Republicans set to challenge Ohio voters

[Steve_MB]

@acsenray

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.

I trust it won’t be necessary to prosecute them for being duped into committing this crime, though it probably will be necessary to file charges to get their testimony against the criminal ringleader.

[Skywatcher]

@XJETGIRLX

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.

I’d expect “challenging” isn’t all they’re doing.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

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.

Actually, I’d think that something like that DOES fly in the face of basic human decency, in that the most basic human right (in the US system of life) is the right to vote, and any action taken to keep people from voting, even if it is (a) technically legal, and (b) something that someone with sufficient time and determination could overcome, is, in my opinion, utterly and totally unethical.

I admit that I’m not necessarily totally objective here, because I’m basically a liberal democrat, and the democratic party tends to be the one which benefits from larger turnout. But I think that, quite simply, anything that leads to more people voting (barring people who are illegal voters), and their votes being accurately and fairly counted, is good. And anything that leads to more people who might potentially vote NOT voting, or their votes not being counted, is bad. And, quite frankly, I’m shocked that you’d disagree.

[XJETGIRLX]

@Lute Skywatcher

I’d expect “challenging” isn’t all they’re doing.

You may expect whatever you like, but do you have something definitively tying the two together? This thread is in response to the challengers. That’s what I was addressing.

[rjung]

Anyone else get the feeling that you can have a document from the Ohio GOP outlining steps to challenge every non-Republican in the state, and Bricker will simply handwave it away as “inconclusive evidence” or somesuch?

[Bill_H]

Brainiac4 wrote

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.

Here’s the thing: Republicans are doing a noble thing that so happens to benefit them, in that they are attempting to foil those who would commit voter fraud. Just as Democrats did a noble thing that so happens to benefit them, in that they were encouraging certain blocks of non-voters to vote.

And for my money, encouraging people who don’t care to vote is a far less noble cause than removing those who would cheat us all by voting fraudulently.

I don’t hear anyone complaining that the extra voters that Democrats rounded up will make the polls take longer. But that’s just as nonsensical as whining that Republicans are delaying voters by eliminating fraud.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

Actually, I’d think that something like that DOES fly in the face of basic human decency, in that the most basic human right (in the US system of life) is the right to vote, and any action taken to keep people from voting, even if it is (a) technically legal, and (b) something that someone with sufficient time and determination could overcome, is, in my opinion, utterly and totally unethical.

I admit that I’m not necessarily totally objective here, because I’m basically a liberal democrat, and the democratic party tends to be the one which benefits from larger turnout. But I think that, quite simply, anything that leads to more people voting (barring people who are illegal voters), and their votes being accurately and fairly counted, is good. And anything that leads to more people who might potentially vote NOT voting, or their votes not being counted, is bad. And, quite frankly, I’m shocked that you’d disagree.

I’d say the one party in your hypo is utterly unqualified to take ANY political office. They have had years to study the existing laws. They knew the law about two forms of ID existed, or should have known. And they did nothing.

Meanwhile, the other party studied the law, and made decisions based on the law. Complaining about this is like complaining that the Electoral College gave the presidency to the popular vote loser. Yes, that is what the law says, even though the will of the majority of people is not given effect. Don’t like it? Change the law.

[XJETGIRLX]

@Bill H.

And for my money, encouraging people who don’t care to vote is a far less noble cause than removing those who would cheat us all by voting fraudulently.

Thank you, Bill. I was just going to point out that this seems to really come down to the value you place on more people voting vs. weeding out fraudulent votes.

For my money, too, I’d rather have the security of knowing there are fewer fraudulent votes over encouraging more people to get out and vote that weren’t determined to do so already.

The fact that either action will benefit one party over the other is irrelevant to the fact that they are both legal and suitable campaign strategies. Both bringing voters to the polls and weeding out fraudulent votes are in the best interest of all voters, in the end, which is why I don’t understand those who oppose the challengers.

