I’ve been losing a lot of bets lately, I’ll just stick to the figure of speech for now. 
I don’t dispute that. But I think that if the name is exactly the same, it’s reasonable to require some sort of check when Alphonsus Q. Radericker shows up to make sure that he’s not the Alphonsus Q. Radericker that was convicted of child porn.
Fair enough. My only comment would be that the mere failure to pick up the letter doesn’t lead to automatic disenfranchisement… but I think it’s enough to prompt a question when you get to the polls, that be answered in 45 seconds: “Yes, I got the slip but never got around to picking up the letter. But that’s my correct address, as you can see on my [license | utility bill | bank statement].”
Be glad. Mine took twice that long and other precincts around are up to three hours.
I note that you dodged my main point, which is that there is also a handy side effect to challenging voters, and that this side effect benefits the side doing the challenging. It calls their motives into question, does it not?
I agree with you that 35,000 new voters showing up as undeliverable does seem suspicious. I differ with you on where the suspicion should fall – was the test a valid test? As noted by Bill Door in this thread, the registered mail being returned was from the Republican Party. The Post Office is simply being used as a proxy to create evidence of fraud.
Please see my thread in this forum.
Low turnout only favors Republicans when it is natural. When they try, ridiculously, to force lower turnout by making it a pain in the ass, it is absurd to think that it will only affect Democrats, particularly this year! It will only piss them off and make them more determined than ever.
FWIW: my local NBC news affiliate this morning has reported that, so far, things are going smoothly at the polling places in Ohio.
No outrageous challenges, no “jamming up the works.” But the day is young. :rolleyes:
Sure. But it’s the same concept as MoveOn giving rides to Kerry supporters while refusing Bush supporters… it’s their right to do that. It would be more noble, and better overall, if there were a systematic non-partisan effort to identify and remove phony voters… just as it would be more noble to have MoveON give rides to all who need them.
But since one party believes that phony voters in large numbers help their cause, and the other party believes phony voters in large numbers hurt their cause, only one party is motivated to exercise their legal options.
I’m voting tonight around 6 (I have no car right now, so I’m at the mercy of whoever does). My husband’s already voted at the same place, and he said there was a challenger there. We’re in a very white, affluent suburb (not us - we live in an apartment - but we’re in Jackson Township in Canton), so I was surprised to hear that they were there.
I’m kind of worried that I’ll be challenged, as this is my first time voting in the state, plus I got married and didn’t change my name on my DL so I wouldn’t have a problem since I was already registered under my maiden name. But I’m worried that trying to be dilligent is going to come back and bite me on the ass.
I’ll find out tonight at 6. I can’t wait for this damn election to end.
Ava
The letter-sending ploy was nothing but a stunt meant to disenfranchise voters and slow down the process in certain areas . I wonder what percentage of those returned letters came from affluent areas?
Can you rattle that off for me in Spanish? I’m sure a lot of voters being challenged will not be native English speakers. I can just imagine my mother-in-law trying to answer that question. She would be lost. Bush can relax, however. Her citizenship has been help up for about a year now so she won’t be voting today.
45 sec./ challenge x 35,000 challenges = 1,575,000 seconds = 26,250 minutes = 437.5 hours spent on addressing challenges. That translates into delays not only for the challenged voter, but also everyone else in the line. And may intimidate/ dissuade people from lining up at all because they don’t know that they won’t be challenged too, and asked to provide information or documents they just don’t have.
It’s a sleazy partisan stunt by a party that seriously and sincerely believes that their victory can only be achieved by depriving the poor and the dark-skinned of their right to vote.
My father lives at the edge of downtown Cincinnati, so his precinct is exactly the kind of heavily African-American urban area where you might expect to see challengers. He got there right when it opened at 6:30 a.m. and was the twelfth person in line! Usually he’s the very first person to vote. No sign of any challengers.
If your mother-in-law is not a citizen, then I can’t get too worked up about her theoretical inability to answer an election question.
And there is a general requirement for naturalization that prospective citizens “…must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language.” There are some exceptions, but in general, persons seeking naturalization must be able to communicate in English.
That said, there are certainly US citizens for whom English is a challenge, and I’m sure in those cases, some translation help will be needed.
And yes - being the child of a Salvadoran immigrant and married to a Dominicana, I CAN rattle that off for you in Spanish.
Fessie:
What, do people have me on ignore or something? I just said the same thing up above. Maybe you’ll believe fessie.
But probably not. I mean, why let something as trivial as facts get in the way of a good partisan hate-on.
Seems to me you’re saying the poor and the dark-skinned are more stupid and/or easily distracted, if you believe these tactics will work on them. I don’t believe that.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t dispute that. But I think that if the name is exactly the same, it’s reasonable to require some sort of check when Alphonsus Q. Radericker shows up to make sure that he’s not the Alphonsus Q. Radericker that was convicted of child porn.
[QUOTE]
That sounds reasonable. But my understanding is that’s not what happened. Alphonsus the non-felon never had a chance to prove his identity. His name was crossed off the rolls in big black magic marker, and he was simply told he was not allowed to vote. Had he produced a platinum engraved driver’s license authorized by God Himself, all that would have proven was that he was the same guy whose name was blacked out.
In fact, I’m sure there were plenty of eligible voters who were more than happy to show ID but were still disenfranchised. It’s not like poll workers can uncross off your name.
[QUOTE=tdn]
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t dispute that. But I think that if the name is exactly the same, it’s reasonable to require some sort of check when Alphonsus Q. Radericker shows up to make sure that he’s not the Alphonsus Q. Radericker that was convicted of child porn.
MY understanding is that the law permits you to cast a provisional ballot in those circumstances, to be counted after the disconnect is resolved.
Again, you dodge. My point was not that their actions were partisan; it was that their actions are not purely directed at purging phony voters. Your original statement was:
It may be those things, but it is not only those things. You’re defending the actions as honorable, I am pointing out that there is reason to believe that they might not be.
Now you’re just being juvenile. What factual basis do you have for this statement? Is there some statement from the DNC that I am not aware of, touting the benefit of phony votes?
Hmm, I did not know that. I’d be interested in reading more about that.
Even so, I can’t help but wonder a) if all who could have cast a provisional ballot did so (just a further pain in the ass to the voter), and b) if such ballots were actually counted. Since so many ballots were thrown out, I wonder if the ones you speak of were, too.
Either way, even if such voters were re-enfranchised and their votes actually counted, that still strikes me as a horrible and dishonest way to run an election.
Exactly. What percentage of those registrations do you guess were actually fradulent? I would estimate .01%, tops.
OR that poor voters are more likely to be hourly employees vs. salaried, more likely to be relying on public transportation, and may not have a spare 2 hours to wait in line to vote, than say folks like me who have transportation, are salaried and can schedule themselves for ‘flex time’ to insure that they have the opportunity to vote.