Your “surmise” is nothing but speculation to support your own position.
“Failing” to fill out an address card is a separate issue from refusing to fill out an address card–an action that would be much more rare.
And I have never heard of a person who publicly refused to fill out a simple change of address, when requested, who then fled to a separate precint in order to vote illegally, so I find that even more rare.
Beyond which, to take the case from rare to unique, I have never heard of a person who, being solicted for information in the proper manner by the appropriate authorities on such a minor issue, refused to answer their questions and then sent forth a lawyer to stall the questioning further.
If you have not heard of an event similar to this, it is most likely because this event is, indeed, unique, not as an act of persecution, but in the public flouting of the law in an event that could have been handled quietly on the day of the vote by a simple compliance with a polite request.
Did I misread the earlier posts describing the occurrences at the Bethesda-By-the-Sea precinct?
I thought they were said to have offered her the opportunity to fill out her change of address card on the spot. This business of questioning whether the card had been mailed to her before or after the fact is very confusing to me.
I guess I better re-read the thread, and make sure to click on all the links.
Well, I guess I made it up in my head that the linked stories actually said that she had been offered the opportunity to fill out her CofA card at the polling place. I conflated the statement about Mr. Whited trying to help her vote properly (post #3), with the FAQ about being able to fill out a CofA card at the polling place on election day (post #22), and surmised that Mr. Whited had chased after her to try to persuade her to accept his assistance with filling out the card.
My surmise may still be correct, but the available links have not established that to be the case, so I’ll be content to leave it and allow Scylla (or anyone else so inclined) to call it speculation.
Here’s a link that might offer some additional information. While it’s a blog, it does have actual words from stories written about this by the primary reporter, Jose Lambiet, of the Palm Beach Post.
It appears to me that she was offered a card to change her registration when she attempted to vote, but left without doing so.
And, amazingly, when confronted the next week with her voting fraud, she denied that she was a Florida resident. I’m not sure how you vote in a location where you’re not a resident.
And all this, again, from a person that is a lawyer? Good thing she wasn’t trained as a doctor, or she’d be dead from treating herself.
Speculation assumes a high degree of risk. I would not really assign “speculation” to the assertion that voting in the wrong district would tend to be somewhat more common than presidential ordered break-ins against political rivals.
There is really no speculation to that assumption since there have been only 40 some odd Presidents in history, while over the course of elections in this country thre have been something on the order of several hundred million registered voters.
Even if we assign a vanishingly small rate of incidence to the latter and an incredibly high rate of incidence to the former, the latter will outnumber the former by a huge margin since the possibles it is drawing off of is so much larger.
This falls into the realm of things that should be incredibly obvious to a man of your intellect, so I suspect you’re just busting my balls.
I would have thought that good faith would have led you to accept the obviousness of it for the sake of moving on with this fairly ridiculous and pointless argument, but if we must discuss it, we must discuss it.
So, let’s say the incidence of Presidential authorized break - ins is 1 out of 100 (though it should probably be much lower,) and voters attempting to vote in the wrong disctrict by either accident or design is 1 out of 100,000. According to Wikipedia we had 122,000,000 vote in the last Presidential election. So, to be conservative we will say that in the history of the United States only 1 billion votes have ever been cast in any election Presidential or otherwise.
That would mean that we would have a rate of 500 voters voting at the wrong place per each Presidential authorized break-in.
This seems to support my thesis that voting in the wrong place is much more common than Nixon type break-ins. I have been incredibly generous in my assumptions to arise at these figures. Imagine a pool of 100,000 people and only one of them trying to vote at the wrong place!
Hopefully now, you will concede that a voter showing up at the wrong spot to vote is much more common than Nixon style break-ins.
I trust that I have won this incredibly ridiculous point and that you will now concede with all grace and respect due me.
So, the election makes her uncomfortable, recognizes her, pursues her, whatever and she goes elsewhere to avoid it (not a necessarily bad idea considering that some official showed up on radio threatening her with jail shortly thereafter.) She’s a woman and not unused to overt hostility and quite reasonably skittish concerning overzealousness on the part of the politically active. Reread that part about the worker “pursuing” her to help her.
Anyway, starting with our pool of 500 people, let’s say only one out of five is at the wrong place because they moved and is offered a change of address card. Out of that 100 only 1 out of 10 people who are offered a card do not fill it out getting us a totally unheard of 90% positive response rate to the offer! Only one out of 10 decides “screw it,” or “the lines are too long,” or “this is too much of a pain in the ass my vote doesn’t really count” or “I waited on line for half an hour and now this asshole wants to fill out of a card go to the back of the line or go somewhere else and may not be able to vote anyway” or anything else.
