Disenfranchised In Nevada

An anonymous reader writes "If you are a Democrat and you decided to register to vote in Nevada through non-official channels, you may have gotten disenfranchised by a private voter registration company. In this news article, it appears that employees of 'Voters Outreach of America' have been busy tearing up registration forms, specifically those from Democrats. The article indicates that hundreds to thousands of voter registrations may have been trashed. Unfortunately, the deadline to register to vote in Nevada has already passed."

Comments

!FP?

[temojen]

Why is this not on the Front Page?

Re:!FP?

[Brandybuck]

Because this old news. Stuff like this has been happening ever since you had to mark an affiliation on the voter registration form. Because it is so easy to detect, this kind of crime is not common. But if you think it's only supporters of Bush that are doing this, you are naive.

Putting this story on the front page would be like posting "mafia caught runnning prostitution ring". Yawn.

Re:!FP?

[temojen]

Sorry, I'm from Canada, where we have sane election laws.

You have to mark your affiliation on your registration??? WTF?!

Who thought that was a good idea???

Re:!FP?

[pudge]

Because it is entirely unsubstantiated.

All we know is two guys claimed it happened. If it is reasonable to think this group might have been destroying voter registrations, why is it not reasonable to think these two guys were themselves taking those registrations and shredding them to frame this group? It's not like that sort of thing would be unprecedented, in this history of political dirty tricks.

Re:!FP?

[Daetrin]

What a strawman argument.

This isn't just a normal filler news report, it contains information that people may be able to take action on and should do so if possible. The deadline to register may have passed in Nevada, but the group has also been active in Oregon and who knows where else, and in some of those locations people still may have time to correct the problem.

Every year they run short on flu shots and every year there are news stories about where you can go to still get shots. Every year there are new outbreaks of west nile virus and every year there are news stories about what signs to watch for and who you should call if you see dead birds lying about. Every few months or years some area has accidental contamination of their water supply and the news runs stories on what areas are affected and for how long.

It doesn't matter how often or regularly such events happen, if there is a specific case going on at the moment the news has a responsibility to try and inform those people who might be affected so they can take appropriate action.

Re:!FP?

[Krow10]

You have to mark your affiliation on your registration??? WTF?!

Who thought that was a good idea???

The major parties. But this is done on a state-by-state basis. I currently live in Virginia and we are not required to give a party affiliation on our registration. I voted in 2000s Republican primary (I was required to sign a pledge not to vote in the Democratic Primary, which I honored) and 2004s Democratic (I was not required to sign anything,) without changing my state registration. When I lived in Pennsylvania, where you are required to give affiliation, I registered as independant and did not participate in any party primary.

Cheers,
Craig

Re:!FP?

[jamie]

Because it is entirely unsubstantiated. All we know is two guys claimed it happened.

That is incorrect. As the article makes clear, the physical evidence that the "two guys" provided backs up their story.

You may not be convinced, but don't overstate your case. The article may not be proven yet, but it is clearly substantiated.

Re:!FP?

[kalidasa]

You have to mark your affiliation on your registration??? WTF?! Who thought that was a good idea???

Historically, it was necessary to determine which primaries you were eligible to vote in: Democrats voted in Democratic primaries, Republicans in Republican primaries. A lot of states (like my own) have since gone to a system where you can register as "unenrolled," then select any (in theory; in practice, either) primary ballot at the primary. Taking a primary ballot effectively registers you in that party. What you then must do is re-register as "unenrolled" to retain your ability to select either primary ballot; but conveniently, there are registration cards at the polling places (only during primaries, and only for those who are already registered and want to change their enrollment). Nevertheless, a lot of people do still put their affiliations on their registrations, and it is possible that many states still require you to list an affiliation on your registration in order to vote in a primary.

Re:!FP?

[Sevn]

pay no attention to the man behind the curtains!

It's starting to pick up steam. For everyone's sake, I hope this is all piss and wind but it's starting to look pretty legitimate.

Re:!FP?

[AuMatar]

You can always do a system like Illinois- you choose which party to vote for in the primary on that day. Despite being fairly left, I voted republican in 2000 because I liked McCain.

Re:!FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas uses that system too. When you get your voter registration certificate, there's a line that says "Voted in the __________ Party Primary", which gets stamped when you take your primary ballot.

But I think that the fact that we have primary elections at all is an indication that our election system is severely flawed. If we used an election method that wasn't vulnerable to vote-splitting, then McCain and Bush could both run, and you could vote for McCain without worrying that this would help Kerry get elected,

Re:!FP?

[Colazar]

This only became the case recently in CA, which had had a "blanket primary" (no political party declared, you can vote for anyone you want in the primaries, and the top vote-getter of each party advanced to the final election) until the Democratic and Republican parties took it to the Supreme Court and had it declared unConstitutional on the grounds that it violated their rights to freedom of assembly.

WA state had also had a blanket primary for a lot longer (70 years) and that just got invalidated in the last year.

Personally, I can agree with the reasoning of the court (only members of a group should be allowed to pick that groups representatives), but I think that it caused a bad policy decision. The advantage of a blanket primary is that it keeps you enfranchised on both the state and local level if you live in a Republican region of an overwhelmingly Democratic state (or vice versa). If the local Republicans always win, and the statewide Democrats always win, then having to pick a ballot by party automatically cuts you out of having a say in one set of those races.

Also, the studies that I saw that looked at "malicious cross-over voting" (Democrats voting for the kookiest Republican, so that the Republican would be sure to lose in the general election) concluded that when that happened, it was far out-weighed by voters crossing over to vote for what they thought was the opposite, the more centrist, least-objectionable candidate. (Which I think was the real problem that the national parties had with the blanket primaries--it tended to produce candidates who were less beholden to the party, and less partisan.)

BTW, I think anyone who crosses over to get the opposite party to nominate a crackpot, in order to help out their "real" party is playing with fire, anyway. Once someone makes it to the general election, anything can happen.

Here in WA, everyone was so disgusted with having to only take primary ballots from one party that there is an initiative to change the system to the Louisiana-style primary system, where everyone running for an office is on the same primary ballot, and the top two votegetters advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. From what I can tell, it stands a very good chance of passing. (Personally, I think it would work better than the "declaring your party" primary we have now, and not as well as the blanket primary. But we shall see.)

Re:!FP?

[Spamsonite]

Until the remnants of the registration forms are tested for fingerprint patterns that correspond with ripping up the sheets of paper, and those fingerprints traced back to someone other than the workers who are making the report, it is incorrect to blindly assume that the campaign workers are telling the truth. The alarming claim that those two workers are making is one that understandably gets front-page national media coverage, but weeks from now if the company is cleared and the workers discredited, the story will be buried someplace back in page 16. Because of how the media and the collective memory of most Americans work, the "victims" (in this case, Democrats) stand to gain a lot - even if the charges are eventually disproven. If the allegations are true, then of course the company officials must answer for them.

It certainly warrants the immediate attention of law enforcement and whichever election commissions have jurisdiction there, but until some prints consistent with document destruction are found, and traced to the managers, no one's story should be believed. It's too easy to fake.

Dislexics of the World, Untie!

Re:!FP?

[nelsonal]

I liked Washington (along with Oregon one of the more progressive voter rights states) they allowed you to vote in either primary on a position by position basis ie you could vote the democratic candidates for governor and the republicans for lt gov (not the same ticket in Washington) and on down the list. In Montana it's a bit mroe restricted one side of the primary ballot has Democrats the other has Republicans. You can vote either one, but at the end you have to choose which side you want to count.

Re:!FP?

[Brandybuck]

Except that we aren't seeing Slashdot stories on where to get flu shots. However we are getting plenty of stories that poor defenseless Democrats are being disenfranchised by unscrupulous Republicans. While I am a Libertarian and am disenfranchised by BOTH uscrupulous paties, it seems to me that the Democrats have made whining an art form. This story is just one more instance of this.

Re:!FP?

[pudge]

That is incorrect. As the article makes clear, the physical evidence that the "two guys" provided backs up their story.

No, it does not. It backs up the story that these particular registrations were not entered, NOT that the company in question had anything to do with it.

Re:!FP?

[Cosmik]

Regarding your sig... It's dyslexia, not dislexia.

Re:!FP?

[nacturation]

It doesn't matter how often or regularly such events happen, if there is a specific case going on at the moment the news has a responsibility to try and inform those people who might be affected so they can take appropriate action.

No, "the news" doesn't have a responsibility to do anything. The only reason media companies do things is because there's a profit in it. Every media outlet wants to gather more eyeballs to their magazine, newspaper, TV station, etc. The more eyeballs they have, the more advertisers pay for advertising spots. Now if giving you such news would increase their userbase, then you'd get that kind of news. If withholding that news would increase the userbase, then guess what... you won't get the news.

Re:!FP?

[cicadia]

So you think you vote directly for your president?

Re:!FP?

[w3rzr0b0t5]

Of course not, I understand the electoral college.

Re:!FP?

[CrimsonAvenger]

(Which I think was the real problem that the national parties had with the blanket primaries--it tended to produce candidates who were less beholden to the party, and less partisan.)

Interesting idea. Louisiana has an open primary - top two vote getters, no matter their party, go on to runoff. Unless one vote-getter in primary gets majority, in which case there is no need for a runoff. It guarantees that the winner of any election has a majority vote, at least.

The downside is that the top two candidates tend to be...interesting. And not necessarily in a good way. Which is why we had David Duke (KKK, Nazi) running against Edwin Edwards (unconvicted, then, but well known to be as crooked as a dog's hind leg - in jail now) for Governor four elections back. "Vote for the Crook, it's important" was a popular bumper sticker during that particular election.

And, yes, the Crook won.

Re:!FP?

[juanfe]

Over-the-air and cable broadcasters do have a social responsibility as journalists to do so. They may not have an economic incentive to do so.

We grant broadcasters the use of our public airwaves, and cable companies the use of our public rights of way, so that they can to broadcast reruns of Fantasy Island and Gilmore Girls in exchange for the obligation to deliver local news, public access television, and minimum services. The expectation is that they would fulfil their responsibility to report on timely and relevant news items in a fair and objective fashion.

Sure, the FCC has under republican watch made a mockery of many of these expectations, but in principle they are still there.

The fact that news outlets may choose to focus on the latest killer product under your sink instead of about civic education or local unemployment or whatever other actually relevant issues there may be doesn't excuse them from the expectation that they should be doing it.

Separate responsibility from desire or economic incentive. Believe there are such things as social responsibilities that corporations undertake in exchange for the protections we provide them as a society. DOn't let people fool you into believing that just because they don't fulfill their obligations they never had them.

Re:!FP?

[yourmom16]

This only became the case recently in CA, which had had a "blanket primary" (no political party declared, you can vote for anyone you want in the primaries, and the top vote-getter of each party advanced to the final election) until the Democratic and Republican parties took it to the Supreme Court and had it declared unConstitutional on the grounds that it violated their rights to freedom of assembly.

There are 2 propositions on the ballot this year to amend the California constitution to allow for a blanket primary. Proposition 60 is like a third of a page, while proposition 62 is about 19 pages, and had a clause which said if it got more votes than proposition 60 it would pass and proposition 60 wouldn't, but if proposition 60 passed any portion of it which didn't conflict with proposition 60 would still pass.

Re:!FP?

[zCyl]

Which is why we had David Duke (KKK, Nazi) running against Edwin Edwards (unconvicted, then, but well known to be as crooked as a dog's hind leg - in jail now) for Governor four elections back. "Vote for the Crook, it's important" was a popular bumper sticker during that particular election.

Gah... That's precisely why you need Approval Voting for an election like that, so you choose the candidates who are most liked, and not the candidates whose votes are least split.

Re:!FP?

[CrimsonAvenger]

No, the problem is that the candidates have no incentive to rush to the middle, since they don't have to sway undecided voters (much) till the runoff. The primary results tend to show that there is a fairly consistent group at each end of the spectrum. Those groups tend to be large enough to get at least one of the two candidates into the runoff, with only a small amount of shift-to-center during the primary. So we get unusual candidates sometime.

On the other hand, if none of the Republican candidates are worth a flip, we can have a runoff between two decent Democrats (happens as often as not). Or vice versa.

And we are more likely to get third party types into serious contention for office, since their Party is irrelevant to the question of getting them to the runoff.

Re:!FP?

[Spamsonite]

Ah, crap - I can't even spill properly, neither. ;0)

Standards?

[ConceptJunkie]

There has got to be a way to standardize the election process in this country to help prevent this kind of fraud, or all the nonsense coming from the various kinds of voting machines.

How hard can it be to come up with a simple, standard solution. Why does every jurisdiction have to do things in so many different ways. We have California, who has done everything they can but offer free beer to get illegal immigrants to vote. We have Florida that uses all those weird voting machines (which ironically don't see to be a problem in other states). We have millions being spent on electronic voting that's about as secure as Al Sharpton at a KKK meeting.

I have no doubt that these things are largely caused by crooked individuals and not some vast conspiracy on the part of the political parties involved (regardless of the shameless fear-mongering to the contrary).

I would think the richest and most powerful country in the world could do better.

Re:Standards?

[Krow10]

There has got to be a way to standardize the election process in this country to help prevent this kind of fraud, or all the nonsense coming from the various kinds of voting machines.

