Slashdot Mirror
Carter says Florida Voting Still Not Fair
linuxwrangler writes "Ex president Jimmy Carter is claiming that Florida has still not created conditions for a fair election. The Carter Center has monitored over 50 elections worldwide for fairness and says that the absence of uniformity in voting procedures and the lack of a non-partisan election commission sets the stage for a repeat of the 2000 election. That election, overseen by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (aka co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee), was officially decided by a margin of 537 votes. According to Carter, Florida governor Jeb Bush (aka brother of George W. Bush) has done little to correct the problems found in the 2000 election. In addition, Harris' successor Glenda Hood, (aka an elector for George W. Bush in 2000) recently attempted to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons."
How could we ever think there can be a fair election if Nader is on the ballot!
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Where it is forbidden (by State Law!) for elections officials to ask about the *citizenship of the voters* beyond the standard form. Residency questions are OK, citizenship questions are not.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
When do we see the "I hate the dems" part of slashdot?
Typical of slashdot editors. "Were in our world, as far left as we want to be." Slashdot bashs and bash, either microsoft, or sun, or republicians or whomever...Yet there never is a real solution in sight.
S/N ratio....
http://www.freebsd.org
At least there he is wanted. I, for one, already voted (got my Absentee ballot Friday) and while Nader was on the ballot, he didn't get my vote.
The issue isn't whether Glenda Hood is going to fix the result but that someone so partisan is in that position in the first place.
If Iraq had had an election in which Tariq Aziz was in charge of the election and Saddam Hussein had been elected would anyone believe it had been a fair election? Same thing applies here, the process should be seen to impartial and it isn't.
the felons can't vote, cry me a river. maybe they should have thought of that before committing a felony?
Not necessarily. In many states, felons can petition to have their voting rights restored.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's unAmerican. When someone has done their time, their debt to society is repaid, and they should have all their rights back, including the right to vote. If they don't get their right to vote back, then that's effectively an additional punishment. It's the punishment of being a second-class citizen in this country. One thing that justice strives for is a punishment measured to the crime. Removing voting rights permanently is a punishment that is not just, because it is not measured to fit the crime.
It also hurts the rest of us, because we live in a society where some people are not considered full-class citizens, and justice is not served. Unless we constantly strive to make our country MORE equal and MORE just, we will not have been the best country that we can be.
Your tough-guy talk is all very impressive to some people, but we're all better served by some rational arguments here.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
What they do not say is that there isn't a place on those froms to mark hispanic. Most Hispanics would have been marked down as white...
But they don't tell you that. Hell, this is the same guy that said the elections in Ven. where 100% on the up and up.
It's unAmerican. When someone has done their time, their debt to society is repaid, and they should have all their rights back, including the right to vote. If they don't get their right to vote back, then that's effectively an additional punishment.
Since when has punishment for a crime been limited to "time"? We've got sex offernder registries, GPS anklets, conviction databases, felony disclosure laws for job applicants... (Personally, I don't nescicarily agree with these things, but they exist)
Essentially, their debt to society hasn't been repaid... At least not officially, since they have been sentenced to whatever time they did in addition to all this other stuff.
Should the people who help run an election campaign also be in charge of vote counting or collection?
Isn't there some conflict of interest there?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Posted on 08/25/2004 6:20:16 AM PDT by moonman
ABC News (radio) announced that over 46,000 New York City residents were registered to vote in both their home district and also in the state of Florida. The anouncement mentioned that two-thirds (2/3) are registered Democrats.
009090-89890-
NEW YORK, (UPI) -- Allegations first made by the New York Daily News that residents of New York state may have voted illegally in Florida elections has produced calls for a formal investigation by Florida officials.
A study of computer records in New York and Florida conducted by the Daily News found 46,000 New York residents illegally registered to vote in both states.
The paper's investigation also uncovered the fact that as few as 400 and as many as 1,000 of those illegally registered voted twice in at least one election.
In some cases, people were found to have violated the law by voting twice in as many as seven elections.
"We expect that people will follow the law," said Florida Department of State spokeswoman Alia Faraj. "If there is an indication that people haven't, then the appropriate agencies must look into this matter." -30-
909089-89089080-
A convicted felon is banned from owning a handgun for life in this country. That's a second ammendment right.
Why should voting be treated differently?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
https://registration.miami.com/reg/login.do?url=ht tp%3A%2F%2Fwww.miami.com%2Fmld%2Fmiamiherald%2F912 6001.htm [miami.com]
The method of determining how convicted felons would be identified was laid out in a 2002 settlement agreement between the state and several civil rights groups. The method uses race as one of several factors to determine whether a felon has registered to vote. The others are first name, last name and date of birth. If one of those fails to match up, the name is not added to the list for potential purging.
But the database of felons supplied by FDLE does not list Hispanic as an ethnic group ''believe it or not,'' said Nicole DeLara, spokeswoman for the secretary of state. ``We have not been able to determine why this wasn't caught. The potential felon database is now retroactively void.''
In the US electoral theory, a fair and valid election is one in which a sufficiently large number of competent people's opinions or estimates of what the public welfare is and requires are collected, so as to counteract the shortsightedness and biases of mere mortals who, being fewer in number, have less chance of accurately perceiving this. Lately an idea has sprung up that every breathing person of age should vote to make an election valid, but this ideal is not well linked to the idea that a large enough body of people have a better chance of correctly determining the public welfare. It is a very poorly thought through political ideal.
The difference between
How come this post is modded insightful?
The only claim is that Carter is being partisan?
That isn't insightful, that's ridiculous.
Attack his claims first, if you can convince me that he's not telling the truth or doesn't understand how democracies work - *then* I'll beleive you when you say he's partisan.
