Do invalid votes equate to "disenfranchisement?"

Is that a voter intimidation tactic? Depends! :smiley:

I’m not sure that that’s true. It seems more likely to me that he was trying to exclude a group of voters who were more likely than not to vote Democrat.

That’s based on Governor Bush having several other courses of action open to him:
(1) He can support a change in Florida law which would automatically reinstate the voting rights of felons once they have served their sentences.
(2) He can take active steps to restore the voting rights of felons, e.g. by using these lists to write to these apparent felons asking if they wanbt their voiting rights restored.
(3) He can get more careful checking done of those lists to make sure that people with the right to vote are not excluded.

The problem of course is that in the US, felons are more likely to be black, and black people are more likely to vote Democrat. That why Governor Bush’s actions look partisan, rather than just upholding the law.

I saw Greg Palast’s documentary, Unpredecented. Jeb Bush was warned when the 2000 list was being assembled that the methodology being used was sloppy and might cause non-felons to be included; he didn’t care. And he started the process again in 2004, knowing exactly what had happened last time, and the new list turned out to be as flawed as the old one. I don’t think it’s unfair to impute a dishonest motive to Bush in this instance.

But the question the OP raises is: if it deleted more invalid than valid voters, wasn’t it a net gain?

IOW: You’re Jeb Bush. Someone gives you a list with 1000 registered names on it. They tell you that the large majority - say about 800 of them – are invalid (felons, double registrations, etc), but that probably 200 of them are legitimate. Leaving aside “come up with a better list,” etc – this is a philosophical discussion – what do you do?

The OP suggets that most Democrats reason that you have to leave all the names on the rolls, lest you disenfranchise 200 people.

But the Republican response is that letting an invalid vote stand is just as bad as eliminating a legitimate one; and that given the scenario above, the obvious choice is to discard all 1000 votes, because the positive of eliminating 800 invalid votes overcomes the negative of eliminating 200, and we are 600 votes closer to the “correct” answer (i.e. knowing what the majority of valid votes say.)

If you do not agree with that reasoning (one invalid vote counted is just as bad as one valid vote not counted), why not?

For one thing, some of the rules that make certain voters ineligible are very unjust. Florida’s law that ex-felons can’t vote, for instance, which was put in place during Reconstruction for the express purpose of disenfranchising blacks. I won’t defend the right of non-citizens to vote, but other than that I see no reason why the election results should not reflect the preference of every sinlge American adult of sound mind.

You’re ducking the question.

FWIW, I agree with you. But what the rules should be is irrelvant to what the laws are, and how you go about enforcing them.

Not at all. Why a given vote is “invalid” is perfectly relevant to any evaluation of this issue. Democracy is about letting the people choose by majority vote; and first we have to define who are “the people” for that purpose.

The law says felons can’t vote. The SC has said that law is constitutional. I can’t imagine you’re seriously suggesting that Jeb (or any other governor, or any other election official) should only enforce the laws he feels ethically comfortable with?

**Given the laws as they are, ** you’re Jeb Bush. Someone gives you a list with 1000 registered names on it. They tell you that the large majority - say about 800 of them – are invalid (felons, double registrations, etc), but that probably 200 of them are legitimate. Leaving aside “come up with a better list,” etc – this is a philosophical discussion – what do you do?

I would do nothing, on the grounds that the risk of disenfranchising lawfully eligible voters is an unacceptable infringement of their political rights, and presents graver harm than the harm of allowing some ineligibles to vote.

I live in Virginia, which also refuses to let felons vote even after they have served their sentences. Nor are we the only states with this rule. Jeb Bush has no particular obligation to support a change in that law. It’s a good law, imposing a serious and potentially lifetime consequence for the commission of a felony.

In any event, you cannot point to a law that’s duplicated in multiple states, been supported by both Republican and Democratic governers for decades, and assert that a failure to work for a change in the law means we may infer that efforts to uphold the law are impermissbily partisan.

I don’t agree. The law is the law. Change it, but until you do, obey it.

This is why “BrainGlutton for Governor” will never take off. The Governor’s JOB is to enforce the laws of his state.

But a public official has a latitude of discretion in how he enforces the law. If he chooses a method that causes more harm than good, that’s unacceptable. How would you feel about the “felons list” if you were turned away from the polls because you happened to have the same name as a convicted felon? That happened to a lot of would-be voters in Florida in 2000. Most Americans accept the principle that it’s better to let 100 guilty people go free than send one innocent one to prison. This is similar, except that the harm of allowing ex-felons to vote is significantly less than the harm of allowing active felons to go on committing crimes.

More importantly, you have a duty to enforce the laws to the best of your abilities and the best extent the situation allows. You are absolutely no holds barred forbidden to strip licit voters of their rights.

It’s like saying we should find a criminal by searching every house in the neighborhood. Whether it’s an effective method isn’t the issue. You aren’t allowed to do it.

Okay, fair enough; you’ve answered the question; now I’d ask you to defend it against the point raised by the OP: in a two-horse race, does not allowing the (invalid) vote of an illegal-alien-for-Kerry have the same de facto effect as throwing away a ballot for Bush?

On a more practical level: given that when you’re dealing with huge numbers of voters and enormous databases, any effort to clear off the invalid names is inevitably going to result in at least a few errors, should we just give up all hope and let anyone who wants to vote, no questions asked? If we start applying the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, it will soon be impractical to even try removing names.