It would require a Constitutional Amendment to do this nationally; or a ruling similar to Bush v Gore (without the "don't use this ruling to decide anything else" clause,) but don't expect that. Currently, each state is in charge of its own election process. IIANM, the only federal oversight of a state's election process (not the campaigning process) has come via the 14th Amendment requiring that each state treat its citizens equally. I certainly think your idea is a good one.

Cheers,
Craig

Re:Standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

The downside of voting standards is that now things can get fucked up in a very centralized way. It wouldn't be any better, because instead of having a ton of little battles at the state level, you would have big major battles at the federal level.

I'm not saying that I like the current system, I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that standards would really solve the underlying problems.

Re:Standards?

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Of course there is. Just haul your lazy ass down to the county courthouse, ask for the elections department and register there.

So would you fill out a credit card application that someone on the street shoved in your face? I'm thinking that it's just silliness that people trusted someone to do the right thing here...

Re:Standards?

[ConceptJunkie]

It would in the case of places like Florida, which clearly didn't think through the rules they passed in 2000, and were totally screwed when those rules turned out to be grossly ineffective to deal with the problems that showed up. Whether or not changing bad or incomplete rules in the middle of the election was what the whole issue of the 2000 election in Florida was about. Hopefully those issues have now been addressed by the legislature after seeing what a mess they made.

I guess what I'm saying is that there should be a rule that election processes shouldn't be stupid, but that's just not possible. The states have no monopoly on stupid rules.

Re:Standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone used the same standard, then everyone would complain when it is messed up and it would get fixed. If it works fine, then everyone benefits, and nobody will want to change it.

Re:Standards?

[hamburger lady]

I have no doubt that these things are largely caused by crooked individuals and not some vast conspiracy on the part of the political parties involved

seeing as how the guy who runs the company behind these shenanigans is funded by the RNC (and is the ex-head of a state republican committee), i'd look at the situation a little deeper.

Re:Standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is assuming that everybody will agree when the system is bad and also when the system is good.

Often, the problems are not obvious to the general population until after the fact, and also even if some people like a method, others will not. The result could be years of wrangling out the politics of how to run politics...

Re:Standards?

[2nd Post!]

How hard can it be to come up with a simple, standard solution?

Well, it depends on whether you want that simple, single, standard solution to be right!

How do we know that if we standardized that it would be correct?

Diversity is both a strength and a weakness. The right methods will, over time, prevail. The wrong methods won't. If we have 50 different methods then we increase the chance that one of those 50 methods will be right; and over time it means we speed up the process of finding the right answer.

If we only had one process then we'd need to take much more time and many more iterations to find the right process.

Re:Standards?

[jkujawa]

So would you fill out a credit card application that someone on the street shoved in your face?

Like on hundreds of college campuses around the nation?
Now, I agree -- trusting credit card companies is dumb.
But it happens a lot.

Re:Standards?

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

I trust credit card companies to a degree, as does everyone that pays their credit card bill. My point was to be suspicious of the communications channel, not the end destination.

I was not aware that strangers give strangers credit card applications then take them back to return them to the credit card company. That is, indeed, just as foolish as trusting a stranger to file your voter registeration.

Re:Standards?

[jgardn]

For one, we are not really one nation, but a collection of 50 independent nations. The federal government has no jurisdiction on election processes, except for a few amendments to the constitution.

What would be the most fair system? It's quite simple.

(1) You register by presenting to an official documents that prove that you are a citizen of the United States. This means a passport, a birth certificate, or naturalization papers. These are photocopied and archived.

(2) You are issued a voter passport with a voter id, name, physical description, and address on it. You are told that when you move, you must immediately notify the voter registration office and obtain a new card.

(3) When you vote, you present your credentials to the precinct voting officials. That means you show your passport, they verify with photo id that you are who you say you are, and then they stamp your voting passport with a stamp saying that you were issued a ballot and that the ballot number is XYZ.

(4) You fill in the blanks for every office. This way, butterfly ballots, fill-in-the-blanks, punchcards, etc, are not an issue. It says, "President of the United States", with a line next to it. You write "John Kerry" or whomever you wish.

(5) You deposit the ballot into a box that is kept under constant watch by the members of the precincts. Anybody is allowed to watch the voting procedure. No doors are closed at any time in the process.

(6) The precinct collects all the ballots and counts the votes for each office. The votes are counted by matching names to people. If someone misspells the name, or uses a shorter name ("Kerry" instead of "John Kerry"), then it is acceptable, given the human judgment of the precinct committee.

Again, this is an open process and anyone can watch. The precinct committee votes to approve the results of the election, and by unanimous vote, it is approved and sent to the district office. The district tallies the votes from the precinct, and by a unanimous vote of the district committee, then sends the results to the county office. The county office tallies the votes of the districts, and by unanimous votes, forwards the results to the state office. The state office tallies the results and the committee votes to approve the results. The results are certified by the Secretary of State of the state and recorded. Each precinct, district, county office also keep records.

(7) The ballots are kept for ten years in a secure location. At the request of anyone, the precinct must make the ballots available for inspection. You can go to the precinct and demand to view the ballots and see whether or not you and your friends ballots were counted properly. They have the ballot numbers they used in their passports, as do you.

Note that this won't allow for absentee ballots. It won't allow online voting. You have to show up in person and prove that you have the right to vote before you are allowed to vote. This is the only secure way that is auditable and can be verified.

Is this a lot of work? Yes, but it is terribly important. I'm not too happy with all the voter fraud going on, and I don't like the thought that maybe absentee ballots are being used for fraud or that non-citizens are voting.

If the people don't care enough to monitor their own elections, then they don't deserve fair elections. People have to set priorities in their lives, and have to realize that a bad president can do far more damage than missing a few days of work.

Re:Standards?

[llefler]

So would you fill out a credit card application that someone on the street shoved in your face?

I get credit card applications in my mailbox placed there by a carrier I don't know and rarely see from companies I have never contacted and have no business relationship with? And most people seem to place a lower value on their voter registration than their credit history.

Re:Standards?

[ConceptJunkie]

Here in Virginia we use sheets of paper with the different choices very clearly labelled and you fill in the one you want with a black marker. It's extremely simple yet allows for machine counting.

Your method might be overkill, but I agree with you that it would be more secure than some (or all) of the systems they have now.

The thing is, the more thorough the system is, the more likely someone who is (or should be) eligible to vote cannot vote, and then all of a sudden you are accused of "disenfranchising a million voters" or something equally absurd.

Re:Standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are the problems that I forsee with this approach:

1. THe introduction of a 'passport' will definitely have an effect on voter turnout... voter turnout is low enough without people saying "Oh I misplaced my passport... I guess that I cannot vote", or "I moved but I forgot to update my passport... I guess I cannot vote"

2. When you say "Anybody is allowed to watch the voting procedure", do people get to watch me filling out the ballot? I don't like the fact that somebody can monitor my vote.

3. In Florida 2000, we had issues of hanging chads. If people write out the name, I anticipate problems with handwriting (noone can read my handwriting), name cannonicalization (what if someone votes for 'Carry'? Will that be counted?) I could also see a possibility where someone could have somebody running for president on the 3rd party ticket with a deliberately confusing name. Suppose that a fellow by the name of 'Jon Carry' ran for president in 2004, and skimmed voters from key states allowing Bush to win.

Not that any of the current schemes are really that great. My personal opinion has always been in favor of an electronic voting system where the choice is made, and a printed ballot comes up and the user sees the physical ballot before it is committed. By doing that, you have a verifiable paper trail that can be audited, and the ability to come up with a quick count when the polls close.

Re:Standards?

[David Greene]

Minnesota has a very simple answer to the registration problem: same day registration. Our state has one of the highest voter turnout rates in the country and same-day registration has a lot to do with that.

Re:Standards?

[ConceptJunkie]

My response to your problems:

1. You have to present appropriate ID to vote. It seems to me this is a reasonable alternative to present acceptable ID (Driver's License/ID Card, SS card, etc).

2. I don't think anyone is implying the vote itself isn't secret. That's a basic facet of our American system. But once you step out from behind the curtain, surely someone can watch that ballot as it is delivered to the box, and beyond.

3. I agree with you 100% here. The system Virginia has used for several years uses an optical sheet similar (but simpler) to the ones we have all used to take multiple choice tests.

I agree with your last statement as well. No electronic system should be used without a hardcopy paper trail.

Re:Standards?

[richie2000]

In Sweden, all citizens eligible to vote are automatically registered to vote. It's a non-issue. We're all registered. We get voter cards in the mail about a month before the election.

If you wish to wait until election day like most people do (instead of casting an absentee ballot at the local post office), you go to the designated polling place with your voter card and a photo ID, take a ballot with your candidate's/party's name on it (we normally have around ten different parties of which 5-6 or so make it into the parliament), put it in an envelope behind a screen, seal it and give it to the voting official who puts it in a strongbox while two of his colleagues (these are all local guys from different parties) watch. They then strike your name off the voter list and you're done. It's all very serious and very proper. Counting is done in parallell - again with three officials present at all times. We normally get the first solid results within hours after the last polling place closes with some of the absentee and overseas ballots being counted up to a week later.

If you want to vote in a different polling place, that's fine. If you want to vote from overseas - no problem. One person, one vote. No problems, no cheating, no confusion and we consistently get turnouts in the 80-90% range for our parliament elections.

To a Swede, it's inconcievable that the USA, one of the proudest democracies in the world, is unable to hold a general election that stands up to any kind of standard regarding voter integrity... Register for voting? 4711 different voting methods? Insane. You might as well use a pair of crooked dice to select the President.

There has to be a federal database of every citizen in the US, right? Use it for some good for once. Automatically remove all under-aged and other criteria you may want (taking away the opportunity for Jeb Bush to get rid of a bunch of left-wing hippie voters) and send voter cards to the rest. If you wish you can include ballots for all parties that got more than 1% in the last election in that letter and let the rest of the ballots be available at the polling place. Do not register party affiliation anywhere. Do not pass Go. Do not let anyone except a federally appointed multi-partisan voting commission interfere with this process, at any level at all.

It's just basic checks and balances, it's not like it's rocket science.

Re:Standards?

[jgardn]

In America, we have no list of citizens. We can't send mail to everyone. We have no idea who they are, where they live, or even if they are alive or dead. It's one of those freedoms that we have.

The census is a count, but it is only a really good estimation. A long time ago, people just reported numbers, not names or addresses.

Re:Standards?

[richie2000]

In America, we have no list of citizens. We can't send mail to everyone. We have no idea who they are, where they live, or even if they are alive or dead. It's one of those freedoms that we have.

Tell that to the IRS.

Re:Standards?

[coyote-san]

Elections are handled by the states and federalizing them is out of the question due to constitutional issues. There are no true national elections - all Congressional seats are selected by state votes, and technically the presidency is determined by the Electoral College whose members are also selected by each state. In the past Senators and Electors(iirc) were selected by the respective state legislatures, not a direct vote by the people.

Even establishing uniform standards is problematic. That's why it was necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to establish a national voting age. There are still different residency requirements, etc. Sometimes it's not even clear which state somebody should vote in, e.g., do college students vote where they go to school or where they go over Thanksgiving? Sometimes a person can vote in multiple states, e.g., in special elections based on property ownership instead of residency.

As if that's not enough elections have usually been handled by each county, with coordination (but not support) by the state's secretary of state or the equivalent. They manage elections for multiple independent jurisdictions, e.g., off the top of my head I'll usually vote in national, state (legislature), state (board of regents), county, city, special taxing district for regional bus service, special taxing district for cultural facilities, special taxing district for sports facilities, etc. races.

But wait, it gets even better! Sometimes the city or county needs an "off-year" election. It can use its own rules, e.g., a few years ago there was a proposal to let non-resident students vote in city elections. There was even talk of letting foreign students vote, the logic being that they should have a voice since they pay local sales and (indirectly) property taxes.

List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTERS!

[DAldredge]

http://www.americavotes.org/

ACORN
AFL-CIO
AFSCME
America Coming Together (ACT)
American Federation of Teachers
Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United With the Million Mom March
Clean Water Action
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund
Democracy for America
EMILY's List
Environment2004
The Human Rights Campaign
League of Conservation Voters
The Media Fund
MoveOn.org Voter Fund
Moving America Forward
Music for America
NAACP National Voter Fund
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Education Association
National Jewish Democratic Council
National Treasury Employees Union
Partnership for America's Families
People for the American Way
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
SEIU
Sierra Club
USAction
Voices for Working Families
Young Voter Alliance
21st Century Democrats

--00--0-

Yea, those look like MAJOR GOP supporters. They real question is why this is being done by a group with major support from DEM leaning groups.

Non-party affiliated registration

[chitownIrish]

... is the answer. The requirement that you declare a party affiliation seems only to be a way of locking in the two-party system.

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[Pluvius]

You don't have to declare a party affiliation (at least not where I come from), but only registered members of a party can vote in that party's primary, AFAIK.

Rob

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[dman123]

Your post proves my point.

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12552 0&cid=10515199

It's nothing personal. I just don't know why politicians or legislatures can ethically keep these restrictions.

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[putch]

there is a logic to keeping party primaries closed to only those who have enrolled in the party. people from other parties could vote in your primarty to influence who the candidate is.

but, perhaps voter enrollment and registration should be a process that is seperated.

i think you should be able to register to vote up until and including election day.

parties can set their own criteria for running their business/primaries.