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
Another problem is that felons aren't the only ones being excluded. In the 2000 elections, there were people turned away from the polls because their name was the same as or similar to a convicted felon's, or even because of bad data entry which was never corrected. It's one thing that felons can't vote. It's quite another that law-abiding citizens can't vote because they're black, or their name is similar to someone who has commited a crime. That's just plain wrong.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
Let's see, after his interesting call on the Venezuelan elections (it is legit, said Carter before all of the votes were even certified, and well before all of the interesting information about electronic voting machines programmed by a company owned by Chavez's brother were out in the open), he now wants to call the Florida elections before they happen?
Not a word about the estimated 15000-20000 voters in the FL panhandle (generally a Republican area) who didn't vote after the networks called the election for Gore before the polls closed in the panhandle.
Not a word about the 4.4% error rate (mostly overvotes) in Palm Beach County (controlled by Democrat election officials) vice the 0.4% statewide error rate. Or about the interesting fact that Bush got fewer votes in Palm Beach County than all four Republican congressional candidates combined.
No word about the tens of thousands of New Yorkers (generally Democrat-leaning) also registered in Florida.
Not a word about motor voter issues, or the illegality of even asking for an ID at the polling place in most states.
Not a word about electronic voting machines that don't produce a paper record. Not a word about problems with absentee ballot fraud. Not a word about the interesting character of elections in Chicago.
I think that there are problems with the integrity of votes in the US. But I only see the Democrats getting exercised about it when the issue might play against them. Then, they are vitriolic. But never when the problems help them.
There is room for a dispassionate look at the issue. This is just partisan grandstanding.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Could you please rename this section to flamebait.slashdot.org?
Thanks.
I hope high gas prices are depriving your children, you fucking dumbass.
I vote we discontinue the Politics category on Slashdot. The end result of this new category has been a venue for flames and nothing else. There are other forums for discussion on these issues; why clutter up a site dedicated to science and technology?
Remember though that in Florida that the felon list are those on probation or parol. So they technically are still serving out their sentance.
As others have said - it depends on the state.
But then, losing the right to vote is suspension of rights as well.
As far as I'm concerned it makes perfect sense to dis-allow convicted felons the vote. They commited crimes against law-abiding citizens and there ARE consequences.
So Carter is belly-aching about the felons not being able to vote. What about the soldiers that were cheated of their vote in 2000? It cuts both ways!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
How is this? See my other posts in this discussion for the URL.
But the database of felons supplied by FDLE does not list Hispanic as an ethnic group ''believe it or not,'' said Nicole DeLara, spokeswoman for the secretary of state. ``We have not been able to determine why this wasn't caught. The potential felon database is now retroactively void.''
I've never heard of anyone being mugged by a vote-wielding assailant, have you?
cf. Florida, 2000: Mugging of an entire country by 5 (of 9) vote-wielding assailants known as the "Supremes".
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Because you can't rob a store with a vote?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Let's see, after his interesting call on the Venezuelan elections (it is legit, said Carter before all of the votes were even certified, and well before all of the interesting information about electronic voting machines programmed by a company owned by Chavez's brother were out in the open), he now wants to call the Florida elections before they happen?
If I were to focus on this paragraph, I'm sure I'd be modded "offtopic". Aw, what the heck:
I wouldn't be surprised if Chavez hired some monkeys to play with the votes. As I recall, though, Chavez was nearly ousted in a coup orchestrated by the oil companies not so long ago. The Bush administration was falling all over itself to recognize the coup plotters as the "new government"... only to be red-faced (if not red-handed) when Chavez returned to the scene.
I doubt we're aligned politically, but you seem to know a lot more about the situation than I do... care to expand on the Venezuelan vote, the attempted coup, and possibly how neither side seems be anywhere close to trustworthy?
Hmmm... that last bit sounds familiar. That's why I'm voting Green.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
No, Carter is belly-aching about the non-felons that were not being able to vote, because the Florida Secretary of State decided that they might be fellons or worse - vote Democrat.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Did you read the linked article? Carter's statement is neither a lie, nor is it misleading. Perhaps you don't like the summary.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
From my point of view - Mrs. Harris followed the letter of the law. It was the State Supreme court that kept on making it up as it went along!
Yeah, well... are you partisan?
Obviously, Jimmy Carter is a Democrat. If being a Democrat entails being so partisan that his comments should be ignored... then you should ignore my comment too. And probably yours as well.
Otherwise, Carter has proven himself to be one of the most honorable and honest people to have ever entered public service. No, I don't think he was necesarily a great president. But he was certainly honest. His credibility is impeccable.
Right?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Because it allows for the following exploit (which has been seen in the wild, btw)
1) Create law that states a formerly innocuous act is now a crime.
2) Lock up people who commit that act and deny them the ability to change the law by virtue of their guilt.
3) Profit!
Bottom line, if the point of having prisons is to rehabilitate people, then any punishments administered by those prisons should end at some point. And really, don't you know about the electoral college? The presidential vote doesn't count anyway. Who cares if felons can do it or not? Let them have their fun!
This is from the LA.
Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.
Perhaps YOU should read the fucking article before you tell others they haven't.
From the anything to get bush out of office department:
Yet another case of the slashdot editorial bias. It isn't the governors job to take care of these issues. It may make for more sensational headlines to link them in this way but it is a lie and for gods sake the state has just been hit by three hurricanes in a row. Not to mention the articles lack of anything but subjective factoids that do nothing but stir emotion when invoked out of context.
When a disputed election involving millions of voters comes down to 500 votes (officially), we can hypothesize that either there wasn't a sufficiently large number of people to drown out shortsightedness and bias or that the candidates were so similar that they were equally reasonable choices. Now for the follow-up election we're talking about having the number of voters reduced. Does that really inspire hope of having a clear vote?
