While I quite agree that Blackwell is a biased partisan whose decisions are justified only by their efforts to limit the Democratic turnout, I don’t know that that is factually correct. In Nader’s lawsuit against Blackwell, Blackenship v. Blackwell , 103 Ohio St. 3d 567, 2004-Ohio-5596, the Ohio Supreme Court (which btw is controlled by Republicans) affirmed Blackwell’s decision to exclude Nader from the ballot. Blackwell’s decision was based on the decision of a subordinate hearing officer who conducted a fully contested hearing. How that amounts to Blackwell putting Ralph on the ballot I don’t understand.
Merely “threatened”? You’re describing a situation where they’ve confessed to an offense that calls for (at a minimum) disbarment.
But I thought you were using the word to mean, “giving a false appearance of frankness.” (The way John McCain, at the 2004 Pub Convention, characterized Michael Moore as a “disingenuous filmmaker” for his (by no means dishonest) portrayal of some happiness in daily life in pre-invasion Iraq.)
I would say efforts to keep the other side’s voters away from the polls are always unethical, by definition.
And it’s very important to note that this is not an entirely symmetrical phenomenon. I’ve been active in various Dem clubs and campaigns, and they’re always enthusiastic about registering new voters, running get-out-the-vote drives, even volunteering to drive elderly and disabled people to the polls on election day (and all without inquiring into their party affiliation). But I have never, ever heard anyone bring up the question, “So, how can we keep Republicans from voting?” Voter suppression is something only the Pubs do. Their may be some instances of Dems doing the same, to be sure, but nothing on the scale at which the Pubs have been practicing voter suppression the last few election cycles.
Relevant threads from 2004:
“Republican voter intimidation tactics”
“Are Dems more into Dirt Tricks than Gops”
“Can anyone name any defensible, legitimate value to “voter suppression”?”
“Right-wingers trying to block college-student voter-registration drives”
“Jimmy Carter: Basic requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida”
OK, I have no dog in this fight, but let me make one observation.
Following the 2000 Florida debacle, in which nobody came out with clean hands, a lot of people nationwide watched the stories about the 2004 election with keen interest, hoping there would be no repeat.
Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was alleged to have used his office in a blatantly partisan manner, to assure (or come as close as he could to assuring) that Republicans would win, in particular the Presidency, and several state offices as well. Things like the weight of ballot paper, the short list of voting supplies vendors, etc., were alleged to have been selected to disenfranchise Democrats and aid Republicans. In this regard, there were some strong allegations of a tie between Diebold (voting machine vendor owned by a staunch and strongly partisan Republican) and Blackwell, in which means of producing fraudulent tallies were alleged.
If investigations and proof of those allegations were ever pursued, it did not come to my attention.
But: (1) It would take a far more rabidly partisan Democrat than I to say it’s been conclusively demonstrated that Ken Blackwell is Evil Incarnate, but (2) there are damn good reasons for watching the election preparation activities closely for chicanery, and suspecting that it might happen. And that’s about as non-partisan as I can get on this issue.
Regarding the rigging of electronic voting machines – no conclusive proof that it’s been done, but there have been many highly suspicious situations, including the 2002 elections in Georgia:
Regarding the 2004 election, see here; and, focusing on Ohio, see here and here.
Furthermore, hacking the machines, changing the outcome, and leaving no trace has repeatedly, and, quite recently, been shown to be possible.
Fine, let’s look at the big picture. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has done several extensive “political typology” studies since the late ‘90s. Their most recent findings show the American people, politically, fall into the following nine groups:
ENTERPRISERS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: As in 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act.
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 82% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 0% Democrat (97% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: While supportive of an assertive foreign policy, this group is somewhat more religious than are Enterprisers. In policy terms, they break from the Enterprisers in their cynical views of business, modest support for environmental and other regulation, and strong anti-immigrant sentiment.
PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 58% Republican, 40% Independent/No Preference, 2% Democrat (86% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Pro-Government Conservatives stand out for their strong religious faith and conservative views on many moral issues. They also express broad support for a social safety net, which sets them apart from other GOP groups. Pro-Government Conservatives are skeptical about the effectiveness of the marketplace, favoring government regulation to protect the public interest and government assistance for the needy. They supported George W. Bush by roughly five-to-one.
UPBEATS
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 39% Republican, 5% Democrat (73% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Upbeats express positive views about the economy, government and society. Satisfied with their own financial situation and the direction the nation is heading, these voters support George W. Bush’s leadership in economic matters more than on moral or foreign policy issues. Combining highly favorable views of government with equally positive views of business and the marketplace, Upbeats believe that success is in people’s own hands, and that businesses make a positive contribution to society. This group also has a very favorable view of immigrants.
