[icruise]

Big G.O.P. Bid to Challenge Voters at Polls in Key State

According to this article, the GOP is hiring thousands of "challengers" to monitor the polls on election day to call into question whether certain people were actually qualified to vote. What I don't understand, and what the article doesn't really address, is how they plan to make that judgment. Call me crazy, but I think the states are more qualified to determine whose votes should be counted than temporary workers paid $100 for a day of election monitoring. And the idea of people "guarding" the polls makes me very uncomfortable.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Big G.O.P. Bid to Challenge Voters at Polls in Key State
What I don't understand, and what the article doesn't really address, is how they plan to make that judgment.

Duh, the color of their skin?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Big G.O.P. Bid to Challenge Voters at Polls in Key State

According to this article, the GOP is hiring thousands of "challengers" to monitor the polls on election day to call into question whether certain people were actually qualified to vote. What I don't understand, and what the article doesn't really address, is how they plan to make that judgment. Call me crazy, but I think the states are more qualified to determine whose votes should be counted than temporary workers paid $100 for a day of election monitoring. And the idea of people "guarding" the polls makes me very uncomfortable.

You�e right � better email your buddy Kerry and tell him to call off all of his lawyers waiting to do the same, too.

Maury

[icruise]

That's just the thing, they're not trying to do the same thing. They are trying to ensure that people get a chance to cast their vote -- they're not trying to get Republicans turned away from the polls.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
You�e right � better email your buddy Kerry and tell him to call off all of his lawyers waiting to do the same, too.

Maury

Indeed. The democrats are trying to get MORE people to vote, not to prevent people from voting like the Republicans clearly are doing. What kind of democracy is that?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Indeed. The democrats are trying to get MORE people to vote,

Preferably several times.

You can't seriously suggest there is anything wrong with ensuring that the people who vote are voting lawfully, any more than it can be suggested that people voting lawfully shouldn't be permitted to vote. Either way, the principle is the same -- that voting should be fair and equtable and and that qualified voters (but only qualified voters) should be able to vote. That's something we ought to be able to agree on.

[icruise]

But why does this verification have to be done by an army of private individuals funded by the Republican party? Are the states incapable of verifying whether someone can vote or not?

There's nothing wrong with the states verifying people's registrations, etc, as they normally do, but I certainly don't like the idea of these people camped out at polling places questioning people's credentials, and on the basis of what? It would intimidate and annoy me, and could seriously slow down the voting process.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Icruise:
But why does this verification have to be done by an army of private individuals funded by the Republican party? Are the states incapable of verifying whether someone can vote or not?

There's nothing wrong with the states verifying people's registrations, etc, as they normally do, but I certainly don't like the idea of these people camped out at polling places questioning people's credentials, and on the basis of what? It would intimidate and annoy me, and could seriously slow down the voting process.

Have been watching the litigation going on in states like Ohio? The DNC has been suing to allow people to vote regardless of their authorized polling places. At the same time, those same states have been reporting significant registration irregularities, including people who are registered in more than one place. Several Ohio counties have more registered voters than eligible residents. It is an obvious invitation to voting fraud -- and voting fraud is not in any of our interests.

In fact, both parties are monitoring for fraud, and both have accused the other of fraud. They both have the right to do this, within the limits of state law, which generally requires that partisan groups maintain a certain distance from the polling place. As long as they follow impartial laws there is no problem.

The basic principle ought to be one we can agree on. That is, that only lawful voters should vote, that their votes should be cast according to the election laws, and that all lawful voters should be permitted to vote. There is nothing wrong with anyone making sure that is what happens. Unless, I suppose, you are quietly hoping for another Florida fiasco as "Plan B."

[icruise]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Have been watching the litigation going on in states like Ohio?

Yes, I have.

At the same time, those same states have been reporting significant registration irregularities, including people who are registered in more than one place. Several Ohio counties have more registered voters than eligible residents.