It is both regardless of your opinion. He makes a lot of false claims in the article one of which is used in the summary here. It is not Jeb Bush's job to oversee the elections it is the job of the secretary of state. At least view it for what it is a purely partisan move by a socialist who thinks ultimately the ignorant masses won't know the difference.
Right. And your "Carter Lies" post does not contradict that statement. When he says "fumbling attempt", my understanding would be that the attempt was not successful.
Perhaps YOU should read the fucking article before you tell others they haven't.
Fuck you.
When I said, "Did you read the linked article?" It was because I honestly couldn't tell. I was curious whether you got your take from the summary, or because we disagreed about what Carter had said.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I can't believe this crap is modded Insightful.
Are you even vaguely aware of what Carter has done since he was president? That he's a widely-respected elections monitor? And that he recently won the Nobel Peace Prize for this? We're not talking about some partisan hack like James Carville, here.
And the thing about Katherine Harris (and the FL Supreme Court, too, btw), is that the law wasn't particularly clear or helpful. So human decisions had to be made. And those decisions never went against the partisan interests involved. Never. Call me cynical, but that looks dirty to me.
-Esme
Nice troll.
"It's the punishment of being a second-class citizen in this country."
It's the punishment of being a felon convicted by a jury of his or her peers.
"One thing that justice strives for is a punishment measured to the crime."
The comission of a felony shows a gross indifference to the rights of others (at best), and as such those others (namely the population at large) has the right to take steps to make sure that they can't continue to abuse the rights of others in the voting booth.
"It also hurts the rest of us, because we live in a society where some people are not considered full-class citizens, and justice is not served."
It has, by definition, been served. If you're in jail you may still be able to vote; if you've never been convicted of anything worse than a misdemeanor you can still vote. Only upon conviction by a court of law of a felony are voting privileges revoked.
"It's unAmerican."
No, it's "being held accountable for your own actions."
As a Democrat, I find it appalling you'd stick up for an election-rigger like Katherine Harris.
Using technicalities to change the results of an election? That's so wrong.
Now I'm off to petition for Nader to get off the ballot.
Latewire
The DB did not ID who was Hispanic. Since this info wasn't included in the DB anyone who says it was is lying. Or are you telling me that carter just made a 'mistake'?
How about stationing machine gun toting troops at polling places like they did in Venezuela ?
How about the curious number of ballot boxes that had the same number of anti-Chavez votes ?
Interestingly, Saddam Hussein has announced his intention to run for the Presidency of Iraq in the next election. Votes will be counted by the interim government. He's widely expected to win a plurality.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Where does the 2nd say anything about handguns?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
> committed crimes against law-abiding citizens
Aren't most felons unlicensed drug salesmen?
Wouldn't that mean that they commited crimes *for the sake of* law-abiding citizens, rather than against them?
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
> The comission of a felony shows a gross indifference to the rights of others
Nonsense. Prisons are full to overflowing with people who went there in order to support the rights of others to control their own thoughts through the use of the chemical supplements of their choice.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Oh, then I think we disagree about what happened. My understanding was:
They took the list of felons and the list of reigstered voters. If someone was on both lists, they added them to the list for potential purging.
Matches were made by name and race (and other criterion as well). One source list did not give "hispanic" as an option for race, while the other one did (or vice versa).
There were hispanic people on both source lists, but due to the mismatch in listed race, only about 61 hispanic voters were actually added to the purge list.
Do I have that completely wrong? My interpretation fits both Carter's statement, and the quote that you provided. While I've read other articles on the issue, I didn't read the Miami Herald article that you linked.
Since this info wasn't included in the DB anyone who says it was is lying.
My understanding was that this figure was investigated outside of the DB, after the news became public.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
In many states felons have the right to vote, period. I don't know of any states which place polling stations inside penitentiaries, however.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
If Iraq had had an election in which Tariq Aziz was in charge of the election and Saddam Hussein had been elected would anyone believe it had been a fair election? Same thing applies here, the process should be seen to impartial and it isn't.
Um, Iraq had SEVERAL elections in which Saddam was elected president. No one else in the world cared if it was legit or not.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I can't believe I'm saying it, but RTFA. Black felons are being singled out, where as hispanic felons (more like to vote Republican) are being given a free pass.
That word, 'aka', does not mean what you think it means. aka is an abbreviation for "also known as". it is used for pseudonyms, aliases, nicknames, working names, legalized names, pen names, noms de plume, maiden names etc. In this case, Jeb Bush IS the brother of G.W. Bush, and so on. It's not a nick name or anything else.
thanks, and yes there are typos in this post!
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
That's a FELONOUS act?
-BrentSee this book on page 405 for the beginning of a description of the conflicts of interest and government corruption of Jeb Bush, governor of Florida: The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.
For the corruption caused by the Bush family in general, see the many descriptions starting on page 397 and continuing throughout chapter 20 to page 428. "A glimpse into the business dealings of the Bush family shows that they acquired their wealth through the intermingling of public policy and private interests." This is Ms. Kelley's overly polite way of saying the Bush family sells the U.S. government to whoever will pay the most.
It's crazy to say the honest President Carter is partisan. It's really, really crazy to defend Jeb Bush.
I knew already, from reading about it for many years, that the Bush family was heavily involved with the Saudi Arabians most disliked by Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden says the Bush family's (now former) business associates are preventing needed changes in Saudi Arabia. I knew George W. Bush's father attended a meeting with a brother of Osama bin Laden on the day before 9/11. I don't accept Osama bin Laden's violence; I think his ideas for the future of Saudi Arabia are not sensible and not achievable. However, his ideas and the ideas of many Arabs that the U.S. government is supporting corruption in Saudi Arabia seem correct. This corruption has been encouraged by George W. Bush's father.