DISAFFECTEDS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election.
LIBERALS
17% OF GENERAL POPULATION
19% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999. Liberal Democrats now comprise the largest share of Democrats. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration.
CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS
14% OF ADULT POPULATION
15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats’ views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net. Their neutrality on assistance to the poor is linked, at least in part, to their belief in personal responsibility.
DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS
10% OF GENERAL POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 84% Democrat; 16% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican (99% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Least financially secure of all the groups, these voters are very anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. Minorities account for a significant proportion of this group; nearly a third (32%) are black, roughly the same proportion as among Conservative Democrats. Levels of disapproval of George W. Bush job performance (91%) and candidate choice in 2004 (82% for Kerry) are comparable to those among Liberals.
BYSTANDERS
10% OF ADULT POPULATION
0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 22% Republican, 22% Democrat
BASIC DESCRIPTION: These Americans choose not to participate in or pay attention to politics, or are not eligible to do so (non-citizens).
Enterprisers, Social Conservatives, and Pro-Government Conservatives, all together, total 29% of the general population, 33% of registered voters.
Liberals, Conservative Democrats, and Disadvantaged Democrats, all together, total 41% of the general population, 44% of registered voters.
So, neither side really has a majority, but the Dems have a plurality. The battles would be fought for the votes of the independent-leaning Upbeats and Disafffecteds – and such of the Bystanders as are legally eligible to vote and might be persuaded to get involved.
So, in sum, you’re wrong, WierdDave. Among the American people, Dems outnumber Pubs and (arguably, depending on definition of terms) liberals outnumber conservatives. At least, in the national aggregate.
:smack: No wonder they always win the presidency and control both the House and Senate all the time…
Er…wait a min…
(BTW, you have used this same data 4 times that I’m aware of now. 2 times in thread this week in fact! There should be limits BG…LIMITS I SAY! 
)
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme(BTW, you have used this same data 4 times that I’m aware of now. 2 times in thread this week in fact! There should be limits BG…LIMITS I SAY! )[/QUOTE]
I put that much work into assembling a post, I’m gonna get maximum mileage out of it!
You positively delight in digging up statistics to prove my point, don’t you? I know this isn’t true across the board, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that all of those registered Democrats voted for Kerry, and all those registered Republicans voted for Bush. That means we’re starting with Kerry having 44% of the vote and Bush 33%. In order to win the election, Kerry needs to swing just 7% of the independent/no preference voters to his side (And yes, I also know that registered voters does not equal people who actually voted, but I’m working with what you’ve given me here). The final tally showed Bush with 51% of the vote and Kerry with 48%. That means that your broad based, more-peope-like-us-than-the-Republicans-so-we’re-not-changing-a-thing Democratic party managed to attract just 4% of the independents while Bush got 19%. You want to tell me again how this invalidates my original statement in this thread? (In case you forgot, here it is: “The Democratic party has demonstrated a woeful lack of the ability to recognize that the general principles they stand for are not popular with the majority of the nation. Instead of adjusting the planks of their platform to appeal to a majority of the populace (something that would be pathetically easy to do because most of us don’t like the Republicans all that much either, they wouldn’t have to move that far)”) :dubious:
Could you be more specific?
Well, I would think, if you’ve got 44% of registered voters on your side, moderating a few key planks of your platform might be a good way to attract 7% of the independents to you side, at which point you now have a majority of the voters. Hell, Kerry got 4%, all he needed more was a simple 2% swing from Bush to him, and he’s in the White House today. I’ll take your UHC proposal for example. Everyone thinks that UHC is a great idea in the abstract. “UHC that won’t cost me a cent and gives me unlimited medical coverage? Sign me up!” The problem is that most people realize that there are 50 million Americans without health insurance right now. Even assuming you could achieve a one to one transfer of the money spent on health insurance now to a government program, saying that it’ll be no problem insuring 300 million people for the money that currently insures 250 million people is just not credible. Claiming that a government sponsored UHC program would be efficient and allow citizens full choice of doctors and treatment is laughable. Government gives you the DMV, not Marcus Welby. Recognizing there is a problem is easy. Proposing to solve it buy instituting a UHC plan that “Won’t cost you anything more, really! And you’ll get full choice in your medical care! And ice cream! and bikes!” is laughable. Most people not in your base (and remember, we’re talking about attracting the independents here) recognize that it’s an empty promise to garner votes. Most of the electorate is smart enough to recognize snake oil when it’s being pushed on them. This was one issue where I thought Bush clearly cleaned Kerry’s clock. You may not think Medical Savings Accoints are the answer to all or even part of the problem, but at least they aren’t another in a long string of massive government giveaways touted as the “solution” to the problem du jour.