[Bricker]

@rjung

Anyone else get the feeling that you can have a document from the Ohio GOP outlining steps to challenge every non-Republican in the state, and Bricker will simply handwave it away as “inconclusive evidence” or somesuch?

Hiya, Strawman!

Why don’t you produce the document in question, and then see what my response is? The fact that I can poke holes in your ACTUAL ARGUMENTS means - to you, I guess - that you should manufacture a hypothetical iron-clad argument and then complain I am unswayed.

Yes, I am unswayed by your imaginary argument. If you actually could show something along those lines, I would condemn it in a heartbeat… as I have condemned several Republican tactics already.

In fact, here’s a fun game: I have condemned the GOP for sketchy tactics, and condemned Bush for certain of his positions. I have praised Kerry on a number of issues in a number of threads.

Where have you ever done the reverse?

[Lissa]

You know what scares me the most here, is the following scenario:

2000: A marginal, low profile Republican party member who holds an office that certifies elections uses her authority to prevent individuals from a certain demographic that is statistically supportive of her opponents party from voting and certifies an election, before a proper recount is completed, in favor of her party. She is rewarded by the people with name recognition and her political career is advanced as she is elected to a higher office.

The Name: Of course, Katherine Harris.

Now 2004: A marginal low profile Republican party member who holds an office that certifies elections uses his authority to prevent individuals from a certain demographic that is statistically supportive of his opponent’s party from voting and…The story is left to be completed by history, but the writing on the wall is very peculiar IMHO.

The Name: Kenneth Blackwell

His name is being broadcasted constantly by the media (name recognition), he has expressed aspirations to be the next governor and Ohio is a key battleground state in this election where he can capture the headlines for weeks if a recount occurs.

Chilling… Dastardly… Sickening…

I hope I am wrong, but somehow I believe that I am right.

[Bill_H]

And here come friends Lute Skywatcher and rjung, waving absolutely irrelevant and hypothetical anecdotes, implying that those who would stop cheaters are also criminals and evidence of this could exist.

I’m just waiting for Scott Peterson to get connected to this somehow.

[Brainiac4]

@Bill H.

Here’s the thing: Republicans are doing a noble thing that so happens to benefit them, in that they are attempting to foil those who would commit voter fraud. Just as Democrats did a noble thing that so happens to benefit them, in that they were encouraging certain blocks of non-voters to vote.

And for my money, encouraging people who don’t care to vote is a far less noble cause than removing those who would cheat us all by voting fraudulently.

The problem here is that the Republicans may not be doing a noble thing with a fortunate byproduct; they may be doing an ignoble thing with a cloak of nobility. Eliminating fraud in voting is indeed noble; disenfranchising people is not.

Let me be perfectly clear: I do not oppose challenging the right to vote at the polling place, in principle. What I object to is the use of that to manipulate the process.

@Bill H.

I don’t hear anyone complaining that the extra voters that Democrats rounded up will make the polls take longer. But that’s just as nonsensical as whining that Republicans are delaying voters by eliminating fraud.

We’re not whining that they’re delaying voters, we are concerned that they may be systematically disenfranchising segments of the population. If you cannot see the difference, then I recommend reducing your intake of Fox News until the dizzy spells pass.

[Skywatcher]

@XJETGIRLX

You may expect whatever you like, but do you have something definitively tying the two together?

Not definitively, no. However, a challenger is essentially just someone with permission to intimidate voters.

[Brainiac4]

@XJETGIRLX

Thank you, Bill. I was just going to point out that this seems to really come down to the value you place on more people voting vs. weeding out fraudulent votes.

For my money, too, I’d rather have the security of knowing there are fewer fraudulent votes over encouraging more people to get out and vote that weren’t determined to do so already.

The fact that either action will benefit one party over the other is irrelevant to the fact that they are both legal and suitable campaign strategies. Both bringing voters to the polls and weeding out fraudulent votes are in the best interest of all voters, in the end, which is why I don’t understand those who oppose the challengers.