What I didn't remember was that Neil Bush was involved in business with Scott Hinckley, the brother of John Hinckley, Jr., who almost killed President Reagan. Had Reagan died, George H.W. Bush would have become president. Scott Hinckley had "given a lot of money to the Bush family". (See page 384.)
Also, I didn't realize that the Air National Guard began drug testing for cocaine on the same month that George W. Bush dropped out of the Guard. (Page 301.) Alcoholics use cocaine because it helps them drink more, I'm told by an alcoholic friend.
Aside the from the known corruption, there are literally hundreds of coincidences and associations like this where there was a Bush family involvement, and then something bad happened to the United States. For other short descriptions of the widespread corruption, see the reviews of 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the book linked above.
Many Americans, like the person who posted the parent comment, have a hard time accepting that their government has become, in some ways, corrupt. There is so much corruption that one Slashdot comment cannot even begin to describe it.
Bush and Cheney are the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:
George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest
George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest
George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also.
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest
The corruption is exactly what you would expect with dry drunks in charge. (It is more polite to call them "non-drinking alcholics".)
Other Bush family members have been arrested also. How does your family compare to the Bush family?
--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.
In the parent comment, I forgot the link to reviews of the 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the Kelley book linked above: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
The endnote for the quote refers to "Human Rights Watch/The Sentencing Project, 'Losing the Vote', 1998." Part of which is available online But the partial online version does not identify the states; the third paragraph says
You can fill out a request for absentee ballot. At least here in Michigan, I can fill out my local ballot request form online. If you take a quick gander at it, one of the checkboxes is "I cannot attend the polls because I am confined to jail awaiting arraignment or trial." Some of the other boxes might apply as well, including: "I am pyhsically unable to attend the polls without the assistance of another" (eg: I need someone to testify to get me out of jail) or "I expect to be absent from the community in which I am registered for the entire day ...".. serving 10-20 in the county lock-up just might cause you to be absent.
"Prisons are full to overflowing"
Not everybody in prison is a convicted felon. Some are awaiting the completion of their trial, others were convicted of misdemeanors.
You've missed the 8 ballot boxes found floating in the San Francisco bay.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
I am not an American
It really amazes me (an Australian) how convoluted your election system is. I do not claim that our system is the best, but at least it is simple.
When I change addresses, I have to notify the Electoral Comission of my new address. Based on that, they tell me which electorate I can vote in for local, state and federal elections. All voting in Australia uses the same system. There are no varieties in the method.It is simple and proven. (Actually, they even sell their services to corporation that need to conduct internal voting, such as shareholder votes etc)
That is why there are extremely rare cases of voting irregularities here. From the outside, the American system is so confusing, irregular and disorganised that it actually is a pain just to keep track of what's going on. It is really amazing that in a federal election, voting is controlled on a county basis or even a state basis. But then again, like I said, I am not an American, so maybe, I'm missing something.
Many pundits expressed the opinion that votes for Ralph Nader resulted in Al Gore losing the election. To test this theory, we gave all of Nader's votes to Gore and all of Buchanan's votes to Bush ("two-way"). This resulted in Gore taking Florida and New Hampshire from Bush, giving Gore victory with a total of 296 electoral votes.
A few pundits expressed the opinion that Pat Buchanan harmed George W. Bush's election chances. To test this theory, we gave all of Buchanan's votes to Bush but let Nader keep his votes ("three-way"). This resulted in Bush taking Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin from Gore, giving Bush a total of 301 electoral votes.
from here
That's how elections work. It's in the Democrat's interests to muck-rake any Republican crimes, and it's in the Republican's interest to muck-rake any Democrat crimes.
I agree with you that there is a market for somebody who can synthesize all this into an overview of American election flaws. And I don't think Carter is that person. He has a lot of integrity, but he is a Democrat partisan.
(Two other Carter bits: in 1980 Carter himself made a concession speech before the polls closed on the west coast, depressing Democratic turnout. And while President, Carter re-instituted draft registration, which is back in the air again).
I know all that, and I'm not whining. There are states in which felons are permanently disenfranchised or partially disenfranchised.
You Asscunt fuckstick. You want to race me to the bottom? I'll beat you to it, cock licker.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Your opinion is different than mine.
That's OK.
Might I suggest that instead of barring former felons from voting (some of which did nothing more than bounce too many checks, and some of which are actually reformed, and all of which have legally fulfilled their obligation to the court) that we revise judicial sentencing guidelines?
I know emotion is a big part of this for you, but consider that if 10 years wasn't enough time served, the obvious solution is to increase the prison time up front, rather than rely on back-door punishments which are dished out without consideration of the crime.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
That's right, and I really have no problem with those people not voting. Their debt to society as determined by a judge has not been paid yet, so fuck them.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
If Carter is so wonderful and non-partisan, why hasn't he spoken out about the abuses being perpetrated in Oregon? How about the dead Democrat voters in Chicago? Funny how this wonderful man only speaks out about alleged abuses that hurt democrats, not the ones that hurt republicans.
Do you call everyone you disagree with a troll? How about just taking my comments at face value and giving me some feedback? If you notice, those who respond politely get polite treatment in return.
Now your comments - the claim that it's the punishment for being convicted is not true. Historically, disenfranchisement was based in racism, since many felons were black. This is not unusual; the documentation on racist literacy tests and poll taxes is well-known. Furthermore, convictions are done by juries, but they do not sentence. The judge has that right. If permanent disenfranchisement was ordered by a judge, I don't know if I have a problem with that. But this punishment was not ordered by a judge, and that makes me a little concerned.