Do you have some links about this?

[zigzag]

I saw an item on the news the other day about a Republican guy who stands in front of the polls wearing a black t-shirt and cap and an elaborate gun belt (without the gun), all designed to make him look like an FBI or DEA SWAT-team agent. The t-shirt has something like "U.S. CONSTITUTION ENFORCEMENT" printed in white letters, just like a federal agent might. Proof that some people have too much time on their hands.

Meanwhile, I intend to vote early and often.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Icruise:


Do you have some links about this?

'Twas on the news last night or the night before, but I don't recall the channel (I surf a lot). Apparently, even one Ohio county's election supervisor was registered in more than one county. She had moved and not been purged from her old address. I don't think she or people like her are going to vote more than once, but theoretically, she could.

I also hear a lot about Ohio from my partner who is from Ohio and reads the papers there. You can look for it there if you like. He probably sent me a snippet at work but I don't recall from where. Meanwhile, here is a general article on votor registration problems in Ohio, per the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

[itai195]

The voter fraud allegations are serious... at some point, maybe after the ill-conceived 'upgrade' to electronic voting, maybe we ought to consider upgrading our registration processes and systems. I ran into a problem during the primaries where I had moved between elections and changed my drivers license address. Apparently that also changed my voter registration, though the form didn't say so and I never received any notification. I had to fill out a provisional ballet, and I'm not sure it counted... and that bothered me.

It's not necessarily monitoring for voter fraud that makes me suspicious, it's the idea of unaccountable individuals standing outside polling places and possibly intimidating voters.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's not necessarily monitoring for voter fraud that makes me suspicious, it's the idea of unaccountable individuals standing outside polling places and possibly intimidating voters.

AFAIK, most, if not all jurisdictions have statutes or ordinances that say that persons not actualy voting have to stay beyond a certain distance from any polling place. Those statutes should be rigidly enforced by the state.

But beyond those distances, the normal rules of the First Amendment apply. You can't stop people from standing on the public sidewalk, and you can't stop people from talking to one another. Unless people start verbally or physically assaulting people (which is against the law), they have a right to be there and say whatever it is they want to say. Conversely the people going in to vote have the right to ignore them, which is what I usually do.

[icruise]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. These challengers are not going to be standing outside the polling place, as far as I can tell. These people are given lists of "suspicious" people who they are to challenge, which means that they have to be in the polling place to be able to identify these people.

Mr. Trakas, the Republican co-chairman in Cuyahoga County, said the recruits would be equipped with lists of voters who the party suspects are not county residents or otherwise qualified to vote.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Icruise:
But why does this verification have to be done by an army of private individuals funded by the Republican party? Are the states incapable of verifying whether someone can vote or not?

Given the depressingly-high voter fraud rates in every election we've had for several decades, it would appear that at least some states either aren't qualified at all or aren't doing everything they can.

But also keep in mind, once again, that Kerry is doing exactly the same thing: an army of private individuals funded by the Democrats. There is no difference whatsoever in the method, or in the goal. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. These challengers are not going to be standing outside the polling place, as far as I can tell. These people are given lists of "suspicious" people who they are to challenge, which means that they have to be in the polling place to be able to identify these people.

OK, rereading the article that does seem to be the case. However, that negates the voter intimidation charge since those people aren't themselves the ones who challenge the voters.

Ohio election officials said that by state law, the parties' challengers would have to show "reasonable" justification for doubting the qualifications of a voter before asking a poll worker to question that person. And, the officials said, challenges could be made on four main grounds: whether the voter is a citizen, is at least 18, is a resident of the county and has lived in Ohio for the previous 30 days.

It also sounds like this is normal practice:

Among the main swing states, only Ohio, Florida and Missouri require the parties to register poll watchers before Election Day; elsewhere, party observers can register on the day itself.