There was never any ultimately choice other than to argue that Nader couldn’t be on the ballot: he never qualified to be on it in the first place. Unless the court wanted to uphold the idea that Mickey Mouse or Ronald Reagan can be placed on a ballot provisionally whenever some random folks feel like it, they ultimately had to say that Nader couldn’t be on it.
But getting Nader on the ballot in practice and arguing that voting for him ultimately wasn’t legal for him to be there are two separate things. The process resulted in Nader’s name, in fact, being printed up on the ballots, regardless of what the court ruled or which position Blackwell had to take as to whether not he was qualified to be there. Blackwell basically ran out the clock until Nader’s name had to be printed there, and then after the fact issued nothing to deal with the fact that it was there other than that it wasn’t a valid choice and would be cast out and polling places had to inform folks in some way (which took the form of all sorts of widely different treatments in different counties and even polling places). Many polling places ended up having nothing more than a sign saying that Nader wasn’t actually a legitimate choice.
I still think you’re being unfair to Blackwell here, as much as I dislike Blackwell. Nader presented nominating petitions that appeared to have the requisite number of signatures for his name to appear on the ballot. Nader’s name had to be put on the ballot until it was disqualified. Blackwell couldn’t refuse to put Ralph’s name on the ballot initially because Blackwell couldn’t know that so many of Nader’s signatures would be disqualified. (The high percentage of Nader signatures that were disqualified strikes me as quite fishy but nevermind that). It wasn’t until those signatures were disallowed - which procedure was finalized in Blackenship v. Blackwell and wasn’t finally decided until the Ohio SC ruled on that case - that Nader was not allowed on the ballot. The court ruled that the delay in making the decision so close to election day was much more Nader’s fault than Blackwell’s because Nader delayed appealing Blackwell’s decision refusing to put him on the ballot. Because the SC’s decision didn’t come until recenly before election day, simple logistics and budgetary concerns meant that Blackwell’s hands were tied to a certain extent.
(This is just a guess, but I think you’re a good Democrat who still blames Ralphie for Bush being president. Let it go already. Gore cost Gore the 2000 election, not Nader. Just be sure to vote for Sherrod Brown for US Senate. Brown is another ex-Ohio Secretary of State and to my knowledge there are no allegations of electoral hanky-panky during the time he held that office. )
OK, now you’ve lost me . . . mainly because you’re flat wrong about the value and viability of UHC, as distinct from its political appeal. But that’s another debate.
So, let’s shift it to something else. Let’s take a look at the 2004 Democratic Platform. (warning: pdf) What particular elements in it would you “moderate” to make them more electorally appealing?
Remember, there might be some points on which many Dems can’t compromise without, in their minds, giving up the fight before it is even begun. If, say, UHC is one of the main things you want to achieve by taking an interest in politics in the first place, what’s the point of giving up on that for the sake of “winning”? Unless you’re actually a politician/candidate, what have you “won” by making that compromise? Wouldn’t it make the whole thing futile? We might as well stay home and let the Pubs run things.
Wait a second. I may ( or may not ) get to something else, but right now I’d like you to tell me why I’m “flat wrong” about UHC. It seems to me that I’ve brought a lot of common sense and facts to the table and you’re just dismissing it because it’s not what you wanted to hear. Tell me why I’m wrong, don’t just state that I am and run away.
And oh, oh, oh, how I tried to let this go, but I just couldn’t. Are you saying you’d rather be “right” and sit at home brooding that you’re “right” with no chance of doing anything because you couldn’t get anyone elected at all rather then taking your beliefs into the crucible and forging a comprimise that may not be as “right” as you idealistically intended, but is none the less better than nothing? What are you, 12 years old? Are you gonna take your ball and go home too?
Nevermind shakes head, I’d still prefer an answer to my question from the previous post about UHC. Enlignten me, please, as to where I am “flat wrong”. I eagerly awaight your no doubt keen insight.
Dave, without being a jerk or getting overly involved in what has become a two-man hijack, permit me to say this:
For every human being, there are issues on which he or she is prepared to compromise, and issues on which no compromise is possible, issues on which one must take a moral stand. And which issues fall in which camp differ from person to person.
My insight is simply that UHC works well enough in practically all other industrialized countries, so why can’t we make it work here? What are we, retarded or something?