Gross indifference to others- I agree, and that's not the point. My point is that if their crime was so bad, why didn't the judge put more time on their sentence? If the judge is handicapped by guidelines, why aren't those guidelines changed? To my original point, how is it just that a check bouncer can get the same punishment extension that a rapist gets?
Justice being served - In certain countries, the crime for stealing is removal of the stealing hand. This might be technically serving justice, but it is not just. Imposing the death penalty for every crime is also another example of unjust punishments. In that light, please review my original statement.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
And we all know felons never use guns since it is against the law for them to have them...
Some quick research: .000938% of the population and GET PEOPLE TO VOTE.
Florida population in 2000: 15,982,378
Percent of poulation under 18: 22.8% , or roughly 3,643,982
Number that voted for one of top three candidates: 5,922,531
Percent of Florida population over 18 in 2000 that voted: 48%
Seems to me like we need to worry less about 15,000, which is
So by your logic, since the 1st amendment doesn't explicitly mention the Internet, then 1st amendment rights shouldn't apply to web sites?
I'm Christian, and I'm fairly conservitave, and I think Bush is a danger to the free world (assuming such a thing exists). So don't assume that the "right-wing Christians" support Bush.
This power grab thing has nothing to do with "right wing Christians", it's all about people who are in power, wanting to stay in power.
When religion and politics get together, it's not because a religious person uses politics to spread his or her views, it's because a political person uses religion to increase his or her power.
Repeat after me: It's all about power. Power. Power! POWER!! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!!!
I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
I don't know of any states which place polling stations inside penitentiaries, however.
By reading up on the subject I was able to find out that Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts allow inmates to vote. I don't know if that means polls inside of the prisons or absentee ballots.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Carter might be honorable and honest, but when it comes to credibility, there's a little matter of judgement, which in my opinion he is grossly lacking. He may be honest, but his opinions are so colored by his political views that I don't find him credible at all.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
No matter how hard you try you can't solve stupidity. That people in the panhandle couldn't be bothered to get out of their Lay-Z-Boys and get to the polls isn't really Carter's concern. He's more concerned with issues like the disenfranchisement of thousands of black voters by the Republican controlled FL government and their quasi-legal and mistake ridden felon lists that kept honest Americans, mostly democrats, away from casting their valid votes in 2000.
"Vote Republican, it's easier than thinking." seems to be appropos for those 15-20K people in NW FL who could care less about their right to vote.
Republicans are bad news, and bad news travels. If you want "balance", get the Democrats to rig an election, lie us into invading a country, exempt rich people from paying taxes, and destroy 200 years of freedom. BTW, since we're talking about politics, save your "Kennedy/Vietnam" stuff for when it matters: finding precedents for Bush's disastrous policies.
--
make install -not war
The problem isn't that felons can or can't vote. It's that people who are likely to vote for Democrats are getting their voting rights taken away, and that people who are likely to vote for Republicans aren't.
No! Wrong! That is HALF of the problem! The other half is the *reality* of voter fraud.
A little history is required to understand the voter disenfranchisement in 2000. Go back to 1998. In that election cycle there was a mayoral race in Miami. The Democratic party did a spectacular job of getting out the vote and won it for their candidate. Unfortunately they did a little TOO good of a job. They got out not just the convicted felon and illegal alien vote, the even got that traditionally Democratic demographic, the deceased-American vote. There were paid vote-brokers, forged signatures, ballot tampering, the whole nine yards. It was so bad that something VERY rare happened. A court overturned the election and installed the other candidate.
This was not the usual low level voter fraud by a small number of overzealous and ethically challenged individuals. This was widespread, organized classic corrupt machine politics, and subsequent state-wide investigation found it wasn't limited to Miami, and not just to that election. Some people had a better voting record in the years since their death than they had during their life.
It is wrong for legitimate voters to be disenfranchised. Having your vote essentially cancelled out by a dead man voting the other way is just as much disenfranchisement. In some ways it is worse since it is only rarely caught. The living disenfranchised voter will raise a stink, assuming the corpse is properly buried it won't - and the voters whose votes were essentially cancelled out never know.
" Do you call everyone you disagree with a troll?"
No, just the people who seem to rely mostly on platitudes in their posts with little apparent intent beyond getting a rise out of others.
"the claim that it's the punishment for being convicted is not true."
Well, considering that it doesn't happen until after conviction, what exactly is it?
"Historically, disenfranchisement was based in racism,"
And that disenfranchisement was written into the lawbooks to affect large segments of the population in general. Conviction of a felony is literally done on a case-by-case basis and involves due process as required by the Fifth Amendment.
"since many felons were black."
What exactly does this have to do with anything? Where is the correlation between possible problems in the legal process and the punishment prescribed for the crime? Should we shorten the jail term for all murderers because of how many of them hapen to be black?
If you're suggesting we should consider the felon's skin color before revoking their voting privileges, how does having different penalties for people of different skin color sit with that certain clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires equal protection under the law?
"Furthermore, convictions are done by juries, but they do not sentence. The judge has that right."
No, the legislature has that right. Sometimes they grant judges leeway in sentencing ("not less than X and not more than Y"), sometimes they don't. This is done to ensure that the punishment is tailored for the crime, not the offender. And so long as the prescribed penalty is neither cruel nor unusual...
"To my original point, how is it just that a check bouncer can get the same punishment extension that a rapist gets?"
They don't; the latter is a felony, the former is a misdemanor.
"In certain countries, the crime for stealing is removal of the stealing hand."
Ignoring the Fifth Amendment for the moment, in this country there's far more than one definition of "stealing." What was stolen? What was its value? Was another person threatened in the process? Was a deadly weapon involved? Was the robbery part of some larger illegal plan (organized crime)? Does the offender have a previous record? Depending on what the legislatlure decides (judges cannot define a crime), the act may not even be a felony.