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[squiggleslash]

Perhaps it's time the parties started organizing their own elections, rather than requiring the states (and presumably taxpayers) to do so on their behalf.

As a side effect, this would mean they could do so by their own rules rather than having the states impose their own (Democrats allowed to vote in Republican primaries and vice-versa, etc)

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[Anonymous Cow herd]

You're confusing primary elections with general elections. These restrictions just prevent non-party members from choosing who the party is going to put forward as presidential candidate... this *should* be a decision for party members, not outsiders. Or should the Republicans have a share in deciding who the Democrats are going to put forward to challenge Dubya?

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[dman123]

there is a logic to keeping party primaries closed to only those who have enrolled in the party. people from other parties could vote in your primarty to influence who the candidate is.

...

parties can set their own criteria for running their business/primaries.

I agree that this is the case in some states. I do not understand how the people that make the decisions to exclude non-party members from their primaries can consider themselves doing what is the "right thing." I realize that some voters may cross party lines to try to get a wacko endorsed in the enemy party. But if this is such a concern for the party, it should simply endorse someone without voting if it is going to try to stifle the voting rights of anyone it considers as "undesirable."

If we cannot come up with a better solution, then it's time to ban political parties. Let the endorsements of other groups be the guide to the candidate's politics. If that fails, one could always, oh, I don't know, maybe, learn more about the candidates themselves and become informed rather than vote for the party. A radical idea indeed!

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[dman123]

I understand the situation perfectly. The Republicans *should* have a share in deciding who the Democrats are going to run against Dubya.

I assume by "Republicans" and "Democrats" you mean "eligible voters that can vote only once per race" ;-)

Although I live in a state with an open primary, a voter cannot cross parties on the same ballot. Although I do not like this restriction, it is better than the alternative of a closed primary.

As squiggleslash said http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12552 0&cid=10516109 the parties can do what they want, but keep it out of the state's hands if they expect to keep it "members only."

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[E_elven]

Perhaps the national election registration and party primary registration shouldn't have anything to do with eachother in the first place?

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[putch]

i'm not inclined to defend our current political parties (major and minor included) or their practices.

but the concept of a party is a legitimate one. in this country we have A LOT of elections. we elect people on town/city, county, state, federal. with numerous offices in each election. with a host of issues at stake.

a fully-informed electorate is, of course, the ideal. but, honestly, people who work 40+ hours a week can sometimes have more pressing concerns (bills, food, children, etc.) than learning how your city councilmember (and his/her opponent[s]) feels about drug law reforms, or campaign finance laws or any other issue that is important (either to you, your community, or the office). especially since it is VERY difficult to learn what a candidate REALLY thinks believe. their campaign literature is uniformally bogus (it's like trusting a review of a product that was paid for by the manufacturer). yes, there are non-partisan groups that compile voting scorecards for officials that have held LEGISLATIVE office, but these are often scewed to reflect the organizations priorities (environment, criminal justice, abortion issues, etc.). but i would like to plug the best voter guide that i am aware of. it is published by citizens union of nyc. it only covers candidates/issues on the nyc ballot, but it is truly non-partisan, very thorough, and impeccably researched. Citizens Union

parties (as a concept, not necessarily D + R) do offer the electorate a way of expressing their viewpoints in a relatively well-informed and reasonably accountable form. now for such a process to work you'd need proportional representation, multiple parties ($@parties>2), and MAJOR changes to our system. but it's just as much of a pipe dream of 'banning political parties'.

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[putch]

i said:
but, perhaps voter enrollment and registration should be a process that is seperated.
you said:
Perhaps the national election registration and party primary registration shouldn't have anything to do with eachother in the first place?

same thing. but i feel the need to point out that one REGISTERS to vote and ENROLLS in a party. they often do it at the same time, with the same form, at the same place. but they are two different acts.

Re:Non-party affiliated registration

[KnightNavro]

I'm in Nevada, and you are not required to choose a political party. If you are non-affiliated, you cannot vote in the party primaries, but are allowed to participate in non-partisan primaries.

Same old dirty tricks

[ElForesto]

I got wind of this watching Channel 8, and I'm not too surprised. It's never a matter of who cheated to win an election, but rather who cheated best. I'm wondering if 3rd-party registrations were also targetted: my party, the IAP, has grown 52% from Jan to Aug, and we nibble away at the Republican's ultra-conservative base.

Re:Same old dirty tricks

[pboulang]

my party, the IAP, has grown 52% from Jan to Aug

Yeah, I heard Larry joined up. . . ;)

those arent 'backers'

[putch]

those are coalition partners. big difference.

Re:those arent 'backers'

[DAldredge]

No, they are member groups. You would know this if you had read more than 50 words of their site.

http://www.americavotes.org/what_we_do.cfm

Re:those arent 'backers'

[putch]

backers are still different--i'm looking to see who pays the bills. those are members of the coalition. all they've done, i expect, is say 'yes, voter registration is good'

but i do concede, look to my other post, that this certainly does NOT look like a gop front group.

Different America Votes

[Anonymous Coward]

The http://www.americavotes.org group is NOT the same organization as is referred to in the story. i've done some digging with whois and google and this much is very clear. The organization in the story is probably just using their name.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[b-baggins]

Maybe they're afraid of getting caught like the people in Illinois, New Mexico, Colorado and Iowa where massive registration fraud is being uncovered. And it ain't Republican registration fraud. You can tell because the party affiliation isn't being reported.

Thankfully not here...

[dman123]

I live in a state where there we do not register for a party affiliation, have open primaries, and can register the same day at the voting site. It is still amazing to me that consituents of states that do not have these three rights (yes, I said rights, not privledges) do not rise up and demand for it to be this way. The only reason I can imagine is that voters in Nevada and others have not had the experience of how easy it is to vote with these artificial burdens removed.

Re:Thankfully not here...

[Matt Perry]

Which state is that?

Re:Thankfully not here...

[zxnos]

what is to stop someone from registering at 10 locations and voting at all of them?

Re:Thankfully not here...

[Bastian]

I can't speak for all states, but I know that Wisconsin does.

Heck, I just found out at the last minute that I'm going to be shipped far far away for election day by my employer. And it's too late to order an absentee ballot. No worries, I can just go down to the courthouse and fill out an absentee ballot in person, right there.

Re:Thankfully not here...

[dman123]

It's Minnesota I was referring to, but as my cheesehead neighbor Bastian pointed out, it's in Wisconsin too.

Re:Thankfully not here...

[dman123]

what is to stop someone from registering at 10 locations and voting at all of them?

Well, nothing aside from your own morals would stop you on election day. However, to do so you'd have make fradulent documents to prove residency in each location. Then, you'd have the law show up at your door eventually when they figured it out. It would be much easier (theoretically - don't do this!!) to pretend to be someone else who is legally registered.

Re:Thankfully not here...

[Anonymous Cow herd]

You can register at 10 locations and vote at all of them... however, until your declared residency in that voting district has been confirmed, your vote is a 'provisional vote'. If you're found to not be a resident in that voting district, your vote from that district is then voided/discarded. Hope this helps...

Re:Thankfully not here...

[rthille]

So, 'provisional votes' aren't anonymous then? What's to keep your boss from your new job that you just moved to (new residency, new registration) from telling you that you have to vote a certain way, and to ensure that's the case, you have to register on election day so his buddy who volunteers down at the precinct can check it out?

Re:Thankfully not here...

[Robert The Coward]

Althought I don't live in the state but my guess is they put them in a sealed something and hold until it is confirmed. The something has a number on it. Once confirmed the seal something with a number is dumped into a pile then someone else goes and open that piles and counts the votes. I my area. In AA marlyland you going in prove who your are and vote. You get a number when you confirm your idea that gets you another number the get you a ballet. Something like 4 or 5 Diffenet number. In theory someone could want you each step and figure out how you voted but it would be a hell of a lot of work that wouldn't be legal.

Re:Thankfully not here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I'm at, the people at the polling stations just have a list of who is registered to vote in that district. You sign in and they check your name off (all with pencils, not ink!). I could easily move to another county, register to vote there, and then continue to vote in both areas.

Re:Thankfully not here...

[David Greene]

Well, technically our (Minnesota) primaries aren't completely open. One must vote a single party for the partisan portion of the ballot, though there's no need to declare which party that is in advance. But you're right. These rights do make voting much, much easier.

Re:Thankfully not here...

[zxnos]

yes, morals. unfortunatley not everyone has them.

some guy in colorado claims to have registered 35 times under different names and addresses. check out www.9news.com for all the voter fraud stories here.

well it doesn't look like a GOP outfit

[putch]

did some googling. and checked out the whois for americavotes.org. it's registered to a "Carol Trevelyan Strategy Group". googled that and it seems to only do business with progressives.

those local affiliates can have some weird news sources.

Re:well it doesn't look like a GOP outfit

[Ohreally_factor]

That goes to show you how slick these bastards are. They intentionally used the name of a rival organization, so that if/when they were caught, the blow back would hurt the real America Votes. You sort of have to admire such criminal deviousness as well as condemn it.

treason

[girth]

I don't care which side is involved, this is one of the most unamerican things you can do. This should be treated as treason.

This is another area where there needs to be a paper trail. These companies should be bonded and some sort of receipt should be issued to the voter that would allow one to either vote or allow them to file a protest and cast a vote after the fact. Any company found in fraud (anything above a normal error level) would loose their bond plus face criminal charges.

Re:Republicans comdemn this

[escher]

I condemn all voter fraud and I think all of it should make the news, front page, big fucking headline. Daily.

Maybe that will pound reality just a tad more into the skulls of idiot populace of this nation.

Irony

[chitownIrish]

Dude, your website says:

"Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc"

Oh, the irony.

Re:Irony

[bmetzler]

Dude, your website says: "Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc" Oh, the irony.

I'm sorry, I fail to see the irony. The scroller is property of the Bush campaign. It's not a confidential scroller so it can be on a public website. I put it on mine, because I am interested in the facts. It happens to be the only thing I have on my homepage ATM. So, where is the irony?

-Brent

Re:Irony

[chitownIrish]

The irony lies in the fact that I went to your website expecting to see something about YOU, and the first thing I see is "Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc"

Re:Irony

[bmetzler]

The irony lies in the fact that I went to your website expecting to see something about YOU, and the first thing I see is "Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc"

You're right. I still have a link to my domain which only has a scroller for the georgewbush.com debate fact checker. However, no rule says that I must have information about ME on a domain just because I own it. Again, I fail to see the irony just because I have a domain that I still had a link to here, but have only used for personal stuff for months now.

However, just to make you feel better, I will change the link.

-Brent

Re:Irony

[chitownIrish]

However, just to make you feel better, I will change the link.

You truly are a compassionate conservative.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, I fail to see the irony

i'll explain. or try to.

you are saying anti-democrat stuff. he clicks on the link to go to your website, which he expects to be about you, and it says "Paid for by Bush-Cheney '04, Inc".

So it would seem that YOU were paid for by Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.

get it?
now no one said that you are, just that it's ironic that you had that on your webpage.

Re:Irony

[bmetzler]

So it would seem that YOU were paid for by Bush-Cheney '04, Inc. get it? now no one said that you are, just that it's ironic that you had that on your webpage.

So it was a coincidence that I'm Republican, I hate voter fraud, and I used my homepage to hold a Republican scroller. And that's an irony to him. OK.

-Brent

More than one America votes?

[georgewad]

There's a comment on this blog that suggests that there are more than one, I'm guessing the one you cite isn't the one in Nevada).
Portland Communique also mentions that they're seeing something similar in Portland.

Re:Republicans comdemn this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an outrage, regardless of the party responsible, but the fact is that Republicans have been far more active in voter suppression.

I'm reminded of a recent New York Times article that examined the lies of both campaigns. Both Kerry and Bush are guilty of lying, but Bush's lies were more frequent, and therefore took more space in the article, leaving Republicans pissed and accusing the article of having a left leaning.

apparently oregon too

[joey_knisch]

http://www2.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649 &ContentID=x47627&Layout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530 Same company. This time in oregon. I hope these people pay for their crimes.

It's what you get...

[Second_Infinity]

Anyone who registers to vote through "non-official channels" deserves to have something like this happen, no matter what party you're affiliated with.

For crying out loud people, do it the correct way, and none of this would ever happen.

Re:It's what you get...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing incorrect with registering this way.

Re:It's what you get...

[theghost]

Someone took advantage of a convenient opportunity to register and you think that means they deserve to have their right to vote taken away?

Blame the victim usually comes in the form of, "She was asking for it by wearing that short skirt and flirting." Interesting variation you've got there, please don't ever do jury duty.

Re:It's what you get...

[jusdisgi]

Anyone who registers to vote through "non-official channels" deserves to have something like this happen, no matter what party you're affiliated with.

You are a fucking idiot.

While I'm not sure it even warrants more explanation than the above, I've got free time. This is a legitimate and reasonable way to register that is sanctioned by the governments of all 50 states and has been used for many years. It is done both by simple voting activists (non-partisan folks who just think the system will work better if more of us are involved) and party-affiliated groups that want to get more of their people to the polls. But the latter is expected to reach their goals by choosing who they approach to register...once they take a registration from someone, they are both legally and ethically bound to actually process the registration to the best of their ability. Intentionally doing anything else is pure and simple fraud. End of story.