That still gives us 10 to 1.
I still win this ridiculously obvious and picayune point.
You have probably never heard of anybody going to McDonalds, deciding that the line is too long and going to Burger King instead. Why? Because it is hardly newsworthy and so common as to be unremarkable (in the sense that we would not bother to remark on it,) while, a President ordering a break in would be both newsworthy and remarkable.
Really? That’s quite naive. I don’t suppose you’ve ever watched Columbo where he gets the suspect to answer questions because they are so seemingly innocuous, have you?
How many times have you heard lawyers warn people not to talk to officials and police, no matter how innocuous the questions may seem, but to await representation?
Do you think those warnings exist because it never happens?
Coulter, being a lawyer, would be expected to exercise such caution, especially if she suspected that persecution of a political vendetta was the motivation for such an inquiry. Such would not be an unwarranted assumption in light of the level of attention that has been afforded this incident. In fact, she would be unwise to assume that such inquiries and requests as regards herself would be routine.
And yet, we have only heard the word of an election official that it was a polite request. Coulter has not gone public with her version. Based on the fact that she was threatened with jail on the radio shortly thereafter by election officials, making the assumption that the request was polite and normal is quite a leap, don’t you think?
This debate has gotten insanely ridiculous.
Gotten? It was insanely ridiculous as soon as you wandered in crying that poor Ms. Coulter was being “persecuted.”
You have, of course, changed the terms to make your point. I am sure that many voters show up at the wrong place. The number of voters who show up at the wrong place, refuse to simply sign a change of address form, then flounce out to go vote in the wrong precinct is, however, much smaller than the odds that you stacked with your random assumptions and odd calculations.
I do not concede this silly point, but I refrain to do so with, indeed, every bit of the respect that is due you.
In my limited experience, the polite request has a limited life-expectancy. If one wishes to maintain a posture of compliant innocence, it is best to respond with alacrity. An efficient and expedient approach, to be sure, so long as proper compliance is the goal. Does rather lack drama, however. Lends very little energy, attracts but meager attention.
I figure if anyone actually threatened her with jail and martyrdom (so common in this land where conservatives are routinely hounded by Jackbooted Authority), I think they just really wanted to see if she actually would have a sponaneous multiple orgasm.
Yeah, you right. Had she only put her hands in the air the first time the election official asked her, he wouldn’t have had to wrestle her to the ground and slap the cuffs on.
I figured that once election officials show up on radio threatening you with jail over voting in the wrong spot and not filling out an election card and it gets covered in the national media that claiming persecution is going on is not unwaranted.
I suppose you’d find nothing unusual with a ritualistic disembowelment of the scrawny wench under these grounds, or perhaps a month in the public stocks while crowds through rotten produce at her aquiline nose.
Give me a break, here. It doesn’t sound like persecution? Denial ain’t a river.
That’s big of you, but I see were making progress down the path of the obvious.
I place it at 10 out of 1 billion. 10 out of one billion! 10 out of 1,000,000,000.
And you think that’s too… big?
On the contrary I was being exceedingly generous in my assumptions to stack the calculation in your favor under the operating principle that it would be impossible for you take exception with my assumptions while still maintaining a modicum of reality.
Take for instance the 1 out 100,000 going to the wrong place. In reality the number is more likely to be several thousand times higher, more on the order of 1 to 2 percent, which is one to two thousand. That means the real number is more like 10-20,000 to 1, rather than than the 10 to one I have presented for argument’s sake.
I repeat, I have been incredibly generous with my assumptions. You have been stubborn and intractable in the face of the obvious.
Your denial of the statistically certain and inherently obvious, is not exactly conducive to high levels of admiration, either.
Not to mention legal. That’s kind of an important difference between the cases.
You mean guilty suspects? Sure: guilty suspects have a good reason not to answer questions.
Innocent suspects have a good reason to have a lawyer handy when they answer questions. Having a lawyer on hand is not the same thing as delaying the answer.
So what if the person making the request was horribly rude? That doesn’t change the law.
Damn. If it wasn’t for those anti-gun zealots, the nice old poll watcher ladies would have been carrying heat, and the problem would be solved now. You’ve convinced me - Second Amendment Rules!