And here:

State law varies widely on voter challenges. In Colorado, challenged voters can sign an oath that they are indeed qualified to vote; voters found to have lied could be prosecuted, but their votes would still be counted. In Wisconsin, it is the challenger who must sign an oath stating the grounds for a challenge.

And here it makes clear that both parties do it:

National election officials said yesterday that Election Day challenging had been done only sporadically by the parties over the years, mainly in highly contested races.

So this isn't what I was thinking about: those people from the campaigns who usually try to grab me on my way to the polling place. Rather, it is something allowed for in the state's campaign laws, I guess as an exception to the usual rule that campaigning isn't allowed within a certain distance of the polling place. All these people are allowed to do is request challenges if they have good grounds to do so. That's fine and legal. I would expect any persons in or near the polling places will be held to the letter of the law regardless of party. And I expect everyone to share the concern that only properly registered people be allowed to vote.

[Buckaroo]

Originally posted by Icruise:
That's just the thing, they're not trying to do the same thing. They are trying to ensure that people get a chance to cast their vote -- they're not trying to get Republicans turned away from the polls.

No, the Democrats are busing them around to as many polling stations as possible so they can vote as many times as possible.

[icruise]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, rereading the article that does seem to be the case. However, that negates the voter intimidation charge since those people aren't themselves the ones who challenge the voters.

I don't see how that negates the voter intimidation charge. They are indeed the ones to challenge the voters (hence the name "challenger"). The act of challenging entails reporting the voter in question to the election officials.

It also sounds like this is normal practice:

Among the main swing states, only Ohio, Florida and Missouri require the parties to register poll watchers before Election Day; elsewhere, party observers can register on the day itself.

And here:

State law varies widely on voter challenges. In Colorado, challenged voters can sign an oath that they are indeed qualified to vote; voters found to have lied could be prosecuted, but their votes would still be counted. In Wisconsin, it is the challenger who must sign an oath stating the grounds for a challenge.

That hardly proves that it's normal practice; all it does is detail the rules for challenges and challengers. I'm sure they are sticking to the letter of the law but it's pretty clear from the article that it is anything but "normal practice":

National election officials said yesterday that Election Day challenging had been done only sporadically by the parties over the years, mainly in highly contested races. In the bitterly contested 2000 presidential election, they said, challenges occurred mainly after Election Day.

The preparations for widespread challenging this year have alarmed some election officials.

"This creates chaos and confusion in the polling site," said R. Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, an international association of election officials. But, he said, "most courts say it's permissible by state law and therefore can't be denied."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Icruise:


I don't see how that negates the voter intimidation charge. They are indeed the ones to challenge the voters (hence the name "challenger"). The act of challenging entails reporting the voter in question to the election officials. [/B]

Correct. And then the election officials make the determination of whether or not the voter is in fact registered properly and eligible to vote. That's their job under the law.

Are you suggesting that somehow people fraudulently voting should be allowed to vote? Or that it would be a bad thing to stop them?

[icruise]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Correct. And then the election officials make the determination of whether or not the voter is in fact registered properly and eligible to vote. That's their job under the law.

I know. That's what I said. But I don't understand how what you've written here applies to your original point -- i.e. that this isn't voter intimidation.

Are you suggesting that somehow people fraudulently voting should be allowed to vote? Or that it would be a bad thing to stop them?

For crying out loud, nobody is saying that. But what you DO seem to be saying is that the state of Ohio is incapable of running its own elections. Why is the Republican party more qualified to sniff out voter fraud than the election officials themselves?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Icruise:


I know. That's what I said. But I don't understand how what you've written here applies to your original point -- i.e. that this isn't voter intimidation.



For crying out loud, nobody is saying that. But what you DO seem to be saying is that the state of Ohio is incapable of running its own elections. Why is the Republican party more qualified to sniff out voter fraud than the election officials themselves? [/B]

Either party can (and probably will) have election observers there. The State of Ohio in its wisdom decided to pass a statute allowing them to be there. If Ohio is offended at the idea that it can't run elections, then why did they pass the law allowing them? I think that is conclusive proof that there is nothing untoward going on here. It is just that Democrats seem suspiciously concerned about people looking too closely at the regiustration rolls. What are you worried about?