And to say that fraud is just ok, and that anyone who is defrauded deserved it because they were so stupid as to believe the legally bound claims of a not-for-profit organization....well, that's just lunacy. You might as well say that someone who got his car stolen by a valet deserved it, because he was stupid enough to turn over his keys. It completely ignores that it's the valet's job to take your car and give it back....just as it's these peoples job to actually register you to vote.

Re:It's what you get...

[Second_Infinity]

To claim that I advocate fraud is jumping to conclusions. I never said I agreed with what happened, just that it doesn't surprise me, and it never will suprise me that people abuse the system.

Using the valet argument isn't valid, as the valet is an official employee of the establishment. It would be like a volunteer stepping up and saying "there aren't enough valet's around, so I'll help out." When a volunteer valet that's not "official" runs away with your car, don't try to blame the institution.

No one forced these people to use these methods of registration. "Non-official channels" are called that for a reason. Just trying to make a point, not claim it was ok to do so. I would never trust my voter registration in a non-official channel, just because of the potential for things like this to happen.

Sorry, didn't know this would strike such a nerve... was just trying to make a point.

Re:It's what you get...

[jusdisgi]

To claim that I advocate fraud is jumping to conclusions.

I didn't say you advocated it. Just dismissed it, and blamed the results on the victim of an actual crime and an ethical abomination. And you did.

Using the valet argument isn't valid, as the valet is an official employee of the establishment.

This organization is "officially" registered as a non-profit organization and is bound by that station just as the valet is. It isn't just some guy who got a bunch of voter registration cards to hand out, like your "volunteer" valet. No, these people are required to uphold their end of this.

I would never trust my voter registration in a non-official channel...

And I've never found it to be an issue...people who read the "Politics" page on /. are likely to have been registered for months or years, and probably directly. But we aren't the targets of these organizations either. They are looking to get people voting who wouldn't otherwise.

Sorry, didn't know this would strike such a nerve... was just trying to make a point.

Well, that's fine....but the point was ass-backwards. Someone who gets handed a registration card by someone claiming to be involved in a not-for-profit registration drive, and then gets their card torn up because that not-for-profit was actually a paid-600k-by-the-RNC registration drive, is being defrauded, in the eyes of both the law and any reasonable observer. Few of them, being the types who registered because someone approached them, will make a big fuss. But the rest of us should ensure that these slimey sons-of-bitches get locked down someplace.

Re:Republicans comdemn this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll condemn any voter fraud that is reported by a reliable news source. Is Billhobbs.come a reliable news source? Well, what do you think of this (from the very page you've linked)?

Iraq's chances of thriving are much better than most of the media would have us believe. The New Iraqi Dinar is unbelievably affordable. The same amount that was once equal to over $82,000 can now be purchased for around $40. But, what happens when the oil really starts to flow?

That's incredible economic illiteracy. If 1 dinar used to be $50, and now it's 5c, what do you call it? Hyperinflation.

Why is such identification given?

[spitzak]

Whether or not this is true, couldn't it be avoided by not identifying the party on the registration forms.

Without that, I recommend that Democrats who believe this is happening claim they are Republicans. Republicans who believe the opposite should claim they are Democrats. That will also completely mess up all the predictions and polls and maybe make the election more interesting, too!

Re:Why is such identification given?

[kmb]

This is necessary for about six billion reasons. Ok, I can think of 2 off the top of my head.

1. Some states allow voters in primaries to vote only within their party.
2. The number of voters registered for a party can determine the amount of government funding their candidates can reason, whether they appear on the official ballots, etc.

Re:Why is such identification given?

[putch]

you have a good point. party is declared on voter reg forms so that the voter registration and party enrollment process is streamlined. (you don't have to enroll in any party)

perhaps party enrollment should be done seperately from voter registration.

or we could just scrap voter reg deadlines and allow for election day registration.

Re:Why is such identification given?

[wikdwarlock]

I'll probably vote Democrat this time around, but I registered a few weeks ago as a Republican just so that there's a tiny bit of extra noise in the prediction data used for the future. Not much, I know, but it's what I could do.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[rev_sanchez]

A GOP funded organization stole the name from the real America Votes to help perpetuate this fraud. Aside from disenfranchising dozens? hundreds? thousands? of Democrats I think one of the biggest tragedies is that the real, non-partisan America Votes will be hurt by this. I don't blame you for being confused, that was the point.

link 1

link 2

Text:
(Oct. 12) -- Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.

Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.

The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at Democrats. The focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.

"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assisatnt to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.

Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms, all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law.

So the people on those forms who think they will be able to vote on Election Day are sadly mistaken. We attempted to speak to Voters Outreach but found that its office has been rented out to someone else.

The landlord says Voters Outreach was evicted for non-payment of rent. Another source said the company has now moved on to Oregon where it is once again registering voters. It's unknown how many registrations may have been tossed out, but another ex-employee told Eyewitness News she had the same suspicions when she worked there.

It's going to take a while to sort all of this out, but the immediate concern for voters is to make sure you really are registered.

Call the Clark County Election Department at 455-VOTE orclick here to see if you are registered.

The company has been largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National Committee. Similar complaints have been received in Reno where the registrar has asked the FBI to investigate.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[jamie]

No, that's "America Votes." The Republican-headed effort to register Republicans and disenfranchise Democrats is called Project America Votes. The linked news story was confused, and you are confused, because the GOP-headed organization was misrepresenting itself as a nationally-known, reputable voter registration organization. Needless to say, the organization in question is not too happy about it, and is "in the process of pursuing all of [its] legal options."

Just when you thought the story couldn't get any scummier...

election day voter registration

[putch]

this wouldn't be an issue (or much less of one) if we'd scrap all of the hoops you need to jump through to vote. the time for election day voter registration is here. it's the fucking 21st century already. i can have pretty much any consumer item in the world (except duk nukem forever) shipped to me tommorrow, over the internet, but i have to mail in my form 25 days before the election? and 60! before a primary?

HAVA is going to require every state to maintain a centralized voter reg database. with such a system on-demand voting could mean:

1) no more voter reg deadlines. show up give them your name and you vote
2) vote from any poll site. can't make it back to your home before 9? just vote at the most convenient site. a voting kiosk will display the proper ballot for your election district
3) no over-voting. everyone gets one vote, no voting in two districts. in ny it is possible, though illegal, to register in many different counties, since they all keep their own records and dont share (at least not well enough).

Re:election day voter registration

[bmetzler]

a voting kiosk will display the proper ballot for your election district

I thought only /. we all disapproved of electronic voting. Or was that only on Tuesdays?

-Brent

Re:election day voter registration

[putch]

e-voting is fine, by me at least, given a voter-verified paper trail.

Re:election day voter registration

[Mark_MF-WN]

1) no more voter reg deadlines. show up give them your name and you vote 2) vote from any poll site. can't make it back to your home before 9? just vote at the most convenient site. a voting kiosk will display the proper ballot for your election district 3) no over-voting. everyone gets one vote, no voting in two districts. in ny it is possible, though illegal, to register in many different counties, since they all keep their own records and dont share (at least not well enough).

Wow -- that sounds like a Canadian election.

See a pattern?

[rritterson]

(Disclaimer: I lean left)

-Democratic forms get tossed in the trash, but not Republican forms...
-It's Texas Republicans who are Gerrymandering in their redistricting efforts...
-Sinclair wishes to put an obviously anti Kerry Docuganda on TV...
-Flordia 2000 -- Black voters are disenfranchised by the thousands. Guess which way they lean?

Try as I might, I can only think of one example of such behavior from Democrats: Micheal Moore. However, Sinclair's decision eclipses Fahrenheit because Sony didn't tell all of it's theaters to pre-empt I,Robot to show Fahrenheit.

Now, I'm willing to concede I'm biased and that I just don't notice the deciept and trickery the left puts on. Can anyone reply to my post with a corresponding list of things Dems have done?

(No, rhetoric doesn't count- *every* candidate is full of hyperbolic BS)

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some.
Here are others.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

And here is the correct second link. :)

Re:See a pattern?

[Sevn]

As a admitted capitalist, there is a MAJOR difference between F/911 and the other shamelessly political movies. F/911 made over 100 million dollars. It's a definite profit maker. There isn't anything that counters it that will generate even 10 percent of that massive haul. I think some people forget that. I know disney never will.

Re:See a pattern?

[putch]

yeah and here is a site that says satan endorses bush.

do you believe everything you read on the web?

Re:See a pattern?

[Sevn]

No offense, but that guy's site screams chickenhawk. Have an actual news source? I'm trying to find a link to the craziness in Pennsylvania with ACORN that's been going on but I'm having so many problems finding a legitimate news source that I'm starting to think it was made up.

Re:See a pattern?

[syrinx]

Well, everyone gerrymanders... hell, in Texas, the Dems did it a decade ago, and now that the Reps are in power they want to do it their way.

F9/11, of course.

How about the military absentee ballots also in Florida being discounted? Guess which way *they* lean?

The entire system is corrupt, not just one side.

Re:See a pattern?

[Experiment 626]

-It's Texas Republicans who are Gerrymandering in their redistricting efforts...

The Texas Democrats were also trying to Gerrymander, just as badly as the Republicans. They even resorted to tactics like leaving the state during sessions they were legally obligated to be at, to prevent a quorum from being present. This is hardly a case where one party wants to Gerrymander and the other doesn't, it's a case where the law says it is the Republicans turn to draw up the maps, and the Democrats threw a fit because they liked their Gerrymandering better than the Republicans'.

-Sinclair wishes to put an obviously anti Kerry Docuganda on TV...

And this is worse than anti-Bush / pro-Kerry documentaries being put on TV by PBS, CBS, Sundance, etc. how? And what is a Docuganda, a documentary produced in Uganda? When someone wants to bash Bush, the Democrats hail it as free speech, but when someone wants to bash Kerry, like this documentary or the swift boat book, they immediately call for censorship. The First Amendment is not just about the right to free speech as long as you have something liberal to say.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawsuits by the Gore campaign to prevent the inclusion of veteran ballots in 2000.

Gerrymandering happens almost everywhere; for every Texas, there is a California where the Democrats have done the same thing.

Re:See a pattern?

[base3]

How about the military absentee ballots also in Florida being discounted? Guess which way *they* lean?

Right now, I'd wager those lean more towards Kerry than some might think. I know how I'd be voting if I were over there after having my enlistment extended by a stop-loss order.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eisner will. That guy has turned down more hits than most people in his industry have a chance to make. How he stays in his industry, let alone rises to the top, is anyones guess. The only thing I can come up with: He must give the world's most fantastic blowjobs.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Veteran ballots? I think what you mean is lawsuits by the Gore campaign against the inclusion of absentee, military ballots that arrived long after polls closed. Except that didn't happen either.

Oh sure, the press speculated for weeks that Gore would. Arguments were "reported" between "Al" and "Joe" about whether to do so. But they didn't actually do so.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

One, they were counted, despite being technically ineligible. As opposed to the voters that were technically eligible, but turned away.

Moore's stupid film was something the market wanted, not something that was crammed down it's throat. 100 megadollar payday.

And if you read into the redistricting in Texas, you'll find what the Republican's did is quite different from what the Democrats did.

Also, they're is Delay using the Federal government to hunt down democrats who'd left the state as a political manuver. Funny that. How one of the first things the new anti-terrorism powers were used for was to track down political opponants.

But that's republicans for you.

Re:See a pattern?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What about the breakins at Bush Headquarters? This is a pattern- true- but it's a pattern that coveres both sides relatively equally.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you have your facts wrong. While absentee ballots mailed from within the USA must be received by election day, the same doesn't apply to ballots sent from overseas; they simply need to be postmarked by election day and must arrive at some deadline (I think that it is a certain amount of weeks following Election day)

Its a very goofy rule, but that is the rule. Gore had definitive plans to pursue that action but the vote was delivered before that could happen.

In the literal sense, technically it was the Republicans that refused to count those votes, simply because by the official count they already had the vote. Go figure; shit happens when you have statistical ties.

Re:See a pattern?

[coaxial]

hell, in Texas, the Dems did it a decade ago, and now that the Reps are in power they want to do it their way.

Well actually, there was no gerrymandering in Texas ten years ago. The legislature could never agree on a redisticting plan, so the courts had to step in and draw the districts. Something had to be done, because the old districts violated the election laws because they relied on the old population distribution.

That was the flimsy rational DeLay used for an unprecidented mid-decade redistricting.

How about the military absentee ballots also in Florida being discounted? Guess which way *they* lean?

Well none since the election has occured yet.

Secondly, absentee ballots aren't typically counted at all. There's nothing nefarious behind it. It's just that absentee ballots go into a special bin, and the margin of victory is typically greater than the number of absentee ballots. The outcome isn't going to change, so who cares.

Also do you really think that everyone in Iraq is saying "Gee. Everything is going so swell! I don't mind being forced to say in after my time is up!" Perhaps you should check out Steve Brozak. Marine. Investment banker. Iraq vetran. Life long Republican. Now, the Democratic canidate for New Jersey's 7th congressional district.

To quote Brozak: "It was that same arrogant, contemptuous attitude. When I came back [from Iraq] and said we have a problem, we need to address it right away, we are fighting for our lives, their attitude was, 'We know better than you do.' It was their contempt for the people in uniform, it was their contempt for all Americans" that finally drove him out of the Republican Party.

Re:See a pattern?

[breagerey]

And this is worse than anti-Bush / pro-Kerry documentaries being put on TV by PBS, CBS, Sundance, etc. how?

mmmm... maybe it's different in that Sinclair is billing this as "news" and pushing it out just before the election commercial free in prime-time to stations that reach 25% of American households?

