“This” being the wide-scale voter suppression efforts?
But James OKeef conclusively proved that people are able to vote under someone else’s name. Plus, making people take extra steps (the coincidence that they’re most likely Democratic voters is inconsequential) to vote is a good thing. A personal cost, something identical to a poll tax unless you’re speaking in technical terms of art reserved for different sorts of discussions, is actually a good thing for democracy, because it limits the number of people voting–that those people who it limits tend to be in opposition to the Republican party is, well, just a coincidence. Nevermind that the effort or requirements have no bearing on civics (though if you don’t have the money or lifestyle for a car, you shouldn’t be presumed worthy of the vote; hence you should be the one who takes extra steps to vote).
Oh, fuck all this voter suppression. It’s turning into one of those litmus issues. For voter ID laws? Really? Okay, it lets me write you off as unconcerned about policy or democracy; it’s party over country for you!
I think the problem is that people have found Constitutionally legal methods to suppress the vote. There should be pushback, but the false claim of voter fraud infects the public sphere such that the true motives are somewhat opaque–making pushback politically difficult. Further complicating things is that for about half the electorate, it benefits their party. Lastly, most people are largely unaffected by the attempts, so the outrage is less than it should be.
Interesting times. Gov. Scott, you asshole, did you really thing you were just going to get away with this? Did you think 2000 was already forgotten? Suck it!
My view is that if a voter is legitimate and votes regularly there is little risk of their being “purged”. If someone is given “walking around money” to vote for an occasional marquee election they are not part of the democratic debate.
Based on what happened in 2000 and what is happening now, that is apparently not the case. The purge-risk depends on . . . entirely different factors.
Of course they are. Their vote is the same as yours, and should be. And what is a “marquee election”? And who is giving out this “walking around money”? IME, get-out-the-vote drives might offer a free ride to the polls, that’s it. And, of course, money given to a voter to vote a given way is wasted in a secret-ballot system; you have no way even to know, afterwards, how the voter voted. Eliminating both bribery and intimidation is the point of a secret ballot.
[quote=BrainGlutton;15106621 Of course they are. Their vote is the same as yours, and should be. And what is a “marquee election”? And who is giving out this “walking around money”? IME, get-out-the-vote drives might offer a free ride to the polls, that’s it. And, of course, money given to a voter to vote a given way is wasted in a secret-ballot system; you have no way even to know, afterwards, how the voter voted. Eliminating both bribery and intimidation is the point of a secret ballot.[/quote]
I have no problem with free rides. But if money is given out in a homogenous polling area and the voting is more “diverse” than it “ought to be” there are ways are meting out consequences.
Who is giving money out? And to whom? Cite for any of this?
And… are you the arbiter of what makes an area “more diverse than it ought to be”? If not you, then who decides this? How less diverse should an area be before you deem that it is OK?
It seems that you are accusing people of spreading money around areas with visible minority voters because they are more prone to vote Democrat. And that there will be “consequences” for this, presumably denying the people in these areas the right to vote.
What I’m saying is that if in a particular area money is given out the “donors” would expect, say, a 97% compliance rate. If the area splits and only 50% go to the “right” candidate, largesse and future opportunities to make money by voting the “right way” could be curtailed.
Here’s my question: Let’s say I’m a Florida voter, a citizen with no felonies, and I show up at the polls and they tell me I’ve been “purged.” Can’t I cast a provisional ballot and when all is said and done the investigation (in a close election) will reveal the truth and my vote will count? Isn’t that the whole purpose of the provisional ballot?
And if your provisional ballot has been rejected for any of these reasons . . . not much you can do about it . . . not much chance you can even find out whether your ballot was counted or not.
That’s nasty. I wonder whether there’s a felon out there somewhere with a name and date of birth somewhat close to mine that would get me purged in a purge-happy state. Living in NY, I’m not worried, but I certainly would be concerned if I moved to Florida.
Considering how ID-happy the purge-happy states are, you’d think they’d get photo IDs of felons to match-up to photo IDs of voters. But noooooo . . .
Re: provision ballots above…Most elections aren’t close enough to where provisional ballots make a difference anyways. If it does, the losing candidate will make damn sure that they are counted b/c that’s the only chance he has to win. If they don’t “count” in runaway elections it’s because they aren’t needed. It’s like the home team in baseball being ahead in the middle of the 9th and not having to bat in the bottom. They aren’t “cheated” out of a turn at bat, it’s just not necessary for the outcome to complete the task. Just like it isn’t necessary to argue over the provisional ballots when they aren’t necessary for the outcome. IIRC, when they don’t matter, provisional ballots are counted by default.
So what if a person casting a provisional ballot knows (and how many people know this) that the news reports on election night don’t count provisional ballots? They count when they count, if you will, and nobody is wrongfully disenfranchised. Does my vote not “count” because my candidate lost by more than my one vote, even if it is included in the projection totals on election night?
Is the only alternative to take no steps to ensure that ineligible voters don’t vote? It seems that the provisional ballot applies nicely to a situation where someone was purged in error.
Question about counting provisional ballots: what is the procedure for casting and then verifying a provisional ballot?
Is casting a provisional ballot substantially substantively different than casting a regular ballot? That is, if I’m told I’m off the roles for the moment and the only difference is that I vote in a different machine or fill out a piece of paper, that’s neither substantially nor substantively different. The experience is virtually the same, isn’t it? The key (to me) is that while it may be emotionally different, the effort is not really different—I’m still casting my ballot.
Perhaps more importantly, **how are provisional ballots converted into official ballots? **Where is the burden of proof? Do the parties send representatives to the registrar to oversee the process? Or am I expected to return to the polling place/registrar and somehow prove my eligibility? If this is the case, then sloppy purging of the roles, particularly if the given quotes and presumptions are true (intentional lack of accuracy with the burden on local communities coupled with the disparate impact on different racial demographics), equates to an unquestionable, intentional subversion of democracy.
Whichever side and whenever it occurs, party before country is a bad thing.
Let’s not have what happened in Florida in 2000 happen ever again. :mad:
Of course they are. Their vote is the same as yours, and should be. And what is a “marquee election”? And who is giving out this “walking around money”? IME, get-out-the-vote drives might offer a free ride to the polls, that’s it. And, of course, money given to a voter to vote a given way is wasted in a secret-ballot system; you have no way even to know, afterwards, how the voter voted. Eliminating both bribery and intimidation is the point of a secret ballot.