Shayna’s link worked for me, but, yes, yours goes to another source covering the same story.
Killer quote:
That is perilously close to saying it’s perfectly acceptable to buy and sell legislation.
For Schimel to say that is about as tone deaf as a chief law enforcement officer can possibly be.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that rich people can buy elections, so what is the DA saying that’s different from that?
That is not precisely correct. SCOTUS ruled that spending by interested parties may not be restrained: truly buying elections would imply a guaranteed result, not an escalation of the ante in hopes of driving everyone else out. But buying sitting officials goes right up into graft. If someone has greater access to the office than everyone else, that quickly slides into corruption.
So, yeah, Schimel is advocating for capitol-capital favoritism, which tends to be whence scandal arises.
That’s buying elections, this guy is talking about buying legislators. Think of the loss of advertising revenue if the rich cut out the middle man (the voter in this case.)
I hope the Supremes don’t get this one since the righties would probably agree. Money is speech, right. You can’t be prevented from trying to convince a legislator to do something with words - so you can’t stop someone from using money for the convincing.
In Thailand $10 payments to voters are standard, at least in most of the villages near me. I’ve thought it would be more efficient for the crime lords to auction for Parliamentary control directly, with the winning bid paid into the Treasury.
Something like that may also make sense in the U.S., now that there is little pretense of effective democracy. With the $10 payments illegal, candidates have to promise to ban Darwin or arrest brown people to get votes. Direct auctions would avoid those “populist” excesses.
QUARK: “Peace is good for business.” It’s the 35th Rule of Acquisition.
JADZIA DAX: I thought that was the 34th.
QUARK: No.
JADZIA: What is the 34th?
QUARK: “War is good for business.” It’s easy to get them confused.
Is that just for voting, or for voting a certain way? In the U.S. we have effectively stopped the latter by the secret ballot – you can pay someone to vote for you, but you have no way of knowing how the voter will actually vote or has actually voted, so what’s the point of paying?
Voting a certain way. At least three mechanisms have been applied that I know of to prevent voter’s “cheating.”
- Rely on the relative honesty of a large majority of rural Thais. (Nevertheless accepting money but voting the other way has been advocated in recent elections.)
- Insist that a large majority of a village sign on to a candidate before paying. Individual ballots are secret but village totals are not.(*) (I keep intending to go to the District seat and jot down results, as there should be clear statistical evidence pointing to this. OTOH, a foreigner studying election results is the sort of conspicuousness I try to avoid!)
- My wife’s sister reported at least one election where ballots were opened for inspected by a ballot box guard before dropping them into the box! (Have I mentioned that law enforcement is lax in the Land of Smiles?)
Elected officials include M.P., Senator, Provincial Representative, 3 village officials, 2 subdistrict officials and, for those in a municipality, town councilman. Cash may be paid in most of these cases, so it can be be a good source of side income for villagers! M.P. elections are often invalidated (e.g. due to illegal vote-buying :smack: ) and fresh payments are made for the election re-runs. (Many of the lower officials do not recoup their vote-buying from graft or salary: they’re buying prestige!)
ETA: Panic and police check points are common in the days before general elections. Banks are emptied of smaller denomination notes. Murders are common: usually of a “canvasser” supposed to deliver money to voters but who kept it himself. When a village is bought wholesale, the village headman is effectively hostage to the required vote result.
The way it works here in the sticks of KY:
–Buyable voters are brought to the polls and told who to vote for. (Most of the time multiple candidates get together and buy voters as a slate.) A co-conspiring poll worker (not difficult to arrange) reviews the ballot and gives them a token of some sort that gets exchanged for money. (Going rate is about $25.)
–The voter goes to the poll worker and says he can’t read, but he has a list of who he wants to vote for. (Helpfully prepared by the candidates, of course.) If the poll worker is in on it he helps the voter complete the ballot and marks the paper or gives a token like above. If the poll worker isn’t in on it, the candidates just have to have someone (usually the one giving the voters rides) standing by to make sure the voter just hands the paper over.
–Alternately, the voter says he can’t read and that his “friend” is going to help him vote, the “friend” being the candidate’s confederate who just fills out the electronic ballot for him.
There are other ways, but those are the big ones.
So you have to have six forms of ID but you don’t have to know how to read. That explains a lot.
Are illiterate people so common in Kentucky that it isn’t that unusual? Such that nobody would think it strange that so many illiterate people are voting?
NC Senate nominee Thom Tillis thinks whites are the "traditional population". Granted, he said that back in his ignorant younger days, namely 2012.
C’mon, he was talking about the Native Americans. You always assume the worst.
Depressingly, yes. In 2003, at the high end, Clay and Estill counties estimated that 1 in 5 adults were functionally illiterate. Only 10 counties estimated it at less than 10%, and 6 of those were still at nine point something percent. It’s improved now, but someone, especially an older voter, claiming illiteracy wouldn’t be much of a surprise.
On the one hand, I’m kind of surprised they still go for the Birther retardation. On the other hand, the core of conservative philosophy is never letting go of the past so I suppose it was to be expected.
From that article…
According to CBS Radio News, that’s exactly what is happening. The suspect is being interrogated on a Navy ship, grilled for intel, and then, later, he will be read his rights and indicted formally.
Is this a “bad thing?” Will it significantly harm chances of a conviction in court? (And…will it really turn up any useful intel?)
I really have to wonder…people like Sen. Ayotte know that NOT informing a suspect of his Miranda rights doesn’t abrogate those rights, correct? It’s not like Mirandizing someone CREATES the rights that Mirandizing informs him of. If you want information, you can not Mirandize, but that would imperil the probability of conviction, wouldn’t it? The rights exist, whether or not the arresting officers say the magic words.