How does it feel to support a political party that grabs 90% of the felon vote?
It feels pretty damn good actually. That means that there is something fundementally wrong with our country and its laws, particuarly the so-called "War on Drugs" which incarcerates more people in this country than Murder or Rape.
Personally I have no problems with ex-Felons voting once they have served their sentance, which includes parole or probation. Though I also feel that we need to seal all crimal records from public view once the person has served there time. All in the interest in helping the person re-integrate back into socity.
First, I'm not a troll. I could care less if someone responded to my argument. Likewise, I don't care if this thread goes on and on or dies right here. I posted my honest opinion, and if that's not good enough for you, too bad. I posted it to say what I wanted, not to convince you of anything. That's not a flame, just what I think.
Second, we disagree. I posted my arguments, and you're choosing to bring up lots of irrelevant things, while ignoring historical facts. Example: voter disenfranchisement is based in racism, which is a fact. Your question about shortening sentences for murderers because they might be black is irrelevant, since I didn't think that, it's not implied by my statements, nor is it supported in the history of sentencing murders, nor does that possibility follow from the facts.
End of thread. No need to continue it, since we've both stated our sides, and we're unlikely to convince each other.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Typically prisons house offenders who have been convicted of a felony. Jails house offenders awaiting trial, those convicted of misdemeanors offences and those .
That's a distraction from the main issue:
Why can't convicted felons vote? If they are still citizens they should get to vote.
Maybe someone should ask Bush and Kerry what they think.
Why should alleged felons be disqualified? What next - people with p2p software on their computers not being allowed to vote?
I think the US should stop claiming superlatives for its brand of democracy.
I don't know why Carter isn't involved in other states (maybe he is.... I didn't find anything in a quick Googling, though). Maybe it's just that Florida was a big deal last time, and shows no signs of fixing any of its problems.
Florida is also a much larger concern in practical terms, since it's very close race for a large number of electoral votes. Kerry's ahead in Illinois by a large enough margin that any voting irregularities will probably not effect the outcome. Oregon only has about a quarter the electoral votes of Florida.
-Esme
What are you trying to say?
That Carter is being partisan?
This is actually a great example why monitoring is necessary... apparently the election HAS to be monitored, or things like this will get through.
I've read the rest of your posts and nothing there convinces me that it Carter isn't telling the truth.
RTFA he's only able to monitor a small number of election; any way you put it Florida has attracted the most headlines, which makes it the best state to monitor.. very simple.
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
Several points of contention here.
1. The voting machines used in the Venezuelan elections is from a Florida company with no ties to Chavez. There was a local Democratic candidate for Elections Supervisor in the Primary here in Hillsborough (he lost) who is a) runs an anti-Chavez group and b) a systems engineer at Verizon. I talked with him at length about the company in question and their product. They have produced source code for the product and it has all the safeguards that people here regularly complain about Diebold and other machines lack. One of the campaign promises was to implement these same machines in our county. Please cite a source that shows some doubt cast on the legitimacy of the machines used in Venezuela, all of my first hand knowledge is that it was very fair.
2. The Palm Beach County error rate was due to the butterfly ballot. I refuse to sit here and argue about whether or not old people are stupid, numerous experts on both sides of the issue agreed that the ballot used for that election was very confusing and not at all user-friendly. The fact that it was approved by a Democratic Supervisor is really dumb though. Also you shouldn't bring up the Palm Beach error rates without mentioning the thousands of black votes in Gadsden County that were spoiled (1 in 8 counted, pop is 39.7% white). The same system and ballots were used in Leon County (where Tallahassee is) and had a spoilage rate of 1% while the population is 66% white. In 2002 Gadsden County had a new Election Supervisor, using the same system, and only 1 in 500 ballots were spoiled. The governor is now known as "Jeb Crow" in some circles down here.
3. It was the Bush/Cheney 00 campaign that sent down James Baker and a team of lawyers before the recounts were over, before Gore even mentioned involving the courts. The riotous group attempting to stop the recount were GOP operatives flown in.
4. Don't accuse Dems of trying to rig elections when you've got that gerrymandering mess in Texas. Redistricting 3 years after the last one is a pure political play to lock in power. Just because it wasn't illegal, doesn't make it ethical. Note that DeLay is under investigation and 3 of his cohorts have been indicted for violating Texas campaign finance laws. The money was directly tied to the redistricting effort. Not to mention the voter purges here in Florida. The willful disregard for accuracy (90.2% wrong)in those felony purge lists borders on criminal negligence.
5. The Republicans in Florida are the ones who pushed for the ID's at the polling places. They have also been against the motor-voter registrations.
6. Whatever your opinion of Carter's presidency, he is a far more honorable and noble man than the majority of the crowd on this site. He has dedicated his life to helping the less fortunate and spreading peace and democracy in this world. Bringing up issues involving other states when Carter was specifically referring to Florida and then claiming he is partisan because he didn't mention them is disingenuous. I'm sure that Carter could talk you blue about elections and fairness. I'm also sure that he would address every single one of your complaints fairly and honestly, given the chance. Carter simply brought up the issues he felt were most gregarious and resulted in the largest damage to our system, if you'd read the column more carefully, you would have noticed the qualifiers "The most significant of these requirements are".
It seems that your response to Carter is far more partisan than you claim him to be.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Who cares what Carter thinks or says? In our last two wars he has undermined our efforts, both before and during the war. In 1991, he even secretly wrote to the UN Security Council members to tell them to not support Bush's effort to liberate Kuwait. Carter thinks our State Department -- run by Colin Powell -- is racist.
