If the Democrats believe that large turnout helps their cause, then my statement follows logically.
Come on – answer this is good faith, as an honest broker: if 10,000 illegal aliens vote, which party is likely to benefit? If 10,000 felons vote, which party benefits?
First, I want the election judges to examine the bounced mailings. If they contain glitches above and beyond the transcription-error rate of a competent data entry staffer, then it ain’t a voter fraud check, it’s an attempt to spam the system with bogus challenges in order to suppress turnout by artificially inflating the wait time.
In the longer run, the challenge system needs some kind of three-strikes-and-yer-out limit to forestall this sort of abuse.
Your question is meaningless, because arithmetic breaks down when you attempt to divide by zero.
First, in good faith, I answer: the Democrats. Assuming the aliens aren’t deeply religious, and the felons aren’t white-collar criminals.
Now your turn: if 10,000 minority voters do not vote because of difficulties with registration or long lines, which party benefits? If 10,000 low-income voters do not vote for those same reasons, which party benefits?
Second, I must point out that your statement only follows logically if you assume that the party in question thinks only in terms of achieving its goals, and not of the principles underlying the system. The Democratic party I believe in would reject fraudulent voters, even if they would tip the scales of the election in favor of their candidate.
The point I am trying to make, which seems to be slipping away from you (I note that you dodged again) is that a large-scale effort aimed at challenging voter registrations is not solely an honorable and upright practice aimed at protecting the electoral process. You have presented it as such, when it is also a partisan effort to affect the outcome of the election by influencing segments of the population to not vote.
And? The entire process of campaigning is a concerted effort to ‘affect the outcome of the election by influencing segments of the population to not vote’ or to vote in a particular manner. So long as those who wish to vote aren’t actually kept from doing so, I don’t understand what your argument is.
Isn’t it amazing that Pubbies, who usually think that the Post Office couldn’t find Main Street, are now treating this mailing as god’s own truth? I wonder what percentage of mail got returned. I’ve seen studies of mailings sent to known addresses, and I wonder if it is more than usual through errors.
My daughter and her boyfriend are working as pollworkers today in Ohio, in a minority neighborhood. I’ll post what they saw.
I went right in this morning, but I live in California so no one cares about us. The same little old ladies and men were there as always.
First, campaigning is about convincing people to vote for you, or against your opponent, not about convincing people to not vote. Trying to convince people to not vote, to not exercise their most fundamental political privilege, is unethical and reprehensible.
Second, the initial premise under discussion is that challenging voters is, in fact, a means of keeping people who want to vote from doing so, either by actively preventing them (through a challenge) or by making the process time-consuming and difficult.
Third, I’m objecting to Bricker’s characterization of the effort as selfless, noble Republicans protecting the honor of the polls, when there is clearly a benefit to them from doing so.
That said, I don’t think it will work out as the Republicans want it to. I think we will have high turnout and I think Kerry will win. I just hope it’s not close. I don’t want another long, drawn-out battle over the election.
And let’s not forget there’s ample cause to challenge some of these registrations:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041023/NEWS02/410230350
That story is remarkable for what it doesn’t tell you - about Georgianne Pitts. Georgianne Pitts was soliciting registrations at the behest of one Thaddeus Jackson, of the NAACP National Voter Fund. Ms. Pitts has an extensive police record herself covering more than two decades and in fact, was just released from a one-year probation sentence last month.
[quote]
Isn’t it amazing that Pubbies, who usually think that the Post Office couldn’t find Main Street, are now treating this mailing as god’s own truth.
Snort. Right. Disparagement of the USPS is solely the domain of the Republican party. I’ll eat a whole sheet of first class postage stamps if you can prove that Republicans are significantly more likely to bitch about their postal service than Democrats.
In my experience troopers don’t “strut,” that’s just their normal way of walking. Illinois state troopers are so starigghlaced and bolt upright that they make Marines look like bag ladies. And their mere presence is all that is needed to maintain order because they have earned our respect. I may have trouble respecting some of my local cops (familiarity breeds what, again?) but troopers are cool.
Maybe it was spending most of my life in the Chicago area that has taught me this, but anybody who encourages voter fraud by simply signing up warm, but ineligible, bodies is the worst sort of amateur. You get a few people on the rolls who have no intention of actually voting and only signed your form to shut you up. There was a time when Democrats KNEW how to win elections, how to stuff ballot boxes without needing a bunch of people to walk into polling stations. Some loser you meet on the street is not the guy who is going to pretend he’s a dead man so he can vote twice. Registering the dead and bringing their votes in to be counted requires effort, cynicism, and a genuine alligator-skin briefcase. A native predilection to criminality that must be nurtured. Some idealist who hopes to change the world by getting more people to vote is precisely the WRONG person for the job.