Would you be OK with this if they were planning on doing the same thing with F9/11 instead?

When someone wants to bash Bush, the Democrats hail it as free speech, but when someone wants to bash Kerry, like this documentary or the swift boat book, they immediately call for censorship.

There is a difference between something that is created solely to be a hit peice on somebody, and a news story that is less than flattering to somebody.

I realize that can be sujective as you get towards the middle, but Stolen Honor and F9/11 are both clearly hit peices.

Re:See a pattern?

[coaxial]

And this is worse than anti-Bush / pro-Kerry documentaries being put on TV by PBS, CBS, Sundance, etc. how?

What are you talking about? Can you even name one?

When someone wants to bash Bush, the Democrats hail it as free speech, but when someone wants to bash Kerry, like this documentary or the swift boat book, they immediately call for censorship.

No. We called them uncredible bald-faced liars, because that's what they are.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

-Flordia 2000 -- Black voters are disenfranchised by the thousands. Guess which way they lean?

As a Floridian I'd like to point out that it's spelt "Florida." Secondly, this claim is false no matter how many times it's repeated.

I [William Jefferson Clinton] did not have sexual relations with that woman--Ms. Lewinsky.
Thousands of black voters were deliberately disenfranchised in Florida in the 2000 election.
Both are false statements.

Re:See a pattern?

[CXI]

There certainly are patterns all kinds.

Re:See a pattern?

[mgblst]

I really don't think that Disney are going to be that upset. They probably consider the goodwill they will receive from the GOP to be worth a lot more than they would have gotten from this money. I can't see anyone at Disney hurting that much.

Of course, that is pretty sad, but it is indicative of how important poilitics is in the real world.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gerrymandering is nothing new. If Texas Democrats were the majority in that state, they would be doing the exact same thing. Gore campaign workers gave out packs of cigarettes to homeless people to get them to vote. Several voting machines and ballots went missing in St Louis in 2000 - the machines were eventually found in an abandoned lot, the ballots ended up getting mixed in with the official ones. It is common for Democratic politicans in WV and other urban areas to pay people to 'drive the elderly to the polls'. A neighboorhood in white suburban Memphis was 'accidentally' removed from city limits during a heated mayoral election in the early 90s by staffers with links to the Ford political machine. Rep Harold Ford Jr was seen (on TV!) making illegal campaign appearances at polls on an election day and was never charged. Dead absentee voters on the indian reservations in the Dakotas outnumber the people showing up at the polls. Paying illegal immigrants to register and vote at several early polling locations, etc, etc..the Republicans are mere amatuers at vote fraud compared to the Democrats.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

But thousands of black voters were deliberately disenfranchised in Florida.

By committing felonies and getting caught.

Re:See a pattern?

[mzs]

I lean left as well but:

Try as I might, I can only think of one example of such behavior from Democrats

I do not think that you looked hard enough. Voter fraud is worked on both sides of the aisle. Consider mayor Richard Daley's 'vote early and vote often' campaign that many consider gave JFK the presidency over Richard M. Nixon in 1960.

Or how about the 1948 Texas Senate race that gave LBJ the victory by a scant 87, yes only 87, votes. Most people believe that thousands of those votes were bought in south Texas or stuffed at the ballot boxes.

Think how different things could have been if... What if Johnson had never been president to escalate us into Vietnam? How would have Nixon handled the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Re:See a pattern?

[keraneuology]

Let's see... the Democrats have repeatedly invaded GOP campaign offices, breaking the arm of a campaign worker (October 7), terrorized a worker in Canton, Ohio by burglarizing an occupied building forcing the worker to barricade herself in an office for safety (October 10), burned swastikas into the lawn of a Bush supporter in Wisconsin (September 30), and fired a weapon into Bush campaign offices in Huntington, West Virginia (while campaign staff were watching Bush's acceptance speech), Knoxville, Tennessee (October 4).

In Milwaukee, Kerry supporters forcibly occupied a GOP campaign HQ and disrupted all operations using a bullhorn.

In Cleveland the NAACP's National Voter Fund and "ACT Ohio" are under investigation for voter registration fraud prompting the local prosecutor to state "We've seen voter fraud before, but never on this level. I grew up in Chicago and this looks like the politics of Mayor Daley in the '50s and '60s."

Pro-democrat voter registration fraud in Racine, WI

Michigan

Florida

Denver and Minnesota are also locations of suspected fraud.

Want more?

Re:See a pattern?

[overunderunderdone]

Can anyone reply to my post with a corresponding list of things Dems have done?

Sure:
-Republican forms get tossed in the trash but not Republican forms...
- Democratic registration for completely fictional people...
- Fraudulent, forged Democratic registrations as well dumping a full years worth of paperwork on the registrars lap in the last minute to ensure they weren't looked at and INTENTIONALLY putting down false information for Republicans or simply not turning them in.

- Texas Democrats who Gerrymandered in their redistricting efforts... (The recent successful Republican effort was tit for tat revenge for the 1990 redistricting that The Almanac for American Politics called "The most partisan redistricting in the '90 cycle in the nation." and "the shrewdest gerrymander" of it's time. A gerrymander that resulted in a house delegation that was 17 to 15 Democratic despite 56% of the voters at the polls voting for a Republican congressman.

- CBS (as partisan as Sinclair or Fox) doing it's traditional 60 Minutes week-before-the-election hit piece early this year using obvious forgeries and giving the Kerry campaign advanced notice so they could exploit it with their operation "Fortunate Son"

-Florida 1998 -- Massive voter fraud uncovered that eventually leads to the election being overturned. The efforts during the next cycle (2000) all efforts to prevent fraud demagogued as "disenfranchising black voters" by the EXACT same people who had perpetuated the fraud.

Re:See a pattern?

[overunderunderdone]

oops... first line should read "...but not DEMOCRATIC forms..."

That's what I get for just skimming the preview

Re:See a pattern?

[overunderunderdone]

No offense, but that guy's site screams chickenhawk.

Hawk, yes... I have no idea from looking at it that he never served in the military so I don't see how you can prefix that with "chicken.."

Your main point remains valid, he IS a biased source. HOWEVER if you click through most of his stories have links to local papers, local network affiliate news casts, a few larger regional papers etc. He has stories from plenty of sources that are as reliable (or not) as the one that prompted this /. story. You may have to click through twice, once through his list -> to his summary/commentary -> to the original news story from a legitimate news source.

I also have to say it's rather unfair, and silly for people to moderate the parent poster as flamebait when he is linking to a page that at least arguably answers the QUESTION that was moderated at +5 Insightful.

Re:See a pattern?

[Ohreally_factor]

What about the breakins at Bush Headquarters? This is a pattern- true- but it's a pattern that coveres both sides relatively equally.

Yeah, it's a pattern used by the Republicans themselves.

1) The most famous, the break in of DNC headquarters at the Watergate Hotel.

2) Karl Rove bugging his own office in Texas, then calling a press conference.

While there are examples of Democratic Party chicanerry in our nations history, currently the Republican Party is the institutional master of dirty tricks going back to Nixon. It goes like this: Nixon --> Lee Atwater --> Karl Rove

I'm not saying that there aren't isolated cases of Democrat dirty tricks, but lets face it, the Republicans are masters at this. There's your pattern.

I'm a registered Republican, but I will continue to vote Democrat at the national level until this cancer is removed from my party. Those that support Bush are either dumbasses or pigs, or dumbasses who are so dumb they think they've got a snowball's chance in hell in feeding at George Bush's trough.

Re:See a pattern?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Locally, the violence is much more from both sides for me- Portland, OR has seen it's share of broken windows in campaign headquarters of both major parties, missing and defaced yard signs (one guy in Lake Oz actually purchased 186 Kerry signs and a camera to catch the pro-Bush kids), missing computers, etc.

But you've missed one group of pro-Bushites; those who are actually making money off of the war on terror (mainly weapons and other war materiel sales people) and off of the recession (just about any businessman who can replace his American workforce with an East Asian one is raking in the dough).

Re:See a pattern?

[Ohreally_factor]

Sign stealing is about as bad as it gets around here. It happens on both sides and even in the local elections. In fact, in one case, the sign thief was the competing candidate.

I really wish some people would realize that their win-at-any-cost actions (even sign stealing) ultimately do more damage to us all than any possible damage from their candidate losing. This goes for those who spin the truth (which is worse than sign stealing). I hope pudge reads this.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And this is worse than anti-Bush / pro-Kerry documentaries being put on TV by PBS, CBS, Sundance, etc. how?"

What are you talking about? Can you even name one?

The best example of an anti-Bush/pro-Kerry "documentary" is, of course, Fahrenheit 911. However, documentaries are not geared towards the typical American. It is much more efficient to launch scary MTV "Rock the Vote" ads that talk about a potential draft that neither candidate supports. That way, the uninformed younger voters of the USA will vote to oust the current president based upon their unwarranted fears of an unlikely draft instead of their beliefs on any real issues.

Re:See a pattern?

[coaxial]

The best example of an anti-Bush/pro-Kerry "documentary" is, of course, Fahrenheit 911.

Of course that wasn't put on tv by PBS, CBS, Sundance or any television channel as the original poster implied.

That way, the uninformed younger voters of the USA will vote to oust the current president based upon their unwarranted fears of an unlikely draft instead of their beliefs on any real issues.

Unless of course they heard the administration critics saying there aren't enough troops in Iraq, and heard Bush was against a draft. The implication being that the President's opponent was for the draft, and therefore an antidraft vote would be a vote for Bush.

It's a push.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless of course they heard the administration critics saying there aren't enough troops in Iraq, and heard Bush was against a draft. The implication being that the President's opponent was for the draft, and therefore an antidraft vote would be a vote for Bush.

It's a push.

I don't think anyone should be persuaded by a fictional anecdote so separated from reality. That's incredibly unlikely, and I think everyone, including you, knows it. Those who know how one candidate feels about the draft will know how the other feels, and won't change their minds based on the ads. Those that do not, however, will be persuaded by the scare tactic and vote against Bush. I'd bet that the majority of the younger voters in this country would fall into the latter category.

Re:See a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds about right.

(When asked who favors the draft)
"But among 18-to-29-year-olds, 51 percent said Bush, and 8 percent said Kerry; 7 percent said both would. Twenty six percent said neither favored the idea, and 8 percent said they did not know. The margin of sampling error for the younger respondents was plus or minus 7 percentage points."

Ummm...

[temojen]

Why should the state be involved in a party's internal nomination? Isn't that what party conventions are for?

Re:Ummm...

[Detritus]

I don't think that the parties are obligated to participate in the primary process. They could go back to the old system of local caucuses and state/national conventions. The advantage of the primary is that the election is organized and paid for by the state. I believe primaries were viewed as a political reform, making the nomination process more democratic.

Republicans PAID FOR IT

[Jammer@CMH]

The organization that was conducting the fraud was largely paid for by the GOP. This was in no way 'independent'.

Re:Republicans PAID FOR IT

[bmetzler]

This was in no way 'independent'.

I didn't say that it was 'independent. I just said that Democrats should start condemning fraud when it benefits them, just like Republicans condemn a group that tries to commit fraud to help their party.

-Brent

Re:Republicans PAID FOR IT

[tantalic]

They do, and they do it for the same reason the republicans do - to give the public the impression that they were not behind the fraud and that they want a fair election.

Now I have more of a tendacy to believe the democrats then republicans ususally, but that's just because I don't trust the republican party as it seems to produce more propeganda then good public policy. (and I am conservative)

Re:Republicans PAID FOR IT

[Ohreally_factor]

Part of the beauty of this scheme (and there are many incredible elements, not the least of which was using the America Votes name), is that the RNC didn't even need to funnel money illegally through a secret slush fund. They could write a check.

Re:Republicans comdemn this

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If you can find a case of such egregious registration fraud being committed by Democrats, let us know, okay?

The Banana Republic strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

For a non-USian this looks really weird. Democrazy at its finest.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[spacecowboy420]

You are 100% correct. These are all liberal supporters of http://www.americavotes.org/

The devil is in the details. This is an ENTIRELY different organization, "Voters Outreach of America" has been misrepresenting itself as "America Votes" to accomplish it's goals. The article doesn't point out this fact, but others do, here's ONE:
Portland Communique

Re:Republicans comdemn this

[bmetzler]

Is Billhobbs.come a reliable news source?

If you would look at the link, billhobbs.com isn't creating the news stories, only archiving them. The sources that you claim aren't reliable include:

The Denver Post

The Palm Beach Post

The Jacksonville Sun

The Mercury

Denver's 9 News

Still think that voter registration fraud is only limited to a couple of republicans tearing up voter registration cards?

-Brent

you have to register for a party?

[dl248]

As a Canadian, I am getting the impression that in Nevada when you register to vote, you have to declare a party affiliation. Is this true? If so, this is quite alien to me.

Furthermore the last time I voted (I did not pre-register), all I did was show up to the voting location in my area, provide several pieces of ID confirming my identity and my current address (driver's licence, pay stub, etc) and I get a ballot. I vote. End of story.

Nowhere, I mean NOWHERE, do I EVER have to declare any party affiliation that I may have. If my vote is supposedly anonymous and confidential, it strikes me as just plain crazy to have to give a party affiliation when you register to vote. Simply ludicrous if this is the case.