If all they’re doing is weeding out fraudulent voters, then it would indeed be about the relative value of more votes vs. weeding out fraudulent votes.

My concern is, as noted above, that the motivation for weeding out fraud is not based in concern for the electoral process but on a partisan desire to see one candidate elected, and that the side effect of the poll challenges (increasing wait time, reducing turnout) is being deliberately used to manipulate the results.

Now do you understand my concern?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Actually, it looks as if the sky isn’t falling in Ohio after all.

@The New York Times

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 2 - If Ohio Democrats went to the polls today believing that they would have to push their way through a wave of challenges from Republican monitors questioning their right to vote, their fears were not realized.

…

But Mark R. Weaver, the legal counsel for the Ohio Republican Party, said today that party officials had instructed the challengers to lie low at the polls and act more as observers than contestants.

“Given the Democrats’ clear strategy of trying to turn each challenge into a ruckus,” Mr. Weaver said, “we wanted to make to sure to preserve the right to keep our observers in the polling places.”

He added, “If there’s litigation later, these will be contemporaneous notes about what happened at these polling places.”

That change in strategy–of observing votes rather than challenging them–completely removes my objection to the Republican party’s process here. As I’ve said all along, their goal of maintaining accuracy is a noble goal; it only becomes problematic when they set up last-minute structures to maintain accuracy at the expense of efficiency.

Near as I can tell, they’re not making the voting process less efficient, so I commend them. I just wish they’d said this is what they’d do all along.

Daniel

[Skywatcher]

@Bill H.

And here come friends Lute Skywatcher and rjung, waving absolutely irrelevant and hypothetical anecdotes, implying that those who would stop cheaters are also criminals and evidence of this could exist.

Got enough straw there? I have no problem with them stoping cheaters as long as thats all they’re doing.

[Bill_H]

Brainiac4 wrote

The problem here is that the Republicans may not be doing a noble thing with a fortunate byproduct; they may be doing an ignoble thing with a cloak of nobility. Eliminating fraud in voting is indeed noble; disenfranchising people is not.

Cite, please that the intent of the Challengers was anything but what it’s been claimed. Or retraction, please.

We’re not whining that they’re delaying voters, we are concerned that they may be systematically disenfranchising segments of the population.

You’re whining that segments of the population may be disenfranchised because of delays caused by the challengers. You’ve said it many times above; I’m happy to quote you, if you’ve forgotten.

And again: this sort of whining is the near equivalent of whining that the polls will take longer this year because of all the extra voters that Democrats drug in. Both arguments are equally silly.

If you cannot see the difference, I encourage you to take in another showing of F911 and let those liberal fantasies take you away to your happy place once more.

[kaylasdad99]

@Brainiac4

The problem here is that the Republicans may not be doing a noble thing with a fortunate byproduct; they may be doing an ignoble thing with a cloak of nobility. Eliminating fraud in voting is indeed noble; disenfranchising people is not.

(emphasis provided by kd99) And in response:

@Bill H.

Cite, please that the intent of the Challengers was anything but what it’s been claimed. Or retraction, please.

Given the qualifiers presented by Brainiac4, the request for a cite or a retraction need not be honored, as no assertion has been made.

So sayeth the line judge.

[MisterThyristor]

@Bricker

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?

I hope you realize that in Ohio, and in a number of other states, it is perfectly LEGAL for felons to vote. The only ones who are ineligible are the ones in prison. Felons are taken off the rolls during their time in prison, and they must re-register after they are released. But it is otherwise legal for them to vote.

[Shayna]

@Bricker

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?

That depends on where those illegal aliens and felons are attempting to vote. If it’s in Florida, where the alien population is largely Cuban, the likely party to benefit will be the Republicans. Cite. Cite. And it might well have been the same wrt felons in Florida, had the bogus list of felons (that contained a whopping 61 people identified as Hispanic, out of 48,000 they were trying to purge) actually been used. Cite.