And finally … if Bush had decided to support amnesty for illegal aliens, do you have any doubts that the Dems would be down in New Mexico right now supporting efforts to make sure each and every Lopez on the rolls already had a green card? :wink:

From the point of view of the individual voter, the important thing is not “Let my candidate win!” but “Let my vote be counted!”

I’m fine with that, so long as nobody votes twice. Maybe we could dip every voter’s thumb in purple ink. (And make sure it’s indelible, unlike what they used in Afghanistan!)

:confused: Bush did grant amnesty to illegal aliens. That’s why a lot of Pubs are mad at him.

Then I think we have the crux of the matter: the voice of the (legitimate) electorate is less important than making sure everyone gets to “be heard.” Defensible, but I think you can also see why some wouldn’t care for it.

:confused: :confused: Ummm … cite? He’s talked about a guest worker program, but if he’s suddenly declared than anyone here can immediately apply for citizenship, it’s news to me.

President Bush does not support amnesty because individuals who violate America’s laws should not be rewarded for illegal behavior and because amnesty perpetuates illegal immigration. The President proposes that the Federal Government offer temporary worker status to undocumented men and women now employed in the United States and to those in foreign countries who have been offered employment here.

I would agree that, in a Democratic society, the electorate confers legitimacy upon the elected by the voting process, and that that feeling of “legitimacy” contributes to a stable society. I would also agree that votes that are dismissed can dilute that perceived “legitimacy,” but not those votes that were never cast.

If 50% of the electorate actually votes, and a simple majority elects one candidate over the other, I don’t think that there should be any cause to question that “legitimate” result based soley upon the electoral turnout.

BG:

Uhm…could you provide a cite for the number of recently freed ex-slaves that were convicted of felonies during the period of reconstruction?

While your point is somewhat valid, I believe that your reasoning is suspect. IIRC, things such as literacy tests and poll taxes were established to disenfranchise the ex-slaves, as well as outright pysical intimidation.

After all, in the late 19th century in Florida, felonius “niggers” were more likely than not simply hung. Who wanted to waste time and money keeping paper records on “niggers?” SImpler to shoot them, hang them, burn them, or beat them than pass laws and try to enforce them.

Remembere that we are a Democratic Republic; we have (and always have had) a limited franchise. Letting in illegitimate votes can be seen in many ways to be worse than casting out legitimate ones, even though on my personal moral-meter both are equally heinous.

But by allowing that list, you are still disenfranchising legitimate votes. Eight hundred of them by furt’s list. Because for each illegtimate voter for one candidate, you cancel out (disenfranchise) one legitimate voter for the other. Whereas by the OP’s reasoning, by completely eliminating those 1000 votes, you are only disenfranchising 200 voters, not 800.

Now, if it was shown that the greater number of those votes were legitimate, then you would be correct in leaving the votes as is and counting them, because you would be including a greater number of legitimate votes than illegitimate. But that’s not the case here.

What you are failing to take into account is that the list of eligible voters. Not the number of actual voters.

The crackhead who was getting $2 for every completed registered voter card he turned in signed up Dick Tracy and Mickey Mouse. The sole purpose Dick and Mickey were registered was so the addict could get a rock. There was never a further conspiracy to have someone claim to be Dick and attempt to vote.

But if the removal of the fictional Mickey and Dick Tracy also causes the removal of the quite real Richard Trace, there is a real harm done. And it is a removal from the “correct” answer (i.e. knowing what the majority of valid votes say).

The assumption that an invalid registration equals an invalid vote is in error.

As is the assumption that the inelligible voters on Jebs list were actually going to vote.

Removal of anyone from the roles should be taken with the greatest of care. And repeatedly, in Florida, and recently in Ohio, those actions have been shown to be sloppy in the least, and potentially felonious at the most. I think if there was a track record of Republican challenges having a miniscule margin of honestly mistaken disenfranchisement, folks would be a bit less leery of their motives.

Well, “amnesty” was a word the media (left, right, and center) used a lot, and a lot of conservatives did get mad over it.

No, but the point stands. From http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V8/35/shapiro-a.html:

I’ve heard it’s a felony to tear the tags from pillows. So if one evening I decide to do that, and I get imprisoned for it, I’m denied the right to vote forever? Even when I’m old and gray haired, I still have to suffer for that act of indiscrection? Is this compassionate conservatism in action, Bricker?

So no matter the overzealousness, no matter how selective the enforcement is which just happens to exclude a disproportionate number of blacks, it’s ok? The executive authority of a state has discretion in how vigorously he chooses to enforce laws, doesn’t it strike you as the least bit odd that he decides to “enforce” it in such a way as to provide advantage to his brother and his political party?

I understand these are the sort of things you need to gloss over in cognitive dissonance order to remain loyal to the Republican Party, but come on.

Ok. Let’s say he was elected and decided to enforce the law. He decides to “crack down” on jaywalkers. But he decides to do it on election day, only in heavily Republican neighborhoods, as people walk to the polls.

Would you wave that off as merely “enforcing the laws” within his executive discretion, or would you call it outright crooked behavior?

If the justice system cannot impose the proper sentence, I do not believe further restricting the rights of free men is the answer. I am actually quite surprised you think so, given how I thought you viewed human interaction. I guess we can all surprise others sometimes.