This is voter intimidation about as much as checking IDs in a liquor store is drinker intimidation.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Correct. And then the election officials make the determination of whether or not the voter is in fact registered properly and eligible to vote. That's their job under the law.

Are you suggesting that somehow people fraudulently voting should be allowed to vote? Or that it would be a bad thing to stop them?

I think the concern is that it will be used in bad faith to intimidate and/or disrupt. It's no secret that the RNC has an interest in minimizing turnout; this guy had to resign from the campaign for stating the obvious:

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews...7_20040721.htm

At the same time, it's no secret that the DNC wants to maximize turnout and would not be averse to a little fraud here and there. As itai says, what we need to do is improve the registration and voting process, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, since it's controlled by politicians.

[icruise]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Either party can (and probably will) have election observers there. The State of Ohio in its wisdom decided to pass a statute allowing them to be there. If Ohio is offended at the idea that it can't run elections, then why did they pass the law allowing them?

From what I have read, the law in question is from 1953 and has seldom if ever been used since then. It was apparently created as a way to keep black people from voting, and ironically it may have a similar effect today.

I think that is conclusive proof that there is nothing untoward going on here. It is just that Democrats seem suspiciously concerned about people looking too closely at the regiustration rolls. What are you worried about?

I'm worried that having all of this going on will slow down the voting process or scare away legitimate voters. I even found some entries on right-wing forums suggesting that people try challenging their fellow voters, or take pictures of "suspicious" people they see at the polls. I am 100% against any form of voter fraud, but this is NOT the kind of atmosphere we should be fostering at our polls!

[zigzag]

I wrote it off when I heard about the one allegation in Nevada, but this is starting to smell bad:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...1&flok=NW_5-L1

[warmspit]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
You�e right � better email your buddy Kerry and tell him to call off all of his lawyers waiting to do the same, too.

Maury

republicans hate us for our freedoms.

ask yourself: as a republican, do you support PREVENTING people from voting, and if so, where the hell you get off saying you are pro democracy?

I wonder how republicans can sleep at night....oh yeah, that's right, they have no souls.

first republican that tries to prevent ME from voting is going down, on the floor, and he aint getting up.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
AFAIK, most, if not all jurisdictions have statutes or ordinances that say that persons not actualy voting have to stay beyond a certain distance from any polling place. Those statutes should be rigidly enforced by the state.

But beyond those distances, the normal rules of the First Amendment apply. You can't stop people from standing on the public sidewalk, and you can't stop people from talking to one another. Unless people start verbally or physically assaulting people (which is against the law), they have a right to be there and say whatever it is they want to say. Conversely the people going in to vote have the right to ignore them, which is what I usually do.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...sfla-news-palm

FLORIDA:

On Election Day, voters will be protected from campaign pressures by a 50-foot cone, an invisible barrier that campaign workers cannot breach. Not so for early voters.


While the Voter’s Bill of Rights in state law says they have a right to “vote free from coercion or intimidation by elections officers or any other person,” a glitch in the newer early voting law does not include the same 50-foot guarantee.


As a result, with early voting taking place in busy public places like City Halls and libraries, voters are voicing complaints of being blocked by political mobs, or being singled out for their political views. Others say they have been grabbed, screamed at and cursed by political partisans of all stripes.


Republican Rep. Tom Feeney of Oviedo said the antagonizers are “Kerry thugs” out to harass Bush voters.


“If you ask me whether I believe there is an organized effort to intimidate Republican voters, the answer is absolutely yes,” said Feeney.


The Republican Party is calling on the secretary of state’s office for help, asking that early voting rules be clarified.


The secretary of state’s office has not yet responded.


