I will appologize for what you think is a hijack and bow out…its your thread after all.
-XT
In that sense, x, it is the two-party system itself that is “disenfranchising” you. Why don’t you join me in working to destroy it?
I fail to see how requiring your candidate to play by the rules and submit valid petitions in any way disenfranchises you.
RRriiiggghhhttt. The old ‘flawed petition sheet’ ploy, ehe? 218 signatures?? :rolleyes: I can just imagine if the Republicans did a similar thing to Pat Bucannon in 2000 (or if there was a similar spoiling candidate that would hurt Bush this time and they tried to pull this shit) how the Democrats would have been screaming bloody murder about the Republican. We would have seen scores of threads on this here in GD and in the pit.
As to your failing to see FI, I fail to see why requiring citizens to show ID is disenfranchisement either, while I think that this is a pretty obvious ploy on the Democrats part to get Nader off the ballot (by hook or by crook) because he’s a threat to Kerry in some key states. THATS real…and underhanded as hell. There were some pretty underhanded things tried here in New Mexico to get him off the ballot as well…and I noticed many other states are forcing Nader to fight it out in court (which is the only reason he’s on the ballot here in NM btw).
-XT
There’s already been a thread about this somewhere, but I should point out that the Livejournal page you linked to has some factual inaccuracies. First of all, that’s not “Michigan’s absentee ballot,” that’s an absentee ballot from one precinct in Alma, MI. Second of all, there weren’t really “an assload” of these mailed out (at least by any reasonable definition of “assload”), there were, IIRC, sixty-six mailed. And corrected ballots have already been mailed out.
Not that I don’t think voter supression is unethical, and not that I don’t think errors in voting procedures should be avoided, but this particular example seems to be a relatively minor error that was quickly corrected. And that’s good, right?
So if the Sec. of State is a Democrat, he should always rule for the Republicans just to avoid charges of impropriety? If you have proof that there is chicanery going on, spill it. Otherwise, it’s just sour grapes. 
:rolleyes: He’s SUPPOSED to be a servant of the people…that means he SHOULD rule for whats RIGHT…not based on partisan politics (which is what he IS doing). Christ, why is that so hard to understand?? With answers like yours its no surprise that this underhanded tactic is given a pass here.
-XT
I’m doing my part in my own way. I’m voting Badnarik, and I’ve been active in getting the message out about him in NM. I’ve talked to people, given out buttons and stickers, participated in drives to get people out to vote here in NM, and raised money for TV ads.
I don’t want to destroy the old system…I just want to try and change it a little. And I want the third parties (even Nader) to at least have a chance, slim as it is. To me this kind of thing is outrageous…its not like the 3rd parties are given a fair shake (notice none of THEM were allowed in the debates??)…doing this kind of thing takes away their voice completely. 
-XT
How do you know what is right for the people? If you have some inside knowledge the rest of us are not privy to, by all means share it. If the petitions are in fact not valid, it is against the interests of the people to allow an unqualified candidate on the ballot.
Indeed.
They were talking about overseas ballots on CNN this afternoon, and there were complaints from voter organisations that postal ballots had been mailed out too late to arrive back in time for the elections. I was surprised that there are so many Americans abroad [millions] who are elegible to vote - but isn’t it a bit sloppy for the authorities to run out of postal ballots to send out to these people?
I am one of those millions. Just because I live outside the US does not automatically mean I must give up my US citizenship.
I never said you should. My point was that they should have had enough overseas ballots printed so that everyone who wanted to vote could get one in time.
Huh? Are you saying I’m wrong and Nader SHOULD be blocked for partisan political reasons?? And if so, how can you rag on the Republicans when THEY do various slimy partisan crap to get THEIR man elected?
If by ‘the rest of us’ you mean YOU, then I can only assume you’ve been under a rock somewhere…or you just don’t care, as it helps Kerry it must all be good. Pretty much its common knowledge the fix is in for Ralphy boy this election. Here is an article for what was tried in New Mexico.
Obviously they should have used the old ‘flawed petition sheet’ ploy like Oregon did…seems more effective. They couldn’t do it in New Mexico of course because unlike in Oregon, where Nader had enough petitions to get on the ballot (but not a LOT more…especially when just enough were ‘flawed’ to get him off the ballot), in New Mexico he had double the amount needed. So they had to try something else and it didn’t work. :eek:
See, the game is to throw up road blocks against Nader in key states (you know…like New Mexico) on a wide range of bullshit technicalities, and force him to either give up or fight in court to get his name on the ballot for November. In many cases he IS fighting it out…in others he isn’t. Its all slimy politics…you know, like the slimy politics that the Democrats constantly accuse the Republicans of doing while looking pious and innocent. :o
What amazes me is the screeching we constantly here about the 2000 election being ‘stolen’, blah blah blah, and how evil and manipulative the Republicans are…and NOTHING about this. :mad:
Oh well…at least MY candidate will be on the ballot in nearly every state this year. I guess thats something even if he has no chance to win.
-XT