While we are on the subject of elections in Florida, the OSCE -- the international group supposedly monitoring elections in the US this year -- is run by a left-win Democrat who was impeached as a judge in the 80s, on corruption charges. Yippee.
To me, that's just good justification on why ex-felons should own handguns, not the other way around. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that felons have a fundamental right to vote. Why is this? Because they are so clearly in a position to judge whether they actually *like* the legislators or executive branch of their locale.
Of course, the fifth amendment says something about "life or limb" as being things takable by punishment, so there's clearly room where the government can do as it pleases once they're convicted by your peers. To that end, my only real complaint is that jurors aren't generally told "punishment is x years in jail, permanent loss of a right to own a handgun, and a permanent loss of the right to vote". If the punishment is too much (permanent loss of a right to vote is pretty big), then jurors could do jury nullification (I'm a big supporter of that too). Maybe then it'd be more on a case-by-case basis as a possible loss. Serial killers who have no chance at parole might have it removed. But that drug dealer? It's harder to say he should have his right to vote removed permanently, since he'll get out of jail eventually and probably still have an opinion on the matter. In fact, I'm not sure of the point to deprive people who get out of jail the right to vote since only people "worthy" (ie, punished enough) should be out of jail anyways..and it's already a given in most places of a loss of the right to vote in jail.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
If I understand it right anyone convicted in the US looses their right to vote - why?
I recently heard that every US president since WW2 would have been convicted and sentenced to death if ever tried by the same standards as at Nuremburg.
Here in Sweden every citizen has the right to vote, however stupid/criminal/insane (maybe there are some restrictions there) they are, and I think it's much the same over most of Europe.
Anyway, what does it matter what I think, you people in the US vote for my future anyway.
Sorry, nothing profound to put here! (http://www.abacus4.com/
Yup - it was a pretty even match for pretty evenly matched candidates. I don't know that Gore would have done any better or worse than Bush in dealing with the poorly expected events that came to dominate Bush's term. If the mass opinion of what the public welfare is and requires is so split, we may take it that much more needs to be known about the issues. If that's true about the issues, good job electorate! Of course, human nature being what it is, in our own minds and small circles we like to believe we, in particular, are well ahead of the masses in perceiving the realities and correctly divining the public welfare that the masses are slower to realize. We might be tempted to think, then, that a premature clarity in electoral opinion is a good thing, when actually it may just be a lack of empirical sense and laziness on the part of the electorate to go around handing decisive mandates where no such mandates so cut and dried ought to be handed out to anyone just yet. Sometimes you have to let events clarify matters, even if that's agonizingly slow. Clarity where clarity isn't warranted is not desirable. Of course there will be loud wails of protest about another closely contested election, but so what? It is mostly a near professional political class and a set of fringe advocacy groups that got so steamed about Gore-Bush, not mainstream America. Mainstream America dang well knew it decided Gore-Bush on a near toss-up basis, so what was the great tragedy which of the two the election was decided in favor of in the end. It isn't like Pat Buchanan or Jerry Brown was suddenly handed power from out of nowhere.
The difference between
Though I also feel that we need to seal all crimal records from public view once the person has served there (sic) time.
So you really don't want to know that a convicted child molester has moved in next door? I don't care how "rehabilitated" that person might be, I want to know what they did.
No, quite to the contrary. Free Speech on the Internet is a subset of Free Speech in general. Therefore as long as we agree that Free Speech is necessary, then Free Speech on the Internet should be included.
And following the same line of reasoning, if we agree that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, and agree that a handgun fits within the definition of "arms", then handguns are covered within the Second Amendment.
But then it follows that the right to keep and bear other forms of arms should not be infringed, either. That would include rifles, assault weapons, chemical weapons, and nukes. And, if we're using that definition of arms, it would include all the new forms of arms our ingenious little minds are likely to create in the future.
My point was not to say that, because the Second Amendment does not explicitly mention a certain type of arms by name that the right to keep and bear it may be infringed. My point was to try to get people out of the mindset that, because firearms were the latest-and-greatest thing at the time the Second was signed, or because handguns are still popular today, the Second must always be viewed in terms of how it relates to firearms, handguns, and the like.
I don't think our society is prepared today to deal with the prospect of private individuals owning nukes. Even if we exclude felons from that set (for life). But I think our society is weaker because of it. I'd much rather live in a society that has figured out how to exist even if felons own handguns, and anyone can keep and bear nukes.
Because, we know how many handgun crimes are committed by felons who can't legally own them.
I don't object to laws preventing felons from owning handguns, but I think we need to recognise such laws for what the are; a temporary patch to fix a broken system. We need to view such laws as indicative of latent vulnerabilities in our society, and work toward fixing them for good.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Um, you might want to read the whole constitution, including the ammendments. The 26th refers to the rights of citizens to vote. If such a right to vote doesn't exist, why is it referred to?
----
Amendment XXVI - Voting age set to 18 years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
So, the way to assure the transparency of the elction is to make the ONU (UN, sorry Spanish thinking ;)) the trustee (veedor in Spanish, i think the meaning is the same but please correct me even if I'm right) of the election. There is at least one antecedent of that, it was in Cuba arround 1992. I don't have the links specially because i've readed on hard paper newspapers arround 1992.
Sorry about my bad english, isn't my natural language
America starts in Tierra del Fuego and ends in Alaska
Oh, I get it now, you're one of those people who claim that they know exactly what the founding fathers, as well as Jesus, were thinking.
I'm just a little skeptical.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
"You break the rules, you don't get to play. Not to go all Locke/Rousue Social Contract on you."
That's still not a convincing argument for/against felons getting to vote or not. "get to play" is ambiguous.
What is the official reason in the US why felons don't get to vote. In other countries convicted felons get to vote. They have their reasons. In the US, convicted felons are no longer regarded as citizens?