“Significant numbers of people have already been deterred from voting,” wrote Republican Party Chairwoman Carole Jean Jordan to Secretary of State Glenda Hood, “and this will continue until corrective measures are taken.”

[warmspit]

basically, let's cut the sh!t. its to the republicans advantage to suppress turnout. Everyone admits this. So who is going to be pulling crap to suppress turnout? its a no brainer. This Rovian projection that dems are doing it to repubs is pulling a "parlock"...pretending to be a victim to smokescreen their own crimes.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by warmspit:
basically, let's cut the sh!t. its to the republicans advantage to suppress turnout. Everyone admits this. So who is going to be pulling crap to suppress turnout? its a no brainer. This Rovian projection that dems are doing it to repubs is pulling a "parlock"...pretending to be a victim to smokescreen their own crimes.

No. No one admits this, because it just isn't so.

After all, Democrats seem to broadcasting that if Kerry doesn't win, then the election must not have, could not have been held fairly. And are lawyering up, and are prepared to cause hysteria to support that.

On October 21, the Associated Press reported: "Sen. John Kerry, bracing for a potential fight over election results, will not hesitate to declare victory Nov. 2 and defend it, advisers say. He also will be prepared to name a national security team before knowing whether he's secured the presidency."

The prior Sunday, Eric Holder, a member of the Democrats' "Election Task Force," told Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday, "If every vote is allowed to be cast, and if every vote is counted, John Kerry will be president within a day of that election."

Wallace chuckled at what he thought was so much partisan bravado. "Well, I don't know how you can guarantee that," he said.

"You heard it right here," Holder responded coldly. "If every vote is allowed to be cast and every vote is counted, John Kerry will be president."

The Democrats' voter manual instructs party operatives to "launch a pre-emptive strike" by charging voter intimidation even if there is no evidence any such thing is taking place.

But there's a huge difference between the two sides' tactics. The Republicans' lawyers aren't preemptively declaring the election is fraud if they don't win. Simply put, they aren't trying to undermine the legitimacy of the American political system. The Democrats — who constantly decry Bush's "politics of fear" even as they warn of a draft and tell blacks they'll be disenfranchised — have taken the position that a Bush victory is by its very nature proof of voter fraud. That is the Holder Doctrine. If all the votes are counted, Kerry wins. Period. If Bush wins, the votes must not have been counted.
-- with credit to Jonah Goldberg

See, declaring yourself President and appointing a national security team regardless of how the vote is counted, because any count that doesn't mean you won sounds a lot like a coup. Telling the press beforehand is flabbergasting.

[icruise]

I hardly think that he was declaring the Kerry campaign's intent to call the election into question no matter what the results. That's just ridiculous.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by vmarks:
No. No one admits this, because it just isn't so.

After all, Democrats seem to broadcasting that if Kerry doesn't win, then the election must not have, could not have been held fairly. And are lawyering up, and are prepared to cause hysteria to support that.

On October 21, the Associated Press reported: "Sen. John Kerry, bracing for a potential fight over election results, will not hesitate to declare victory Nov. 2 and defend it, advisers say. He also will be prepared to name a national security team before knowing whether he's secured the presidency."

The prior Sunday, Eric Holder, a member of the Democrats' "Election Task Force," told Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday, "If every vote is allowed to be cast, and if every vote is counted, John Kerry will be president within a day of that election."

Wallace chuckled at what he thought was so much partisan bravado. "Well, I don't know how you can guarantee that," he said.

"You heard it right here," Holder responded coldly. "If every vote is allowed to be cast and every vote is counted, John Kerry will be president."

The Democrats' voter manual instructs party operatives to "launch a pre-emptive strike" by charging voter intimidation even if there is no evidence any such thing is taking place.

