RNC and Voter Suppression

Indomitus writes "Slashdot recently listed the story about a voter registration company tearing up registration forms from Democrats but the story is quickly becoming much more than just that one story. Daily Kos is keeping track of the many folks digging up more and more information on this scandal-in-the-making. This is not only an important story to get out to voters, it's a great example of power of the internet to facilitate participatory journalism."

Comments

initial thoughts?

[Shakrai]

I predict a deluge of posts saying that /. is biased towards the left and pointing out that the Democrats haven't been above using dirty tricks in the past (and may very well be doing so now). Of course this ignores the obvious fact that no matter who is committing such fraud it's ultimately a travesty of justice and the biggest danger our Republic currently faces.

Of course the bigger question (that nobody is asking) is are these actions being coordinated by the RNC in any way shape or form? Is it a "wink, smile and nod" system or was the RNC truly caught off guard by this (as they will no doubt claim)? It also begs the question of why would you hire such clearly biased people and trust them with such an important responsibility?

Much more importantly how exactly does voter registration work in Nevada? Why should the system be setup in such a way as to even allow this to happen? In my state the only way to register to vote is to do it yourself in person or mail it to your local board of elections. Why the hell are third-party people (with either party) being allowed to do anything more substantial then hand out registration forms and encourage people to actually register? In a smart system they would be allowed to drive them to the Board of Elections if need-be but they should have no business handling these forms after they are filled out.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Hard_Code]

Yeah, just like reporting a stabbing is just like crying "murder" if the victim dies. Damn attentions whores.

Re:initial thoughts?

[TykeClone]

It's worth noting, by the way, that the Democrats have been waging a systematic campaign to get Ralph Nader off ballots, with no one seeming too upset about it...

Like how he was kicked off of the ballot in Pennsylvania(?) because he had enough signatures obtained in a timely manner, but the signatures were from Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.

Re:initial thoughts?

[j0nb0y]

Unfortunately, it looks like that's going to happen no matter who wins. There's ample amounts of fraud on *both* sides. At least this year, unlike 2000, at lot of it is being uncovered *before* the election, which is the superior time to catch it, imo.

My advice to everyone on this particular issue:
1. Send those involved to jail. The GOP should oust the people who decided to fund this fraudulent organization. Yesterday.

2. States affected should pass emergency legislation to allow late voter registration for this election, and encourage everyone who registered this year to double check that they *are* registered. This should be heavily publicized. All this is expensive, but much better than the alternative.

I'm a republican, btw.

Re:initial thoughts?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

This is nothing more than setting the stage for cries of "stolen election" should Bush win.

Your fellow citizens are quite likely being denied their civil right to vote. All you can think about is how this is some conspiracy fueled by partisanship? Unless you can provide some proof that the Democrats are doing something shady regarding the right to vote, your speculation is useless. All the Democrats have done is make their people aware of these problems so that they may be used to insure that the vote is properly counted. That's believing in the rule of law, not trying to intimidate and deny civil rights.

There is a pattern of Republican operatives and party members attempting to suppress the vote. At times, the suppression is racially targeted. I will not live under these conditions, and I am completely unwilling to give this country up to people who would impose them.

When it comes to the people's right to choose their leadership, justice will be served. If it's not done through fair ballots or fair courts, it will be done with some very unfair chaos. We've reduced ourselves to Civil War twice before in this nation's history, don't believe it can't happen again.

Without faith in the integrity of our system, what law can be just and what authority can be legitimate? If you don't insure that your fellow citizens are delivered the guarantee of voting that the Constitution gives them, then who will insure yours?

Re:initial thoughts?

[bibliophage]

It's happening ins Florida, too.

Re:initial thoughts?

[revscat]

My advice to everyone on this particular issue: 1. Send those involved to jail. The GOP should oust the people who decided to fund this fraudulent organization. Yesterday.

No, that would be the ethical thing to do. Instead they just fired them, and then moved them to Ohio to do the same damn thing.