The good news here is that according to NPR, few of the 3,500 Republican challengers have shown up at the polls. Maybe more will arrive later. I don’t know.
As I stated in my post, she is not voting anyway, so your lack of concern (while touching) is misplaced.
There are basic language requirements for citizenship (as opposed to voting), but how do we know that basic language will be used? Are the Republican political operatives likely to be using simple English or legalese? Are these challengers likely to be sympathetic to the people they are challenging or are they likely to be intimidating?
It seems the Republican party has wildly exaggerated a problem (dead people and fictitious people casting votes) and then provided itself as the uniquely just solution to the problem. Trained poll workers? Please. We need the sword of Guideon, the wisdom of Solomon, the right-hand of God. This is a job for the Republican party!
Honestly, how many dead Ohioans voted in 2000? (My guess is zero). Meanwhile thousands of non-felons were erroneously barred from the voting rolls in Florida. I don’t see thousands of Republicans fighting to rectify that injustice.
This is a disgrace.
But they’re not actually keeping them from voting, right? I mean, these people could still go and cast their ballot, provisional or otherwise? A challenge doesn’t prevent them from voting. It just asks them to verify the legitimacy of their registration. As far as I know, in all the areas where votes are challenged provisional ballots are or should be offered.
I agree that if they are not offered a provisional ballot and told flat out that they cannot vote then yes, that’s disenfranchisement. But that doesn’t mean that the ability to challenge voters should be scrapped altogether.
Hell, I think we should verify every single person that walks in the door by requesting a photo i.d., utility statement, etc. I used to work at Blockbuster, and for Christ’s sake, if some of our customers could get that kind of shit together I know damned well anyone who is determined to vote can do it too.
I don’t think anyone has denied that they will benefit from it. Hell, we can all benefit from it in the long run. Let’s keep as many fraudulent or illegally cast ballots from being entered as possible. I think this may not be the perfect application, but it’s a step in the right direction. What is it about trying to keep people from breaking the law that doesn’t sit well with you?
An account I read yesterday (I can’t find it now) said that the letters were sent certified, but it also said that the address list being used by the Republican party was not the latest registration address list held by the election officials. Also, the piece of mail being sent to “confirm” the registration address was a Republican electioneering flyer. One of the Democrats who received this flyer refused to sign the certification and it was returned as refused. Her name turned up on the “fraudulent registrations” list and she showed up at the hearing to challenge the Republicans’ charges. All the challenges were withdrawn.
Furthermore, Ohio law requires challenges to be based on “personal knowledge.” There were several cases in which party officials lined up volunteer Republicans to challenge Democratic registrations. It turned out that the challengers had no idea who these people were whose registrations were being challenged. Several elderly Republicans now face serious criminal charges as a result of going along with their party leaders.
Bricker: a question for you.
Suppose that in some state, there was a law on the books which stated that anyone voting must have TWO pieces of identification. But this law had not been enforced for years, and people had voted successfuly for years using only one form of ID. Suppose one party did a study and realized that, due to socioeconmic factors of whatever sort, people who were voting for its candidates were more likely to carry two forms of ID at all times than people who were voting for the other party’s candidates.
Would it be ethical for that party, with little or no warning, to suddenly insist that that law be enforced?
Note that I said keeping them from voting either directly or indirectly. Making it harder for people to vote by deliberately increasing wait time is unethical and reprehensible. Provisional ballots help, a lot, but don’t make the process easier.
Where do you get that I am objecting to keeping people from breaking the law? I am not objecting to the idea of challenging the right to vote. I am objecting to a concerted effort on the part of the Republican Party in Ohio to lower turnout, using voter challenges at the polls. As I noted earlier, I do not support fraud at the polls. But if the Ohio Republican Party sending registered mail to newly registered Democrats is about reducing fraud, I will be deeply shocked.
I believe that provisional ballots didn’t exist in the 2000 election.
By the way, if there are significant numbers of provisional ballots cast, I’m betting we’re going to see efforts on the part of the Republicans to prevent their being counted.
Probably something like this except in person:
I’d defend the right of the party to do it, since it was legal. But I’d point out that it was a less-than-noble tactic.
“Ethical?” Yes. If the law permits it, and it does not fly in the face of any basic human decency, I’d say it is ethical.
Hrm? The article linked is a completely separate issue from the challengers at the polls. I’m not sure of the relevancy in response to my post.