But there's a huge difference between the two sides' tactics. The Republicans' lawyers aren't preemptively declaring the election is fraud if they don't win. Simply put, they aren't trying to undermine the legitimacy of the American political system. The Democrats — who constantly decry Bush's "politics of fear" even as they warn of a draft and tell blacks they'll be disenfranchised — have taken the position that a Bush victory is by its very nature proof of voter fraud. That is the Holder Doctrine. If all the votes are counted, Kerry wins. Period. If Bush wins, the votes must not have been counted.
-- with credit to Jonah Goldberg

See, declaring yourself President and appointing a national security team regardless of how the vote is counted, because any count that doesn't mean you won sounds a lot like a coup. Telling the press beforehand is flabbergasting.

I see you're unable or unwilling to speak plainly. That's ok (wink wink) we're both adults here, we both KNOW what's happening. Someday you may even be able to admit it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by warmspit:
I see you're unable or unwilling to speak plainly. That's ok (wink wink) we're both adults here, we both KNOW what's happening. Someday you may even be able to admit it.

What makes you so certain of this? Or are you one of those zealots who believes that no thinking, rational adult could possibly support Bush?

[icruise]

I personally think that any voter registration anomalies are a result of the parties paying people by the registration, and are not indications that there will be any widespread voter fraud attempted.

There have been numerous cases of voter intimidation and while it's impossible to say whether this case will also fit under that umbrella, the fact is that some Republicans do have a history of similar actions in the past.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What makes you so certain of this? Or are you one of those zealots who believes that no thinking, rational adult could possibly support Bush?

that's a weird extrapolation.

here's what I'm saying: there are already charges and incidents of republicans tearing up dem registrations in over 9 states. so far, I've not read of any ACTUAL INCIDENTS of dems doing anything similar, although you can read about repubs claiming dems will or might do so, but all voting irregularity actual charges based on actual incidents are republican generated at this point.

I've provided link in another thread. you can do a google search, especially considering sproul and associates.

I don't have to be a zealot to realistically determine the last four years have been a disaster global, domestically, and concerning the WOT. If you cannot see that, then yeah, you're in denial, which would make you irrationaly in my book. Even if you thought invading IRaq were wise, it has been executed incompetently, and the administration continues to view things through rose-tinted glasses instead of maturely coming up with workable solutions.

It doesn't make me a zealot to see the truth. IT does make YOU a zealot to deny it.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by warmspit:
republicans hate us for our freedoms.

ask yourself: as a republican, do you support PREVENTING people from voting, and if so, where the hell you get off saying you are pro democracy?

I wonder how republicans can sleep at night....oh yeah, that's right, they have no souls.

first republican that tries to prevent ME from voting is going down, on the floor, and he aint getting up.

And in later postings in the thread you say you are rational and not a zealot. Ok.

I am a Republican, and here is what I believe:

All citizens should educate themselves about the issues and how they are affected by them. Those who do not bother, shoudn't vote.

No person should be prevented from voting if they are a qualified voter (of age, a citizen, not a felon, not dead, actually the person they claim to be.)

No person should be able to vote more than once.

I think that the claims of "voter intimidation" are extremely overblown. And it's started a month or so before the election because Kerry and the Democrats clearly intend on putting the results in flux like they did last time. They figure if they can't win, the least they can do is inject doubt into the results.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Big G.O.P. Bid to Challenge Voters at Polls in Key State

According to this article, the GOP is hiring thousands of "challengers" to monitor the polls on election day to call into question whether certain people were actually qualified to vote. What I don't understand, and what the article doesn't really address, is how they plan to make that judgment. Call me crazy, but I think the states are more qualified to determine whose votes should be counted than temporary workers paid $100 for a day of election monitoring. And the idea of people "guarding" the polls makes me very uncomfortable.

The "10,000" attorneys (Russert, this morning) who've "volunteered" to monitor elections for Democrats disturbs me. They've been in training for months, and they're serving without pay. I wonder if you can count their $500/hr. as a contribution?