I'm a republican, btw.

I was too, until I realized how deeply criminal the party has become. From Tom Delay to Cheney to Rowland to the treason committed against Valerie Plame to the almost innumerable criminal investigations into Republican activities, it just sickens me. I *was* an Eisenhower Republican, but today that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal.

Re:initial thoughts?

[worm eater]

Is it a "wink, smile and nod" system or was the RNC truly caught off guard by this (as they will no doubt claim)?

Well, three people who resigned from the South Dakota GOP over the voter fraud scandal, have now been hired to work for the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. I think that's more than just a "wink, smile and nod" system. They are actively being encouraged to maintain these tactics.

If the DNC is involved in this sort of thing, lets see some evidence. And no, the Colorado election day manual is not evidence of voter fraud, or even of false allegations of voter fraud, but merely that the DNC would like to see confirmed stories of GOP voter fraud from the past resurface. Not even remotely comparable.

Re:initial thoughts?

[yoder]

"I'm a republican, btw."

Cool. I like being proven wrong every once in a while. Like so many other liberals, it is easy for me to put republicans in one neat little group. Easier to vilify.

Re:initial thoughts?

[drix]

Bzzt! Wro-ong! I defy you to tell the the population of the county for any individual county in the United States. You, sir, have no clue what the capital-T True population of any county as, and neither does anyone else short of the Lord. Oh, you will lamely answer by foisting up the latest decennial census results for that county. To which I utterly dominate your argument by noting:

1. The census undercounts minorities, the very same people who have been the target of extensive voter registration efforts in states like, ta-da!, Ohio. It is well-documented that the 2000 census did not use statistical correction procedures to control for undercounted low-income persons and persons of color. Q: Could that result in a discrepancy of several thousand? A: Easily.
2. Even if said procedures were employed, is the census a full count? Nope. And several thousand in a large county in Ohio is well within the margin of error. Q: Could that result in a discrepancy of several thousand? A: Easily.
3. Even if the census were perfect, a lot of people have died or moved since 2000. Duh. Not even worth making the point. Think before you post, boy. Q: Could that result in a discrepancy of several thousand? A: Easily.

I have come to conclude that, well, you're just freakin' wrong. Better luck next time, try again, and all that.

Re:initial thoughts?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

I'm *very* familiar with the news story. This is about a group using deception and fraud to violate people's right to vote. How many of those registrations were people who had just moved and thought it would be convenient to do a change of address they hadn't gotten to yet. I've done plenty of those on voter registration drives. I've also turned in new GOP registrations, as much as I loathed doing so.

These people are impugning my integrity as someone who attempts to register new voters and insure that my neighbors are able to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. They have even attempted to confuse the names of valid groups that do voter registration drives.

There are laws surrounding how you can register voters, these people violated those laws with the intent of suppressing voters they disagreed with. If you're not bothered by people's rights being denied, then why should I be bothered the next time yours are denied? Concern over this is your duty as a citizen of this country, turning a blind eye is treasonous.

Re:initial thoughts?

[Jherico]

I hate to say this, but you may be barking up the wrong tree. Registration levels are usually way below population levels, so the idea that voter registration groups managed to hit everyone in the county, even the people missed by the census, AND get them to register seems pretty unlikely. Also, the eligible voters in a given region are actually a subset of the population, since you can't vote if you're under 18. All these factors work against your arguments. On the other hand no one has posted a link to any actual backing for this story, so it might just be apocryphal bullshit anyway.

Oh well...

[TheLink]

Maybe the UN should send in troops to help restore democracy :).

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[Zelet]

You have your facts wrong. They want their "operatives" to highlight past voter intimidation so that there will be a spotlight on the area to possibly make that intimidation impossible.

