So now, Congress is always right?
I remember that. I also remember there was a general feeling among Dems that they would rather accept the results and move on than risk a replay of the post-election controversy from 2000. That doesn’t mean all the questions have been settled.
I dunno. But the allegations which you make have been at least investigated. And found wanting. You wanna keep going over the same old ground, I suppose that’s your perogative. But when the overwhelming majority of Congress, a body which has undertaken an investigation, thinks it unproductive, or unwarranted, to do so, you run the risk of being labeled a conspiracy nut.
The simple fact is, there’s damned little to demonstrate that Blackwell is complicit in any activities which could have, or actually did, compromise the 2000 & 2004 general elections in Ohio. And it ain’t for lack of trying that there’s nothing to show. There have been ample accusations and investigations. All of them fruitless.
Yawn. My point is this: when the only media outlets that are reporting unfair, egregious election practices with any hint of outrage are commondreams.org and the like, I think it’s fair to say that something is missing. Rather than continuing to debate the merits of the accusations, for the purposes of argument I will accept as true that Blackwell et al are guilty of unfair, egregious acts that disenfranchise thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of would-be Democratic voters.
My point, then, is: whatcha gonna do about it? Looks like he can continue his actions with impunity. There appears to be no strategy to stop him. The Democrats are utterly helpless to resist this tactic.
The biggest problem for which you failed to account is the assumption that all those groups BG identified vote at the same rate. They don’t.
Does anybody here doubt that Republican-tending voters are more disciplined about getting to the polls? Does anybody doubt that a slight majority of the country holds socially liberal values? I thought those were common wisdom.
Now, I thought it was also understood that Ken Blackwell, whether scrupulously or unscrupulously, did those things in his power to limit voting (which generally helps Republicans). I think Polycarp’s first post covered it pretty well. Just as in 2000, when Bush tried to get every hanging chad thrown out, and Gore tried to get every one counted, and just as Gore’s partisans looked for any little imprefection in any absentee ballot to get it tossed (absentees skew military, therefore Republican), and Bush tried to get the whole recount shut down, so does Ken Blackwell do those things which we can to limit Democratic turnout.
I thought that was understood. Does anybody really want to defend the 80 lb. registration as non-partisan - if not, what was the purpose?
Does anybody think the 2006 efforts to curtail registrations is anything but partisan? If so, what purpose do they serve?
The question is whether he’s doing anything illegal.
The New York Times had an editorial on Blackwell’s practices which just went behind their archive curtain.
Still an open question IMO – but that’s rather beside the point. The things Blackwell is known to have done in 2004 were unfair and egregious and constituted rigging the election, even if all the ballots were honestly counted and even if there is no more dirt to be uncovered.
That’s the question with which I started this thread. Have you any suggestions?
Which 2006 efforts are those? The only allegations of anything underhanded by Blackwell that I see in here allegedly took place in years past.
You paint to glib a picture of Gore’s desires. Gore, through his attorneys, did not ask that “every vote be counted.” He petitioned for a recount in four counties only, picking ones known to be historically Democrat strongholds.
Yeah, you gave me that list before. I asked how most of those things could be considered partisan. Not much in the way of rationale or evidence was provided.
Sit back and enjoy the victory?
Eh. I dunno about that. Blackwell, with his extreme right leanings, ain’t really somebody I think I want as the governator.
See posts #37 and 38.
Blackwell instituted a bunch of new rules for voter registration, which ACORN says are underhanded.
All the more to my point - but you seem to see it easier from the other side.
Oh, and by the way, I meant Gore tried to get every hanging chad counted.
From your link:
Yeah, that sounds really underhanded and partisan. What are rest of the “bunch” of voter registration rules? Your link is as inspecific as the one Brain Glutton gave us from The Nation previously. Which I find kinda weird coming from The Cleveland Plain Dealer; that’s normally a pretty well-written & well-researched publication.
No, he didn’t. Gore wanted a full recount to be made in only four Florida counties.
Right. As I said “not much.” Mostly supposition that Blackwell could predit that the preponderance of new voter registrations would be from persons most likely to vote Democrat. A tenuous supposition indeed given the number of organizations active in Ohio in mid-2004 trying to register new voters.
I doubt he’ll make it. But I’m more concerned about how his shenanigans will affec the Congressional election in Ohio.
There are a bunch of new ‘emergency’ rules that were put into place: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/news/ohio_voter_registration_regulations.php
Obviously partisan is an opinion until somebody’s stupid enough to write a law that says “Democratic registrations will be burned.” I didn’t say underhanded, so it’s unfair to ask me to defend that description.
Which I find kinda weird coming from The Cleveland Plain Dealer; that’s normally a pretty well-written & well-researched publication.Yeah, weird. Bricker was lamenting the credibility of the cites…guess it doesn’t matter much.
Here’s something else from the Plain Dealer. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/news/ohio_voter_registration_regulations.php
So? How does that affect anything I said?
Most excellent coding. If some admin thinks they know what the hell I was attempting, could you please fix it?
Uh, no. The current governor of Missouri is Matt Blunt. Young man, son of one Roy Blunt, who’s a congressman from Missouri with a few enemies in the state GOP. Matt seems like a nice enough sort. No clue why he got the GOP nomination, or won the office. Except–he was Secretary of State when running the first time.
Yeah, it makes a difference. Unavailability of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence. You never heard of the “perfect crime”? And this happens in the USA all the time. If the state election boards were actually honest, & serious about avoiding political corruption, they’d make an effort to avoid conflicts of interest & look above-board. That they don’t strongly implies that the corruption is important–nay, vital–to them.