Re:you have to register for a party?

[novarock]

you do not, you can choose to declare yourself repub, dem etc... i am independent. but the reason is so that you reg with a party is so that you can vote in the primary, as in voting inside your party for the candidate you want to nominate, as opposed to just voting for the party to fill the position.

as for the pre reg it is due to two things:
one there are a lot of votes that need to be counted, more than in any other public election on earth, and that is only with 50% turn out.
so there needs to be allot of prep
two. it is not done at the federal level, this stems from our history that started with us being a collection of semi independent states, and trusting it to be handled at the federal level want something they wanted, and people can always be suspicious of an election that is run by those in the election.

Re:you have to register for a party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I can explain it for you. Primary elections are administered by the states. Thing is they aren't actually any part of the political system! (process, sure, but not the real government).

A primary is the members of the political party itself voting for their candidates, and, as such, only members of that party are entitled to vote in it.

So, the two parties have a sweet deal... they get to pass on the costs and effort of having their prinary elections paid for by the states!

Disclosure of your political affiliation is therefore asked at registration to ensure that only eligible party members sucessfully cast primary ballots for each party.

And that is the only "acceptable" reason to ask, and, in my opinion, is reason enough to make the political parties take care of their own primary elections! Which does happen on occasion, at least it happened here, last time, in North Dakota, where there is no voter registration to begin with.

Re:you have to register for a party?

[Anonymous Coward]

"one there are a lot of votes that need to be counted, more than in any other public election on earth, and that is only with 50% turn out.
so there needs to be allot of prep"

A statement brilliantly representing the distorted american view of the world... fyi, the EU-wide elections have a lot more voters taking part, not to speak of such tiny third-world countries as India. Funny enough things are working there under circumstances providing much more difficulties, as coordinating an election in two dozen nations or coping with high illiteracy rates. Could this indicate a general flaw in american democracy? Nah...

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[DAldredge]

Then I was mistaken, I thought this was just another /. hit piece on the GOP.

And do not say that /. isn't biased as you run stories about 75% that are pro DEM.

How do you guys still have open primaries?

[Anonymous Coward]

We lost our blanket primary in washington because of a recent court decision. Stupid judges and republicans, not that the democrats weren't giggling about it. Appearently, me voting for who I wanted to elect interfered with their freedom of assembly, and prevented them from running ultra-conservative losers with no chance of winning.

Re:How do you guys still have open primaries?

[Bastian]

Kind of funny how before the primary you don't count if you aren't affiliated with a party, but after the primary fence-sitters are the beginning and end of the world.

Re:How do you guys still have open primaries?

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly if I lived in Ohio. I think the Republicans have pretty much written off Washington. Oddly enough, I and one of my state assembly people moved into the same brand new housing development, so if she pisses me off in Olympia I can just walk down the street and complain about it. Muwahahaha.

National ID-Card

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany we have national ID-cards. Yes, that means there are databases that can be combined and abused and whatnot. But that also means we don't have to register to be able to vote!

Every county sends out postcards with date and the only location where you can vote and we just show up on that day with our ID-card and this postcard.

It's that simple and a good reason for an ID-card.

How about....

[Anonymous Coward]

we just brutally kill the people who do this kind of thing? Republican, Democrat, whatever, anyone who'd do this is an ass-clown and should get kicked off the planet, painfully. Maybe gut shot with a musket and left to die in a field? It'd be sort of appropriate.

The only explaination:

[Anonymous Coward]

The facts must be baised.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[emilymildew]

It isn't. Sproul & Associates are lying about who they are. They are saying they are America Votes but they aren't.

As someone who is not an American....

[Joff_NZ]

my mind boggles at the situation where any sort of private organisation (with no accountability to anybody) is allowed to perform tasks such as voter registration..

Re:As someone who is not an American....

[AHumbleOpinion]

Generally you can register at various government offices, or at least pick up the mail-in form. You can download the pdf for the official mail-in form from various government websites and print it. The private party business is optional and generally a tool for a party to visit large blocks of likely members and sign them up. For example the dems passing out voter registration forms at a union meeting, the repubs passing out forms at a chamber of commerce meeting. Sometimes a party will pay a third party to hang out somewhere with high foot traffic, for example the dems will pay some outfit to sit out front of a supermarket and look for soccer moms. I expect fraud from all political groups, apparently so does the government, destroying a completed voter registration form is a criminal act.

Re:As someone who is not an American....

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the planet, as a group, has been kept in the dark about the extremists in the USA.

WWII was a fluke.

Its a felony

[ArmorFiend]

Failure to turn in a voter registration card is a felony offense. The guilty will do some hard time over this.

Re:Republicans comdemn this

[Anonymous Coward]

The Denver Post - republicans trying to change a colorado law that requires a valid ID to vote.

The Palm Beach Post - an angry muslim trying to hand in a box of applications at the registration deadline.

The Jacksonville Sun - 25 applications had incorrect addresses in Duval county Florida, 23 of them were marked democrat.

The Mercury - alot of people are registering to vote and mistakes are being made, OR "It's election sabotage" that is an "attempt to overload the elections office".

Denver's 9 News - people are registering multiple times to make so their friends collecting applications will make more money.

the last one is the only one that could be said to be flat out election fraud and not just mistakes. and those were done by people taking the applications for money not by the organizations for political reasons.

scummy, but not to the extent of what the GOP funded group is doing.

Some other cases of voter registration fraud

[RotJ]

Via name_withheld from SensibleErection:
Colorado
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Florida
Tennessee
Michigan
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Fundamentally Different

[ObligatoryUserName]

As far as I can tell from reading those articles, all of those cases are of people being twice-registered or imaginary people being registered. That's the type of fraud that is easy to detect, and hard to exploit. It always seems to be a case of greed on the part of the individuals who are gathering registrations. (Though, this alone is enough to justify getting rid of paid registrators, if you ask me.)

No, what the case in Nevada is, is a case of tricking people into thinking they are registered, tricking them into thinking that if they show up to vote, they will be able to do so. When they show up to the polls on Nov. 2nd, however, they will be turned away and they will have no recourse - how can they prove what happened? The fact that it happened in Nevada, a battleground state that is only very marginally leaning toward Kerry means that this could be the difference in the election. This could get very ugly. I'm shocked that it isn't getting wider media coverage.

Re:Fundamentally Different

[ksheff]

But the fact that they all involve some 3rd party organizations that are collecting registrations and then turning highlights the real problem. They shouldn't be involved in the first place. They breed vote fraud like all of those examples. If voters are too lazy or uninterested in getting their ass down to the govt offices to register to vote, they shouldn't be voting.

Do you think the local govts would allow 3rd party orgs to collect and hand out auto licenses? Hell no. Why should voter registration be the different? Purge the voter rolls after every Federal election and outlaw these voter registration drives.

Voting more important, can't use retail sales ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

... it's the fucking 21st century already. i can have pretty much any consumer item in the world (except duk nukem forever) shipped to me tommorrow ...

The retail sale analogies are foolish. A vote is a one time event, non-repairable, non-replacable. Your stolen credit card can be replaced, you liability for fraudulent purchases is minimal, lost or missing legitimate purchases are almost always easily replacable. The error/fraud rate of online purchases is offset by the convenience. Voting is a completely different situation, accuaracy and reliability trump convenience.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[Kris_J]

In the current environment, if you cover everything that's dodgy in US politics, you're going to be running "anti-GOP" stuff at least three times more often than "anti-Democrat" stuff. I'd say it's more like 10:1.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not pro DEM, I'm simply anti GOP. Unfortunately, right now it only appears that the DEMs have a chance of knocking the GOP off of their high horse.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[DAldredge]

No, it will be 50/50.

It's just the Dems are better at hiding it. If I am wrong please tell me what the GOP is doing that is worse than what the DEMS are doing.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[Kris_J]

You mean, apart from throwing out Democrat voter registrations, turning presidential speaches into 50 minutes of free party-political mud slinging, going to war on false pretences (including rigging CIA reports), routinely lying about pretty much everything ("I haven't met you before today"), using media control to air prime-time anti-Kerry, baselessm, propaganda just days before the election, hanging the troops in Iraq out to dry while the election battle is fought, using code in speeches to tell far right supporters that you'll overturn "Roe v. Wade" in a way that the majority of the contry won't understand, cuttin taxes for the rich under the guise of cutting taxes for everyone -- then saying you don't bother taxing the rich because they'll only get out of it anyway, lying about the economy, lying about the job market, requiring people to sign an oath of allegence before entering a GOP conference, using the threat of terror to distract from pretty much any problem that arrises. Need I go on?

Clinton got a blow job in the White House and was pursued mercilessly for well over a year. Bush is sending US kids to die for some filthy oil war and nobody cares. It's not 50/50, I can assure you of that.

Re:Republicans comdemn this

[tburke]

Hmmm, your Dem examples are:

• One guy was 15 minutes late filing voter reg forms in FL
• a legal fight over requiring ID for provisional ballots
• 25 forms where the address MIGHT be invalid, in a county with 500k registered voters
• A county commissioner claiming fraud because he is unable to cope with the flood of new registrants
• A legitimate complaint about duplicate registrations in Denver

One out of five isn't so bad, I guess. But I am not sure how some duplicate registrations in Denver are even in the same league as an RNC funded company with a misleading name shredding hundreds or thousands of Democratic voter registration forms in Nevada and possibly Oregon, Pennsylvania and Arizona.

How ironic.

[jbn-o]

In 2000, thousands of would-be Democratic Party voters in Florida were kept from voting by what was called "scrubbing" the voter rolls (Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" discusses this in detail). In subsequent years, the Democrats did virtually nothing to help these voters regain their voting rights; the plight of these citizens was not made an issue when Democrat Janet Reno ran in Florida in 2002. Democratic Party senators did not sign a Congressional Black Caucus letter brought to the floor, thus preventing any discussion of the Florida disenfranchisement (this was featured in the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11"). It would have only taken one senator to sign that letter, but not even Democratic Party Sen. Lieberman (who was running for office at the time) would sign the CBC's letter.

I hope that when people read this story they feel sorry for disenfranchised citizens, not a political party that doesn't work to help all Americans retain their right to vote. This is not a reason to vote Republican nor is it a reason to vote Democrat. It's a reason to question the motivations of both major American political parties.

Re:How ironic.

[BCW2]

In many states you are removed from the rolls if you skip one Presedential election, or two elections in a row. This is to purge the records and keep up to date lists without dead people still being eligable.

Re:How ironic.

[jbn-o]

This act centered on legitimate voters who were unethically denied the ability to vote. They were not dead people nor were they felons.

Re:How ironic.

[BCW2]

The every 4 year purges are to remove people that don't vote. Not for nefarious purposes. Use the right or loose it.

Re:How ironic.

[Anonymous Coward]

People who vote regularly do not become ineligable to vote. It doesn't matter whether they are alive. Some other procedure is necessary to keep dead people from voting, but not this one.

Re:How ironic.

[jbn-o]

And I'm obviously not talking about those purges. Palast was quite clear about the unethical purges which left the would-be voters I'm talking about unable to vote. I encourage you to read the book I pointed you to.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[DAldredge]

Please do a search on Voter fraud. You will find out that more than 70% of the cases are DEM related.

Are you talking about the SotU address? Clinton did the same damn thing.

Kosovo.

Clinton, Leadership of BOTH parties.

CBS news and the bush memos. PBS/NPR under clinton.

Examples of the troops being left out to dry?

This code talk is bull shit. Bush has come out at SAID he thinks Roe vs Wade should be overturned. He doesn't have to use code.

Kerry's tax returns show the rich DO GET OUT OF TAXES. Hell he only paid 12.9 percent.

And the Dems have removed catholic looking people from their conferences, simply because they are wearing collars.

You are just pissed because it isn't being done by your side. If it is wrong when one side does it then it is just as wrong when the other does it.

Re:Voting more important, can't use retail sales .

[putch]

i agree completely. i did, of course, fail to mention in my post that any such system would absolutely need a voter-verified paper trail.

but accuracy is important. my argument, here, is that since HAVA is require all voter registration databases (at least within each state) be standardized it is possible to allow for accurate, reliable, and efficient election day voter registration. part of the accuracy that is required is that you get accuracy of sample size. i know, it's not really a sample. but why, in this day and age, should i have to register weeks in advance when it can be done the day of the election?

Re:Voting more important, can't use retail sales .

[AHumbleOpinion]

why, in this day and age, should i have to register weeks in advance when it can be done the day of the election?

Well one reason may be that access to info like felony convictions is restricted and it would be inappropriate to allow remote terminals at registration sites to access that info, even indirectly. Some ACLU lawyer would probably sue if you could attempt to register under someone else's name and immediately be declined, invasion of privacy. They could require ID to register and thereby avoid these anonymous "background checks" but currently ID is not required in some locations. I think that there is controversy in some states where they are considering requiring ID at polling places. Things are far more complicated, err messed up, than either of us can imagine.

Re:Voting more important, can't use retail sales .

[putch]

well
1)HAVA requires all first time registrants to show id. (i dont really agree with this, but it's the law) this should be in effect for all 50 states by nov 2. or at least the states that dont want to pass up on the millions of dollars that HAVA compliance promises.

2) some states already have election day registration. so they must have some system.