For anyone to be pointing fingers at Republicans on this is ludicrous. The Democrats have been gearing up for a court fight for four years now. I guess if they can't win by representing actual living folks, they'll try to win however.

If you're looking for a littany of what's been done to circumvent democracy lately, get a transcript of "Meet the Press" from this morning -- Ed Gillespie gave a rundown. Without anyone questioning what he said. I'd bet that most of it stands up to scrutiny. The Dems have done their damnedest to muddy the waters this time.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
They figure if they can't win, the least they can do is inject doubt into the results.

LOL! your boy is going down, and even your boy knows it...there is a lot of desperation sweat in the Bush campaign at this point.

there is going to a massive voter deluge retaking of the country that was stolen from them.
and its going to be larger and more decisive than the plans to subvert it.

I don't really care if you think I'm a zealot. That's a standard repub tactic, trying to kowtow dems into being more "reasonable". Cheney that! your side has pushed this contest into the stratosphere of zealotry long since past. We're mad as hell, and we aren't going to be pushed around anymore.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by warmspit:
LOL! your boy is going down, and even your boy knows it...there is a lot of desperation sweat in the Bush campaign at this point.

there is going to a massive voter deluge retaking of the country that was stolen from them.
and its going to be larger and more decisive than the plans to subvert it.

I don't really care if you think I'm a zealot. That's a standard repub tactic, trying to kowtow dems into being more "reasonable". Cheney that! your side has pushed this contest into the stratosphere of zealotry long since past. We're mad as hell, and we aren't going to be pushed around anymore.

And if Mr. Kerry loses and declares himself President anyway, what will you say then?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by warmspit:
LOL! your boy is going down, and even your boy knows it...there is a lot of desperation sweat in the Bush campaign at this point.

there is going to a massive voter deluge retaking of the country that was stolen from them.
and its going to be larger and more decisive than the plans to subvert it.

I don't really care if you think I'm a zealot. That's a standard repub tactic, trying to kowtow dems into being more "reasonable". Cheney that! your side has pushed this contest into the stratosphere of zealotry long since past. We're mad as hell, and we aren't going to be pushed around anymore.

Was it just me, or did anyone else laugh their arse off at this Junior High mentality of a sentence?

Kids these days, I tell ya! Someone queue Twisted Sister!

Maury

[icruise]

In my opinion, the only person to have declared himself president was Bush himself. Despite it being very clear that the difference between him and Gore was too small to declare a winner, he proceeded as if he were the winner, creating a transition team and cabinet, etc.

If the difference in this election is anything like the difference in 2000, nobody should declare victory.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And if Mr. Kerry loses and declares himself President anyway, what will you say then?

same thing I've been saying for the last four years.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Was it just me, or did anyone else laugh their arse off at this Junior High mentality of a sentence?

Kids these days, I tell ya! Someone queue Twisted Sister!

Maury

apparently your junior high "edumacation" wasn't sufficient to tell the difference between three paragraphs and a sentence.

don't listen to twisted sister. thanks for the music suggestion, though...

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Icruise:
In my opinion, the only person to have declared himself president was Bush himself. Despite it being very clear that the difference between him and Gore was too small to declare a winner, he proceeded as if he were the winner, creating a transition team and cabinet, etc.

If the difference in this election is anything like the difference in 2000, nobody should declare victory.

The margin between Kennedy and Nixon was smaller- When the votes were tallied in November, Kennedy earned 49.7% of the popular vote to Nixon's 49.5%. Kennedy polled only about 100,000 more votes than Nixon out of over 68 million votes cast. The electoral college awarded the election to Kennedy by a 303-219 margin, despite Nixon winning more states than Kennedy.

Mr. Bush didn't declare himself the winner, the electoral college did.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The margin between Kennedy and Nixon was smaller- When the votes were tallied in November, Kennedy earned 49.7% of the popular vote to Nixon's 49.5%. Kennedy polled only about 100,000 more votes than Nixon out of over 68 million votes cast. The electoral college awarded the election to Kennedy by a 303-219 margin, despite Nixon winning more states than Kennedy.

