Suppressing Voters

[Alec]

What do you make of all of this hullabaloo about suppressing voters? I thought they came out with several official reports that showed it wasn't true.

How come the same people weren't griping when Clinton got elected twice? It seems like their votes had to have been suppressed then also.

[Justawoman]

Guess I missed that news story Alec. I have heard the one (talk radio) where Michael Moore is buying votes. This election will be a mess like all the rest.

And we read in NewsMax where the United Nations would like to be allowed to come in and monitor this election to ensure that no fraud goes on, supposedly like what happened in the prior one. What do you think of those apples????

[CuriousG]

I think I should get to pick who's allowed to vote. We'd all be better off that way, I'm sure of it. ;)

[theyeti]

What specific story are we talking about? Really there's a lot more of this stuff going on than I think most people think - it might not be blatant, but subtle things like telling people it's too late to register when it really isn't, or distributing flyers with the wrong election date especially in impoverished areas.

I think it was some group that asked the United Nations to send some people to observe, it might've been Jimmy Carter. I say go for it, what harm could it do? People gripe that the UN doesn't do anything productive, what's more important than making sure the next leader of the free world is the guy the people really want?

[Alec]

I think it is just politics.

If Bush wins, the Democrats will say that Republicans suppressed the black vote.

If Kerry wins, the Republicans will say that Democrats scared blacks into voting for Kerry.

Do you want the same oil-for-food scandal UN to make sure that the election is done right in the United States? I don't.

If there is a real voter suppression issue, then let's prosecute the guilty parties. Otherwise it is a big load of hooey. The only organized effort regarding black voters is both parties trying to get their votes. All the rest is just easy-to-make but impossible-to-prove claims. It is the old, "When did you stop beating your wife?" question.

[Alec]

And BTW, we already have systems in place to prevent, detect, and prosecute voter fraud. We don't need help from outside countries.

[theyeti]

Russia, China, and Hussein's Iraq also have/had systems in place to prevent, detect, and prosecute voter fraud. But obviously, saying that doesn't mean they work.

How can one party prosecute the other if there is a voter suppression issue? We only have two groups competing for power - there's no watchdog. And if it's just politics, then what is there to hide, eh? Why are you (/is anyone) afraid to let the world look in? Am I missing something that we're supposed to be ashamed about; do we have a dirty little secret we're not supposed to let Europe or Africa or Asia in on?

[Alec]

And if you're not beating your wife, how come you won't let me send a social worker in to observe your household?

If you didn't do anything wrong, why won't you let me search your home without a warrant?

It's the same reason that we don't let Russian, Chinese, African, ect. police work in our country. We have the FBI, state, county, and local police.

The old "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," is not a good argument.

If we didn't need outside watchdogs in when Clinton got elected, why do we need them now?

You don't have parties prosecute each other. That is what law enforcement is for. The parties can sue each other in civil court. We do have watchdogs. They're elected officials. There are also police, the civil rights commission, etc.

[theyeti]

No one ever said we didn't need outside watchdogs when Clinton got elected. Besides, back then the wasn't as big a terrorism threat and the polls weren't as close. And no one ever called Clinton/Dole the most important election of our lifetime as people from both sides are calling Kerry/Bush.

In a perfect world, yeah we'd have great law enforcement and it would be able to do something. But remember, enforcement the duty of the executive branch. It's carefully controlled; it's partisan. And the courts? Most judges are appointed, and the legislature is slowly taking away their power by making laws that only the legislature can overturn certain laws (for instance, gay marriage).

If we don't think the world should be involved in the affairs of our nation, why do we have hundreds of thousands of troops in dozens of countries across the globe? Is that not a bit hypocritical? In surveillance/search of private property, there's the inherent right to privacy that adds to the moral dilemma. Observing an election has no such element - it's public, and other than how you cast your vote, there is no privacy expected nor required.

And in today's world, what is going to happen if someone uncovers fraud after the fact? Will politicians be willing to give up their power just because the other party says they should? In the middle of 2005, would President Bush or President Kerry come on tv to announce, "OK fine, we'll call it a do-over"? Will the opposition party be willing to force the issue, knowing that someday the same thing could happen to them? Didn't happen in 2000 - when the House tried to force an inquiry into Bush's election they couldn't get a single Senator to sign the necessary bill, even though it had been proven that many eligible voters were incorrectly labeled felons.

[Justawoman]

Let's say you let the UN monitor this one election. You opened the door to future elections being monitored or they are not considered legit unless the UN is there to supervise. Do we really want to allow the UN that kind of power over the people of this great country? I don't think so. Once you let them in the front door it will be hard to get rid of them down the road.

[theyeti]

We don't have to give them any power at all, that's the great part. All they do is sit down and watch for a day, then write a report and leave.

[Justawoman]

I can't figure out if I like your posts are not. You make me think to much. *L*

Do you really think it would be that simple yeti? Just let em in, let em watch, and boot em right on out of here. Somehow I see it being far more detailed than just a simple party invitation being handed over. The government is all about paperwork.

[theyeti]

They'd probably be so thrilled we're willing to do it that they'd bring the snacks and beverages themselves. ;)

[Justawoman]

Hey now.... no time for snacking. *S*

Nah... they want to come monitor and we provide the goodies.

[Justawoman]

How insulting is this to the Black voter between the ages of 40 and 80.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200409\SPE20040930a.html

[CuriousG]

What do you feel is insulting, the article or using the technology? I think they need to educate the voters on using the equipment rather than suppress moving ahead with improvements. It's pretty discouraging to think that people would be intimidated by a simple touchscreen interface. There's probably more to mess up on a paper ballot. I would hope that people feel that voting is important enough to work through the slight inconvenience of learning to use new voting techniques.