3) voting (or attempting) with someone elses name is a felony. so it's not the aclu you have to worry about. do it too often and you'll wind up on that list yourself.

statewide voter registration databases are coming. they too are required HAVA. it's not that hard to have a blacklist of names. if you go to vote and turnout to be blacklisted then you'd vote by affidavit ballot and the burden would be on you to go before a judge and prove you are allowed to vote. ianal, but i work for lawyers who do exactly that.

i dont think people are going to use election fraud as a method of invading someones privacy when the internet is so handy.

but you are right, things are tremendously screwed up.

A curious lack of recall...

[StenD]

From an AP article:

Russell, a former Voters Outreach of America employee in Las Vegas, said he witnessed his supervisor shred eight to 10 Democratic registration forms from prospective voters. Russell could not recall his supervisor's name.

I can name the supervisors I've had for nearly the past 20 years, and this guy can't name his supervisor from a couple of months ago? Color me dubious.

Re:A curious lack of recall...

[tamrood]

Are you kidding? He had a temp job in a temporary operation at a temporary location, that was run by criminals pretending to be someone else. In my late teens I had plenty of jobs where I was never told the name of the guy next to me, or the lady who set my task list. The day this story broke, the office space rented by these sleazeballs was occupied by someone else, and they had skipped out on the rent. That he can't name his boss makes him no less credible.

Re:A curious lack of recall...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wouldn't have been stoned out of your gourd while flipping those burgers, I bet you could have remembered.

Re:Republicans comdemn this

[YrWrstNtmr]

Not 'registration fraud', but similar.

2000. Florida. Tossing out as many military absentee ballots as possible. (military voters being presumably somewhat right-leaning)

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[Anonymous Coward]

Rigging CIA reports? So Bush did all of that too while Clinton was in office? Hell, Hans Blix has come out and said that the reports on Iraq's weapons programs were understated.

The rich pay most of the taxes, cutting taxes for everyone (which was done), gives them a lot back because they are already paying a tremendous amount. The economy is growing and jobs being created. You can look all of this up easily on the Net.

Also, if you briefly met a person once 3 years ago and never saw them since, it wouldn't be difficult to forget that you've seen them before.

Clinton committed a felony by lying under oath in a court of law. You make it sound as if we are getting Iraqi oil for free, but even if we were, it's the lifeblood of the industrialized world. Going to war to secure oilfields from a nutcase does the world a favor. Tens of thousands more of died for less, but your head is implanted too far up your own ass to tell the difference.

On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

How much profit will Sinclair generate if this film makes the difference between Kerry being elected and Bush being elected?

Re:On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a huge if. Moore and friends have had FOREVER to push their ideology on people with their film, and the two won't even be directly compared. Lets just put it this way: moore has cemented himself in history books no matter what the outcome. The history book writers are going to sum up everything else as "a handful of movies answering to moore's charge" and nothing more. They are a day late, and 100 million dollars short. Even worse, Sinclair ends up looking like worse partisan hacks than moore and friends. It's VERY easy to justify playing a 100 million dollar movie. F/911 is an unmitigated success. You can scream "profit" and win that battle. It's a lot harder to justify playing an unknown that will automatically alienate 50 percent of your viewing audience. All they have accomplished is their very public need to show how out of touch with their viewers they are. I'm sure their advertisers are going to love that, and the phonecalls from pissed off viewers.

Crossover voting

[infonography]

Colazar said

Also, the studies that I saw that looked at "malicious cross-over voting" (Democrats voting for the kookiest Republican, so that the Republican would be sure to lose in the general election) concluded that when that happened, it was far out-weighed by voters crossing over to vote for what they thought was the opposite, the more centrist, least-objectionable candidate. (Which I think was the real problem that the national parties had with the blanket primaries--it tended to produce candidates who were less beholden to the party, and less partisan.)

I also am a WA resident, and the party ballot here is clueless. There isn't anything to stop crossover ballots in that primary. In fact it only helped. In the past we got rid of loons like Pam Roach with it. But in the end yes, it's a not useable by one side alone. No primaries would be a better idea. let them all on the ballot. Would be fun.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE

[Kris_J]

It looks like the Bush memos were forged by the Republicans in order to muddy the fact that Bush is a deserter. The Democrats don't even eject people wearing Pro-Republican T-shirts, they aren't ejecting catholics. Troops are not getting armour they need to survive, but Bush promises to help only if he's re-elected (rather than doing it now).

Clinton lied about an affair. Bush/Cheney constantly lie about everything. They're getting caught in lie after lie and the media controlled by their friends does nothing. Clinton's final State of the Union address was 51 weeks before the end of his term, not a few days before the election. It's not the same! Republicans keep saying that all the bad stuff Bush does is the same as something Kerry or Clinton might have done. It's not, it's several orders of magnitude worse, every damn time.

Treason?

[Undefined Parameter]

This is frightening; I registered to vote through a non-government organization where I am. If I hadn't gotten my voters registration card in the mail just today, I'd be flipping out, I think.

I'm pretty sure that what has been done is a federal offense, especially now that they've crossed state lines to do it in Oregon. What I'm not sure about is if it's High Treason. Is there a lawyer in the house?

~UP

Get over it already...

[Anonymous Coward]

Registered or not, just let the 4 democrats in Nevada vote and move on already.

Affiliation:

[BrokenHalo]

I find it incredible that you have to mark your affiliation on the form. So much for the land of freedom and democracy.

That aside, the penultimate sentence of TFA is interesting:

Russell was a disgruntled employee. He admits that if he had been paid, he probably wouldn't have talked.

Obviously an upstanding citizen with refined moral principles.

American democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I reckon they should give it a go one day. Maybe the people would like it.

Eewww

[Doc Ruby]

Because party nominations and conventions were so corrupt that the state took over much of the process. Now about as corrupt, and the state eleciton process is corrupted, too. Political corruption is the universal solvent.

!LP?

[Doc Ruby]

You're a "Libertarian" and you think election workers tearing up registrations to win their election is just an instance of the art of whining? You just want to carry a gun, and probably shoot someone. Why do you hate America?

Re:!LP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because for all these years I thought "Horse with no name" was a Neil Young song.

Naive paranoia?

[Doc Ruby]

Just like in South Dakota: http://keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=22,35221 . Where are even any reports of Democrats resorting to these treasonous crimes? Maybe because they're going to win, rather than try to hijack the American election game like the Republicans did in 2000.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[pudge]

My paranoia is not naive. Things like this happen every election cycle, and naivite is to think otherwise.

And the fact that you think the GOP did evil things in 2000 where the Democrats did not is probably why you ignorantly think it is one-sided in 2004, too.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[Doc Ruby]

Again, let's have some backup on your "fair and balanced" claims. It's interesting that inference of Democrat cheating in 2004 is good enough for you, but you require the physical evidence of Nevada Republican registration cheating to be processed by a US court.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[pudge]

Again, let's have some backup on your "fair and balanced" claims. It's interesting that inference of Democrat cheating in 2004 is good enough for you, but you require the physical evidence of Nevada Republican registration cheating to be processed by a US court.

See, you're mistaken. There is no physical evidence of Nevada Republican registration cheating. From what we know, they could be faked registrations, not even real ones. And assuming they are real, there is no reason to think that the Nevada Republicans were the ones who destroyed them, and not the person who supposedly blew the whistle.

You are making the logical fallacy of begging the question by assuming that this evidence points to the Republicans in order to show that I am ignoring evidence against the Republicans.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[Doc Ruby]

No, I am citing the physical evidence and testimony turned in to cops in Nevada, that points directly at the Republicans. It might possibly be faked, and that can be proven if so. This guy Sproul also got busted in Oregon registering voters in a public library, granted permission under his pretense that his organization was "nonpartisan". In that case, Sproul claimed he didn't realize that he named his partisan company after the largest nonpartisan voter registration organization in the country, though they're in the same business. But a worker in his office explained that they knew all about it, and explained away the confusion, without dispelling it, all the time with people who'd noticed the contradiction. That story was hard to get, too, as Sproul closed his local office, cancelled his phone account, and disappeared, after the story broke, and he'd done as much damage to voters as he could. Just like in this Nevada story, where he's also reported to have skipped on his rent. He can run, but he can't hide, as the story follows him to each swing state where he sets up his criminal operation. How much more does it take for you to take his destruction of your country seriously?

You are discrediting the actual evidence before analysis, while crediting unsubstantiated talk with some kind of "balance". You're inventing the balance, you're inventing the talk, and the evidence of cheating in Nevada is much more serious than your marginalization treats it. That kind of "balance" is the ethically bankrupt encroachment of the unfair into fair territory. All in the service of "reelecting" George Bush.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[Ohreally_factor]

Pudge,

Did you give up honesty and fairness in favor of win-at-any-cost partisanship? Is the Republican Party and re-electing George Bush so important that you'll sacrifice your integrity? Please, look at where you're going.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[pudge]

No, I am citing the physical evidence and testimony turned in to cops in Nevada, that points directly at the Republicans.

I saw no such evidence in the story that was posted, just evidence that some registrations had not been turned in, which pointed directly at no one. If there is additional evidence, it wasn't posted in this story, and I haven't seen it, and you haven't provided it, and it is not the evidence I am referring to.

You are discrediting the actual evidence before analysis

Not at all. I am discrediting people who assume what the evidence says now, before it is analyzed. People are saying this evidence says something that at this point it does not say, and I am pointing out this obvious fact.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[Doc Ruby]

FTA:
"Las Vegan Eric Russell and his girlfriend took a packet of documents to the Las Vegas FBI office"
"They were thrown away in the trash. I grabbed them out," said Eric Russell."

Sure it needs to be analyzed before the FBI can charge Sproul and company with Federal crimes. But that's evidence, and witnesses. Blind spot?

Re:Naive paranoia?

[pudge]

I've already addressed this evidence several times. This evidence, from what we know, *does not point at any wrongdoing by the company.* For all you know, Russell took them himself, and pretended they were thrown away. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the company threw them away at this point.

I am not saying the company did or didn't do it. I am saying this evidence does not point any more at the company than it does at Russell himself. If you disagree with that, you're the blind one.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[Doc Ruby]

No, I guess you've decided in favor of optimism despite evidence about Republicans and pessimism about notions about Democrats. From what we know, the evidence *points to crimes by the company*. It is you who are deciding to deny it, which is a rational right to reserve. But the two accusations are hardly equivalent in terms of evidence. Especially the pattern established by Sproul, in various states. Of course you and I are not in the Nevada court presiding over this investigation. So I'll just get to say "I told you so" when the obvious Republican crimes are proven.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[pudge]

No, I guess you've decided in favor of optimism despite evidence about Republicans

There is no evidence about Republicans, as I've already shown.

From what we know, the evidence *points to crimes by the company*

Only insofar as it also points at Russell framing the company for crimes it did not commit. Anyone who worked there could have thrown these registrations away, including Russell. To assume he did not is stupid.

So I'll just get to say "I told you so" when the obvious Republican crimes are proven.

This shows how ignorant you are, how you really have no clue what we're talking about. I am not taking a position on what the evidence means. No matter what happened, it won't be contrary to anything I've said.

You can say "I told you so," but it won't relate to any position I've held, since I am merely stating a logical fact: from the available evidence you mentioned, it is just as possible that Russell is trying to frame the company as it is that the company is trying to prevent people from voting.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[Doc Ruby]

In other Nevada Republican democracide news (section "2.0"), the former director of the Nevada Republican Party tried to throw out 17,000 Democratic voter registrations in Clark County. He admitted that he is "looking to take Democrats off the voter rolls". The "1.0" section boils down the suit that will test the evidence and eyewitness testimony to Sproul's cruder dirty work - so similar to reports of his work in Oregon. Both operations are directly financed by the Republican Party.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[pudge]

You're lying. What Burdish is doing is NOT affiliated with the Republican Party. From the actual story: Republican Party spokesman Chris Carr said his party is not tied to the challenge.

Further, there is nothing remotely illegal about what Burdish is doing. He is challenging registrations in court. He sure seems like a slimeball, but if there is no merit to the challenges, then the courts won't do anything. Frankly, I think his challenge has Constitutional merit, though it is apparently in opposition to state law; that being the case, I can't see any court changing state law this close to the election, thereby disenfranchising thousands of voters. Further, even if the courts DID do something, it surely would not throw out only the registrations Burdish selected, but it would have to throw out all of them statewide, of all parties, that fall into the same category.

So, being that this is NOT financed by the GOP, and being that it has no chance of success, this is really a non-story, except as an item of humor or legal interest.

And as to "1.0", I find this a bit baffling:

It was exposed that this group hired and trained employees to solely register Republican voters and walk away from anyone who considered registering Democrat.

So what? How is this interesting? Groups have the right to register whomever they want. They can't actively discourage people from registering, but they can refuse to accept registrations. If they did destroy registrations, then that is a crime, but as we all know, there's no evidence that shows they did this, because it just as likely from the evidence that Russell himself did it to frame the company.

It certainly should be investigated, as it is being investigated. If they come up with more evidence that actually does point to the company, or Russell, then we will find out more.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[Doc Ruby]

Right - the former chairman of the Nevada Republican Party sues Clark County to purge 17,000 Nevada Democrats from voting, and he's not associated with the Republican Party. And the "interest" in the Sproul company's training to ignore Democrats in registration is its corroboration of their designs to ensure only Republicans get to vote in Nevada. When they claim they're only patriotic Americans getting out the vote, that evidence will show their strategy backed up their success. Destroyed Democrat registrations won't be rationalizable as "mistakes", but part of their plan to steal the election. As usual, your lack of interest in either of these outrageous revelations can be described as, at best, naive.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[pudge]

Right - the former chairman of the Nevada Republican Party sues Clark County to purge 17,000 Nevada Democrats from voting, and he's not associated with the Republican Party.