Mr. Bush didn't declare himself the winner, the electoral college did.

sorry, the supreme court did. But you're conveniently forgetting that when the recount was up in the air, Bush was busy choosing a cabinet.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Icruise:
In my opinion, the only person to have declared himself president was Bush himself. Despite it being very clear that the difference between him and Gore was too small to declare a winner, he proceeded as if he were the winner, creating a transition team and cabinet, etc.

If the difference in this election is anything like the difference in 2000, nobody should declare victory.

Under any circumstances, Bush should continue governing after the election simply because he is the sitting president. His current term doesn't expire until inauguration day whether he is reenaugurated on that day, or Kerry is inaugurated.

If the election is close, I don't have a problem in theory with Kerry preparing for transition, even if he ends up not winning in the final event. If there is a reasonable chance that he might end up in the Oval Office in January, then it is prudent to prepare. Regardless of who wins in November, we deserve a government that is up and running in January. That's why both candidates in 2000 were correct to proceed with their respective transition plans.

However, all candidates in every election should work to ensure the legitimacy of the election process and final result. Democracy is bigger and more important than any of them. That means if the result is clear, either one should me manful enough to concede and help the country unite. And regardless, the election MUST end once the electoral college result goes to the House and the House declares the winner of the electoral college.

[icruise]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The margin between Kennedy and Nixon was smaller- When the votes were tallied in November, Kennedy earned 49.7% of the popular vote to Nixon's 49.5%. Kennedy polled only about 100,000 more votes than Nixon out of over 68 million votes cast. The electoral college awarded the election to Kennedy by a 303-219 margin, despite Nixon winning more states than Kennedy.

Mr. Bush didn't declare himself the winner, the electoral college did.

What are you talking about? The issue is not the popular vote, it is the 537 vote difference between Bush and Gore in Florida. A margin that small in an election of millions is too close to call, and is unique in American history, I believe.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Icruise:
What are you talking about? The issue is not the popular vote, it is the 537 vote difference between Bush and Gore in Florida. A margin that small in an election of millions is too close to call, and is unique in American history, I believe.

No. 1800 was closer. It went to the House of Representatives which voted 36 times before finally choosing Thomas Jefferson instead of Aaron Burr.

[itai195]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think the concern is that it will be used in bad faith to intimidate and/or disrupt.

Exactly... Voting should be pretty simple, it's hard enough to get people to turn out even when they don't have to worry about bringing a passport and drivers license to prove citizenship and residency.

At the same time, it's no secret that the DNC wants to maximize turnout and would not be averse to a little fraud here and there. As itai says, what we need to do is improve the registration and voting process, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, since it's controlled by politicians.

Yeah... the real solution is to attack the problem at its source by modernizing registration.

[RAILhead]

I think you should have to show a photo ID along with your voter registration in order to vote. Simple as that. If you can't do that, I don't think you ought to be able to vote. Period.

Maury

[itai195]

A photo ID that can prove residency, like a drivers license, should be used. But then, not everyone has one of those. At the polls I've never even been asked for a photo ID. Personally, I have no clue where my voter registration card is, as I registered years ago... I think this is yet another reason to have a national ID card.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I think you should have to show a photo ID along with your voter registration in order to vote. Simple as that. If you can't do that, I don't think you ought to be able to vote. Period.

Maury

if true, then the republican challengers (paid $100 a day) to challenge voters should have NO problem with voters possessing a photo ID, right?

we'll see if that turns out to be the case. If it does, I'll be the first to say how relieved I am.

However, I predict the whole intent of the challengers (especially since election workers are already there to do just that: verify voters), is to back up the process as much as possible, hoping to clog the polls so voters have to be turned away...or, more importantly, base their challenges on a person's skin color.
I hope there will be reliable stats afterwards that allay my fears.