The problem with appointing yourself as a line judge, kaylasdad99, is that you may not be exactly impartial. You might be influenced in favor of Kerry. Indeed, given that it’s possible you are a convicted felon on multiple counts of fraud and theft, and given the distinct mathematical possibility that you may be actively working this election to coordinate voter fraud on a massive scale, it just seems that you may not be the right person to judge.
I assume you’re OK with all that, given the qualifiers I put in… right?
I agree with your first point. I don’t follow the second. If the bogus list of felons had been used, then my hypothetical simply doesn’y apply – unless you’re suggesting that, by using the list only black felons would have been purged, and Hispanic felons - mostly Cubans - would still have voted, and they would have favored the right wing.
If that’s the inference, I’m afraid I don’t follow the last leap in the chain. I contend that felons, even Cuban, will break for the left in higher proportion that for the right.
and there’s probably others, if I’d read them all.
Friend Brainiac4 is crystal-clear in his assertion that this is not being done for noble reasons, that rather it’s an under-handed ploy to undermine the democratic process. Brainiac4 insists that the true motiving factors are key. I don’t think a request for a cite is out of order.
The two are not equivalent. Persuading more voters to show up is legitimate. Issuing challenges which do not meet the standard of Ohio law (personal knowledge indicating that a would-be voter is not legally entitled to vote) is not.
If Bush gets re-elected (not that I think he will, based on the exit poll numbers so far), wanna bet at least one of these guys will get a Supreme Court nomination?
Which part of “may not” and “may” seems like I am making a claim of fact?
I haven’t forgotten in the slightest. Apart from the use of the word “whining” to describe my posts, your description of the situation is nearly identical to mine.
I note that you describe the two as “near equivalent.” I am happy that you realize they’re not the same. One argument is indeed silly, and is not being advanced. The other is not silly.
Apart from the clever rhetorical device of reflecting back my own quip at me, did you have a point here? What am I supposed to recognize the difference between? The real concern about vote suppression and your ridiculous parallel? Yep, I can recognize the difference between them.
I thought I was pretty clear, but in case I wasn’t: the thing that I propose is equivalent is that both practices (adding voters to the roles, and weeding out fraudulent ones) slow down the process. And as others have pointed out, when things are slow, some voters will not vote.
My point then is that people are unhappy when one legitimate process slows down the polls, but would find it absurd to hear whining when the other does.
Also, your point about legitimacy is false. As you may know, legitimacy in legal matters is decided by courts, and the courts have ruled (for now at least) that this is a legitimate action.
Your request, made in post #77, referenced the following, and nothing else:
If you want to bring his other statements and ask for cites and/or retractions, that’s your prerogative. I don’t feel it’s very honest to imply that your challenge to Brainiac4 was also challenging those other statements.
I’m not really a line judge, BTW, self-appointed or otherwise. But I still stand behind my argument in post #78.
As an undecided voter in Ohio, I made a decision today that if I was challenged at the polls I would vote for the other party’s candidate.
There weren’t any challengers.
I had to finally make a decison.
And then I had to go to work with a woman who as never voted because, as she says,.“I’m very religious and I believe the world is going to end soon and because of that there is really no point in voting for anyone because it won’t matter at all in the end.” She seemed really surprised that the boss and I (all of us are those “single women” voters you’ve heard so much about) had both voted.
My most recent statement on the issue is the one you asked for a cite on; it requires none. As for my previous statements, I’ll qualify them in the same way – they represent my concerns, rather than statements of fact.
Would you mind clarifying that for me? I was under the impression that Richard Nixon was from California. Perhaps you’re referencing a different 1960 contest than I’m presuming you’re referencing.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying, and I think you’ve got it backwards. Only if the list is not used, and all felons are allowed to vote, will the results potentially skew Democratic. If the list is used (and the Republicans are still trying to use a version of it – see below), the black and “other” felons would be purged in extraordinarily disproportionate numbers than hispanic felons. Hispanics in Florida are overwhelmingly Republican. I contend that they don’t change party affiliation just because they’re incarcerated (at least not to large degrees).
Here’s a recent article showing that Republicans are still trying to use a list of felons in Florida that still has hispanics underrepresented (“Fletcher said that the problem that excluded Hispanic felons from the state’s original list was never corrected for the list that will be used by Republican poll watchers.”). And that is precisely because Republicans in Florida know full well that the hispanic population skews to their party – felon or not, otherwise, there’d be no reason whatsoever for them to try to leave them off the list. If the list of 14,000 included a proportionate number of hispanics and still had a 2/3 - 1/3 split, Democrat - Republican, you might have a point. But it doesn’t, so you don’t.
Except that the crucial factor you’re ignoring here is that the law hadn’t been enforced for years… the electoral college is how we elect a president, both in law and in practice. But suppose that at some point in the mid 1800’s there had been a general agreement that the electoral college was stupid, and elections would be direct popular vote… and the electoral college laws were all left there, archaically, but people forgot about them. Then some conniving person, 150 years and 40 elections later, suddenly said, “hey, I lost the popular vote, but look what law I found on the books! I win!”
Granted, it would be awfully stupid to leave electoral college laws on the books but stop using them, but it seems to me that the example I gave is more like the 90-bond paper example from Ohio of something that is technically on the books but has not been enforced for years. (And, I think I recall you condemning the 90-bond-paper issue… or am I confusing you with someone else?)
I’m not sure if there’s a legal term or precedent for this, but is your support for the rule of law (which is certainly a good principle in general) so strong that you think any law that is found moldering away, and has not been enforced for 100 years, should be enforced the moment it’s discovered? And examples like the 90-bond paper are even worse, because that’s not a case of “oops, I found this old law we’d all forgotten about… but I respect the rule of law, and I find myself conscious-bound to enforce it”. Rather, it’s “hey, I found this old law we’d all forgotten about, and I believe that enforcing it, or enforcing it selectively, will benefit me.”