Stop lying. I did not say he was not associated with the Party -- he appears to be a member -- but that this ACTION was not affiliated with the Party. And I was responding to YOUR claim that his efforts were FUNDED by the Republican Party, and there is not only no evidence to support that claim, but there is contrary evidence that denies it (the official spokesman stating that there is no connection).

Now, it's possible the GOP is lying, and they are affiliated with the action. But for you to claim it as fact is just -- lying. Flat-out telling a big fat whopper.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[Doc Ruby]

No, I am taking the risk of being wrong by telling the plain truth before it's proven. Again, if I were the judge in the now-pending suit, I'd be reserving judgement, because that will send an important person to prison. But as a citizen, the substance of these claims is easily enough to stir my outrage. Your outrage so far has only been stirred by inagined Democrat parity with these obvious crimes. And in attacking my revelations of your double standard.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[pudge]

No, I am taking the risk of being wrong by telling the plain truth before it's proven.

Bull-fucking-shit. You said something as fact that is supported by no evidence whatsoever. You were lying, and now you say it is justified to lie because you are not a party to the lawsuit? You're out.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[Doc Ruby]

Happy now that Sproul's democracide in Pennsylvania, funded by the RNC, is being reported? They don't even pay their employees. That's show biz!

Re:Naive paranoia?

[pudge]

"Democracide"? Huh? There is nothing remotely wrong with not registering people, as best I can tell. Maybe there's a PA state law about it, but I've never heard of such a thing.

It is wrong to accept a registration and then destroy it, discard it, or otherwise not file it properly. But it is not wrong to not accept that registration in the first place.

Re:Naive paranoia?

[Doc Ruby]

How about fraud?

"Holly McCullough, special assistant to the library director, said a woman from the firm said they were working for America Votes, the nonpartisan but liberal leaning organization."

"Twilla said the canvassers were told to say they worked for Career Concepts, a local employment agency. Career Concepts was contracted by a Florida firm, Apple One, to assist them in locating temporary employees. A spokeswomen for Career Concepts last night said her firm did not employ the canvassers."

Is it wrong to pretend that the Republicans are merely legally registering the voters they want, when they're lying to the public, government facilities, and anyone else necessary to do it? While pretending that Democrats are doing that, when they're not? Gaming the system, exploiting security weaknesses in a vast social system, to win power you don't represent, kills democracy. Are you proud of your success?

Re:Naive paranoia?

[pudge]

How about fraud?

If they did misrepresent their organization, then it is wrong, but doesn't directly harm Democracy in a way the word "democracide" implies, like actual voter fraud does.

Further, there's no hard evidence that happened. The only hard evidence is that they were told to not register Democrats, which is perfectly acceptable.

Is it wrong to pretend that the Republicans are merely legally registering the voters they want, when they're lying to the public, government facilities, and anyone else necessary to do it? While pretending that Democrats are doing that, when they're not?

Is it wrong to pretend I am saying what you say I am saying? I never said this group is merely doing anything: I am only saying what we can reasonably know from the available evidence.

Is it wrong to pretend the evidence says more than it does?

Is it wrong to pretend this is the Republicans, instead of one group affiliated with the Republicans? If not, then the Democrats have paid crack to people to perpetrate voter fraud.

Gaming the system, exploiting security weaknesses in a vast social system, to win power you don't represent, kills democracy. Are you proud of your success?

Are you proud of lying, trying to make it look like I support fraud, when I am in fact -- clear to any reasonable person -- merely stating the clear fact that no fraud has been shown by any evidence that amounts to more than he-said-she-said?

Oh the hypocrisy...

[mrbrown1602]

I find it funny that people are complaing about a private company tearing up the registrations of Democrats, but when Democrats in swing states register to vote 39 times and openly brags about it in the media, nobody says anything about it.

Re:Oh the hypocrisy...

[Anonymous Coward]

are you talking about the article where poor people who where working part time jobs getting people to register had their friends fill out multiple forms so they got paid more?

they are ripping off the democrates. you should be happy.

Drudge warns of this

[frangro]

I don't think this claim is a far cry from what Drudge had up this morning. Take these types of claims with a grain of salt. It is easy to say all kinds of registrations were thrown in the trash if you don't actually have them. Its a totally different matter when registrations linked to the Democratic party end up registering dead people and dogs and things like that. http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc66.htm

Re:Drudge warns of this

[Anonymous Coward]

did you read the page from the manual in question?

besides the fact that it has nothing to do with what you are talking about it only talks about taking precautions to avoid voter intimidation.

drudge is just getting his panties in a bunch over the user of the words 'pre-emptive strike'.

Typical Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"

Manual Watch this story, slashdotters; it's going to be BIG. It looks like the Dems are doing their best to steal this election or at the very least, tie it up in court for months. They've already admitted it for Heaven's sake!

In all my years of voting and observing elections, I've noticed that every case of vote fraud has ALWAYS been Democrats. Democrats are opposed to any measure to cut down on fraud, such as voter ID. No wonder people like the Democrats; you can vote for years AFTER you die!! Hell, you can vote even if you don't exist! They even let you vote more than once if you want to!!

Re:Typical Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

drudge seems to be down, but i saw that earlier.

it talks about informing people and the media about potential voter intimidation in places that have reported it in the past.

my god, what will they do next?

i'm pretty sure the use of 'pre-emptive strike' was a joke, you know, the whole iraq thing?

I've registered voters as a GOP volunteer...

[JimMarch(equalccw)]

...in California and what I was always told was that if they're registering as something other than Republican, we don't take the form - but we DO give it to 'em either blank or filled out there by them, and show them how to fold it and mail it.

That way we can't be accused of anything like this.

Now granted, something less than 100% will drop the thing in a mailbox, even though it's postage paid by the California Secretary of State. But that ain't our fault.

(I'm a Libertarian-leaning Republican, member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.)

Krugman's column

[js7a]

Thank you for holding Pudge to account. I have emailed him a copy of Krugman's column on the topic.

Re:Krugman's column

[Doc Ruby]

He's right that many of these charges haven't been proven yet in criminal courts - they've only been reported in the last few days. But the election is two weeks away, the charges are serious, credible, and backed by both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. We're not officers of the court assigning sentences. We're citizens who must be outraged when our democracy is attacked, demanding swift justice. Not inventing imaginary "everyone does it" equivalents. Slashdot is part of "the media", misfit or not. Imagine if the Washington Post waited for the Senate Watergate hearings on that Republican crime: without journalistic interest, the hearings never would have been held, and that "second rate burglary" would never have risen to the impeachment threat that forced Nixon to resign. Incidentally ending an ideological/profiteering war across the world, and exposing Republican treason against democracy. On that note, a Watergate-style breakin in Toledo, (swing state) Ohio also hasn't been proven. It is also not yet proven that voting Republican may be hazardous to your health, but it's an open secret . Thanks for the backup.

I call BS on you.

[RealProgrammer]

(Disclaimer: I lean right, but I love the truth more than I like leaning)

-Democratic forms get tossed in the trash, but not Republican forms...

If that is what happened. All that is certain is that some forms were brought to the FBI that had been ripped in half. We don't know who did the ripping, or why. Maybe these were duplicates - people filling out two forms. Maybe the people turning in the forms to the FBI did it. Who knows?

-It's Texas Republicans who are Gerrymandering in their redistricting efforts...

Both parties have done this forever. It's wrong, but Texas is not the only place where redistricting efforts have been charged with foul play. You should see the Congressional districts in Democrat-controlled Illinois. Also, that's what the out-of-power party always says, in an effort to get leverage. Whether it's happening in Texas, and what effect it finally has, who knows.

-Sinclair wishes to put an obviously anti Kerry Docuganda on TV...

What about CBS-ABC-NBC-CNN? You can't ignore that media bias. Besides, Mr. Kerry is proud of his service to the country in Viet Nam. There are others who served with him who recall it differently. There are other groups who honor his service, though.

-Flordia 2000 -- Black voters are disenfranchised by the thousands. Guess which way they lean?

Ah yes, the 'disenfranchised Florida voter' myth. Here is the reality:

Prior to the 2000 election (in the race for Miami Mayor), there was a scandal about convicted felons voting. The Miami Herald ran a series of Pulitzer Prize-winning stories about the Florida voter rolls having thousands of felons and deceased voters. In response to the public outcry, Florida Legislature mandated that the Secretary of State clean up the voter registration rolls.

Anybody who's ever maintained a list of names and addresses knows that they are always filled with errors. This was complicated by the fact that some states don't bar felons from voting, while Florida does. A felon moving from a voting-felon state should continue to vote, while a felon shouldn't be able to move from a non-voting-felon state in order to vote. (Can you say "reform"?)

So five months before the election, the Secretary of State sent a list to the counties to use to purge their individual voter registration lists of felons and the deceased. They keyed on full name, since that's the only common field in both databases. They also gave the aliases that the felons were known to have used. Apparently at least one county election official was on the list! As a result of the flaws in the state list, many counties continued to get their lists from the courts, illegally ignoring the official state list.

People were given an chance to re-register if they could show that they were not a convicted felon, but merely had the same name. From glennbeck.com, (conservative site, but the figures are in the ballpark, anyway):

Research revealed that 239 [of] the 4,678 African Americans on the Miami-Dade felons' were eventually cleared to vote which represented 5.1 percent of the total number of blacks on the felons list. Of the 1,264 whites on the list, 125 proved to be there by mistake-which is 9.9 percent of the total. The error rate for whites was almost double that for blacks.

Most of the people who were made to re-register did so without difficulty. There were a handful of people who didn't get themselves re-registered because they couldn't wade throught

No so fast

[RealProgrammer]

(Disclaimer: I lean right, but I love the truth more than I like leaning)

-Democratic forms get tossed in the trash, but not Republican forms...

If that is what happened. All that is certain is that some forms were brought to the FBI that had been ripped in half. We don't know who did the ripping, or why. Maybe these were duplicates - people filling out two forms. Maybe the people turning in the forms to the FBI did it. Who knows?

-It's Texas Republicans who are Gerrymandering in their redistricting efforts...

Both parties have done this forever. It's wrong, but you should see the Congressional districts in Democrat-controlled Illinois. Also, the minority party always cries gerrymandering to get leverage. Whether it's happening in Texas, and what effect it finally has, who knows.

-Sinclair wishes to put an obviously anti Kerry Docuganda on TV...

You can't ignore the overwhelming mainstream media bias. Besides, Mr. Kerry is proud of his service to the country in Viet Nam. Those who served with him recall it differently. There are other groups who do honor his service, though.

-Flordia 2000 -- Black voters are disenfranchised by the thousands. Guess which way they lean?

Ah yes, the 'disenfranchised Florida voter' myth. Here is the reality:

Prior to the 2000 election (in the race for Miami Mayor), there was a scandal about convicted felons voting. The Miami Herald ran a series of Pulitzer Prize-winning stories about the Florida voter rolls having thousands of felons and deceased voters. In response to the public outcry, Florida Legislature mandated that the Secretary of State clean up the voter registration rolls.

Anybody who's ever maintained a list of names and addresses knows that they are error-prone. Complicating this, some states don't bar felons from voting, while Florida does. A felon moving from a voting-felon state should continue to vote, while a felon shouldn't be able to move from a non-voting-felon state in order to vote. (Can you say "reform"?)

So five months before the election, the Secretary of State sent the state purge list to the counties. They keyed on full name, since that's the only common field in both databases. They also gave the aliases that the felons were known to have used. Apparently at least one county election official was on the list! As a result of the flaws in the state list, many counties continued to get their lists from the courts, illegally ignoring the official state list.

People were given an chance to re-register if they could show that they were not a convicted felon or dead, but merely had the same name. From glennbeck.com, (conservative site, but the figures are in the ballpark, anyway):

Research revealed that 239 [of] the 4,678 African Americans on the Miami-Dade felons' were eventually cleared to vote which represented 5.1 percent of the total number of blacks on the felons list. Of the 1,264 whites on the list, 125 proved to be there by mistake-which is 9.9 percent of the total. The error rate for whites was almost double that for blacks.

Most of the people who were made to re-register did so without difficulty. There were a handful of people who didn't get themselves re-registered for various reasons.

While that is a hassle for those handfull of people, and it's clear that the system is flawed, it certainly doesn't represent a systematic effort to disenfranchise Democratic voters, African-American or otherwise.

As

That's how it should be

[billybob]

I live in the US and am disgusted by the whole election process. There's so much fraud here it makes me sick. What you just described sounds so nice, and it makes perfect sense.

Why DOES someone have to register to vote? It's just ridiculous here. I really do despise my country because of dumb shit like this. Like you said, it's not rocket science. It shouldnt be so freaking complicated.

Uh

[billybob]

your story linking to "republican forms get tossed in the trash" mentions absolutely nothing of the sort. it's about some dude found with reg cards in his trunk, but mentions nothing of the party affiliations on them.

Yah, we all know how unbiased Drudge is

[billybob]

Oh wait, just kidding. :P Give me a break man. Drudge is extreme republican bias, citing him for anything is just a joke.