[theyeti]

I agree, but there are still people who feel that way I guess. I doubt either of my grandparents have ever used a keyboard or a mouse before - some people just don't accept technology. Maybe instead of dismissing the claim as "absurd," the guy in the article should take the initiative and start educating people or think of a better solution than throwing around insults.

It's like the kid next to you in class, "C'mon, I get it, why can't you? It's easy!" Well, maybe you could show me how then?

[Justawoman]

That is just it yeti, the article leaves the impression that this Joanne Bland assumes that all African Americans will be intimidated and not show. She also went on to say that,"There have been lots of changes in the United States, but if you look at the statistics, our biggest block of voters would be between 40 and 80, so when did those people have access to any kind of technology?"

Access to technology???? Has she been living in a cave? Perhaps she is the one afraid of technology. My own mom can change out harddrives, format a computer, and she has had no formal training in doing so. Many grannies and pops keep in touch with grandchildren via computers. I think she is selling the majority of the black voting population short.

[CuriousG]

In today's day and age, it is only by choice that one can achieve complete technological ignorance. While one grandparent keeps in touch with the grandchildren via email as a result of continuing to progress along with society, another grandparent simply chooses to make the excuses of "I'm too old" and "I've been out of school too long." With the drastic reduction in prices of technology, it has become affordable to most everyone, and I know that every library around me offers free access on their computers. I have family in their 80's that decided to take some computer classes at the community college in order to be able to use computers to keep in touch with other family and friends, while I know others significantly younger who think they're too old and wouldn't "get it." The advancement of technology is an inherent part of existence. Ignorance is not an excuse for the impediment of logical advancement.

[theyeti]

I agree. And the sad reality is, if you replace the "all" in this sentence...
the article leaves the impression that this Joanne Bland assumes that all African Americans will be intimidated and not show.
with "some," it's suddenly much more accurate and apparent that if you just used a different system these people would be able to express their democratic opinion... which is their right, regardless of how ignorant they want to be.

Nobody's brought up the other problem with electronic voting yet, which is the problem with technology itself. Things can crash. People can hack in. If the machines don't produce a paper trail, nobody really knows what's going on at all. Voting should be done with a pencil and paper, not with unreliable machines.

[Justawoman]

According to an article in newsweek the electronic voting is simple. It is a big screen with the touch screen option. It lets you change your vote before you move on to the next screen. It also seems the touchscreen machines can be outfitted with paper. Ohio has opted to do so and will have their machines ready by 2006.

The bigger worry, that I read in this article, is registered voters NOT showing up on the list of voters eligible to vote. They are simply not on the list. They are letting them vote by provisional ballot. These provisional ballots are suppose to be sorted out and counted hours and even days after the election. Voters are suppose to be given this option, not only for not being on the list but registered, but also if you happen to show up at the wrong polling place. No wonder to some voting seems rather confusing.

[Justawoman]

Just this morning on Fox News, Yes I said Fox News, they had Debra Deshong on. She is the senior advisor on Kerry's campaign. She had this comment," Unlike the Republican Party we want people to vote."

I was amazed at the stupidity of this statement. How is Bush going to win if Republicans don't get out and vote? Suppressing votes just makes no sense at all. Not only will this Republican cast her vote for the presidential race but she also has neighbors and friends and family members running for local offices. To not go vote is not an option. It really took no intelligence to make the statement she did. It came across, yet again, as someone trying to stir the pot and get someone's goat. It didn't work. E.D. Hill just made some offhanded comment that showed the hilarity of the comment Debra made. The Republican campaign advisor didn't give the comment much thought and had one thing to say," I have no idea what that statement meant."

Suppressing voters. How do you suppress a person that wants to vote and is there with the single thought to do just that? Other than physically barring that person from entering their polling place. Just makes no sense to me.

Quick definitions for Suppress

# verb: to put down by force or authority (Example: "Suppress a nascent uprising")
# verb: put out of one's consciousness
# verb: keep under control; keep in check (Example: "Suppress a smile")
# verb: control and refrain from showing; of emotions
# verb: come down on or keep down by unjust use of one's authority


Can you imagine the multidollar lawsuit waiting to happen if suppressing voters actually took place according to the definition of suppress? The definition came from www.onelook.com. The only thing I see happening is the voting machines not working properly. Thank goodness we are still using paper to vote here in my hometown. But for one person to suppress another is something I don't see happening. Every party wants their people to get out and vote!!

[theyeti]

I'm not saying the Republicans are trying any harder than the Democrats to manipulate the vote here, but you have to remember than new voters usually tend to break for the challenger, not the incumbent. And historically, progressive candidates have won more often than not elections where turnout is high.

Up here in Minnesota we had a group that would go around from door to door asking people if they were pro-life or pro-choice. To the people who said they were pro-choice, they smiled and left. But to those who said they were pro-life, they asked if they were registered voters and if not handed them a registration form.

So it really wouldn't surprise me one bit if there are a few more fringe Republicans out there than fringe democrats. They don't represent the party as a whole, but they take it into their own hands with their own skewed reasoning to try and manipulate the vote. I wouldn't even call them Republicans or Democrats, because I'm pretty sure there's something in each platform about basic civil rights... I'd call them lunatics.

If you have high blood pressure, you might not want to read this poster that was found all over a black neighborhood in Milwaukee:

http://newpatriot.org/blackvote.gif

[CuriousG]

That's pathetic that someone would actually try to use something like that to scare away voters. I hope nobody actually took it seriously.