Are convicted felons still eligible to pay taxes, do they still have to bear the burdens of Government, laws etc (other than what's due to them due to the crimes they were convicted of)?
If they do, then I feel it's only fair that they still get a say in who gets to be in Government.
Worst of all, is it seems in some US states, felons who have served their sentence don't automatically get their voting rights reinstated!
To use your analogy: don't you get to play after you've served your time in the "sin bin"?
I don't care how "rehabilitated" that person might be, I want to know what they did.
This just buys into the culture of fear that Americans have been culled into through a Republican reign of terror, (The control of all branches of government during the last four years, and the control of 3/4 of the branches of government 4 years before that.)
No, the AC is right (which you might not see if you are browsing at 1), when he quotes the 8th amendment, that to brand a person a criminal for the rest of his life, despite serving his debt to society, (if current sentencing guidelines are inadequate then the SENTECING guidelines need to be changed) is cruel and unusual punishment.
Why do you think that a good majority of people in prison are repeat offenders? I suspect part of the reason is because once they get out of prison they are unable to get high paying good jobs because people are afraid of them and not willing to give them a chance to show they have improved themselves.
No, I don't want to know if there is a convicted child molester by me, because I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he has reformed himself, and is able to become a useful member of society. Who knows, maybe he was caught in some legal gray area (consent laws are really screwy in America, with TONS of exceptions, especially for those who are in their High School years) just because he got caught in a loop hole with in the law that doesn't mean he should go around wearing a scarlet 'A' for the rest of his life.
Our entire penitentiary system needs an over haul, and part of that needs to come in keeping Criminal Records from the eyes of the public. There needs to be a record kept, for repeat offenders, and sentencing guidelines adjusted accordingly. I personally think a lot more time needs to be invested in psychological counseling of inmates, job skills creation through education, etc. With out a plan such as this, we will not be solving the problem that has brought the person with in questionable status of his society. Only then will the people who come out of the 'system' be able to become reintegrated back into society, and only when they are treated as equal will they want to stay with in that society.
Don't take it too personally. I was just poking a bit of fun at you, but I didn't claim that you were a bad fellow. My own opinion is that it's fine to try to understand what the founding fathers were thinking, but I don't think that it's really possible to truly know what another's mind is. So what we are left with is how we as a nation view out constitution, and what we consider our rights to be. Over time we've expanded our sense of rights, and to me that's a good thing. Regardless of what the founding fathers had as an intent, they left a document that has grown as our country has grown. And apparently, even if voting wasn't considered a right two centuries ago, it's considered one now. Our disagreement is an old story, and somewhere in the gap in positions progress is made over time.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Republican reign of terror
Of course, how silly of me. I forgot that virtually everything is the fault of evil Republicans...
No, I don't want to know if there is a convicted child molester by me, because I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he has reformed himself, and is able to become a useful member of society.
What a mindset that is. Perhaps you'll feel differently when you have children that the wonderful "rehabilitated" predator next door will salivate over...
How come no response to my previous reply?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Just a clarification: felons can vote if they apply for and receive a pardon for their offense. No one should be branded for life, but I don't think that requiring an act of contrition such as seeking a pardon is unnecessarily burdensome.
On the contrary, seeking a pardon might give some indication that the offender has thought seriously about his or her crime and desires to be a conforming member of society again.
Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley
brought up the issues he felt were most gregarious
Aw, I know you meant egregious, but your word, too, seems to fit in this discussion...
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Didn't Carter endorse the last Cuban election as a model of fairness? I seem to remember something to that effect a few years ago. I guess it was fair, after all, there was only one candidate for president.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Redistricting is traditionally done by the legislature. The previous redistricting was done by the courts in Texas after the legislature failed to reach an agreement on the new districts. After the 2002 elections Republicans had the state legislature, the governors office, and both U.S. Senate seats, but the democrats had the majority of U.S. House seats. How do you think that happened? Gerrymandering mess indeed!
The judge who first ruled did. He was a democratic judge and ruled for the republicans. He was later overturned by a partisan FL supreme court decision, which was later overturned by a partisan US supreme court decision. Not that it would have mattered. The Republican FL state legislature was going to award the electors to Bush.
But you can rob a store with a shotgun or a high-powered hunting rifle, both of which can be owned by a conviced felon.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Using technicalities to change the results of an election? That's so wrong.
I agree, which is what SCOFL did, not KH. She read the law, which defines what the "results" are. SCOFL threw it out the window based on their dislike of the election result and contrary to the US Constitution which says the legislature's power to define the election process is absolute.
The FL law says count the punchcards with an optical machine. That means if you punch the card in such a way that it doesn't register that you did not vote. That is the election result. No amount of attempting to wish this away can change the fact that this is the law. The "results" of the election are the numbers produced by the vote counting machines. Gore was the one trying to change them based on technicalities that had no basis in the election results. He wanted improperly punched ballots to count, contrary to the legislature's directive.
Now I'm off to petition for Nader to get off the ballot.
Your hypocracy is just amazing. A "democrat" who doesn't support a candidate and so tries to suppress his right to be on the ballot. There's no democracy in your world.
the even got that traditionally Democratic demographic, the deceased-American vote.
It is wrong for legitimate voters to be disenfranchised. Having your vote essentially cancelled out by a dead man voting the other way is just as much disenfranchisement. In some ways it is worse since it is only rarely caught. The living disenfranchised voter will raise a stink, assuming the corpse is properly buried it won't - and the voters whose votes were essentially cancelled out never know.
I don't know.
It sounds like you are descriminating against deceased-Americans.
I for one believe that the living-impaired should have a right to vote.
But maybe that's just me.
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!