Never goes just one way

[Brown Eggs]

While I am certainly no Republican or Republican supporter (I am voting Libertarian), I just wanted to point everyone to this. It is things like this that led me to believe that both parties are corrupt (and EQUALLY corrupt) and that looking elsewhere is in the best interest of all rational people. Now let's hope that such heresy does not catch the ire of the moderators and get me modded down

Re:Never goes just one way

[gl4ss]

if they're corrupt, how the hell you suppose you even CAN 'look' elsewhere?

their corruption NEEDS to be pointed out again and again, and fought, not just letting it happen.

Oh the shock and surprise.

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Continuing on this thread and another highlight over at DailyKos:
Rock the Vote versus the RNC, Ed Gillespie told MTV to stop talking about the draft. MTV responded very succinctly, IMNSHO:

Dear Chairman Gillespie,

The letter I received from you yesterday was quite a surprise. It struck us as just the sort of "malicious political deception" that is likely to increase voter cynicism and decrease the youth vote. In fact, it is a textbook case of attempted censorship, very much in line with those that triggered our organization's founding some fifteen years ago.

I am stunned that you would say that the issue of the military draft is an "urban myth"that has been "thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United States."

I have some news for you. Just because President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld, and for that matter Senator Kerry, say that there is not going to be a draft does not make it so. Just because Congress holds a transparently phony vote against the draft does not mean there isn't going to be one. Anyone who thinks that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is living on another planet.

By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with. There's a place for that kind of sentiment (and your threats), but its not here in our country.

There are questions that the politicians are running away from. How long can we keep 138,000 U.S. troops or more on the ground in Iraq? What if full-scale civil war erupts there, as the CIA has warned is a realistic possibility? Would the next President be faced with a choice of pulling out of Iraq rather than institute a draft? Would women be drafted? What exactly would the draft-age be?

According to the Pentagon's own internal assessment, there are "inadequate total numbers" of troops to meet U.S. security interests. The current issue of Time magazine reports that, "General John Keane, who retired last year as the Army's No. 2 officer, says the continued success of the all-volunteer military is not guaranteed" Keane has told Congress that adding more than 50,000 troops to the Army would require thinking about a return to the draft."

But you want young people to believe that the draft is just an "urban myth." I was expecting that you were going to present some facts to back up your assertion. But, instead, you have demanded that we stop talking about it.

Now this is probably flamebait, but I think it's poignant given this thread:
Conservatives: Still trying to enforce the 3/5ths compromise!

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[Otter]

So, now, along with their campaign about the bogus threat of a draft, they've added the equally bogus accusation of "a textbook case of attempted censorship". Perhaps they should open up that textbook and see what "censorship" really means. Those imprisoned bloggers in Iran might be able to elaborate.

Re:Oh the shock and surprise.

[crmartin]

All right, let's take them in turn then:

(1) the military doesn't want a draft. Your response: the military can't turn down a draft if one is established by law.

You neglect to ask the essential questino: if the military can't use draftees, why would one be instituted?

(2) DoD doesn't want a draft either. Your response: they wouldn't propose such a thing in an election year.

True. But then, since there is no reason to imagine that the military wants one -- it doesn't fit with the way a US military works any longer -- there's no reason to imagine that someone would propose such a thing in a non-election year. You're suffering under the burden that you're proposing that in the face of uniform denials, you're having to find some reason to imagine that they could be lying. But the only evidence you have for it is a bunch of political opponents trying to sell the idea.

Might as well assert, say, that Kerry wants to force everyone in the US to marry someone of the same sex. No evidence for that? Well, that just proves it.

(3) The draft's illegal. Your response: it would be legal if it were made legal.

True enough. But then, it hasn't been passed, the law proposing it wasn't passed, and Bush has insisted he's veto such a law if it did pass.

(4) The law to provide for a new draft failed 402 to 2. You're response: there's no reason to suppose that this was a serious vote.

You're right: it wasn't a serious vote. Everyone knew it would fail, and the bill would normally have died in committee.

Until the Democrats started lying about plans for a draft, using as their evidence the very Democrat-sponsored bill they proposed.

So, to settle the question, it was brought to the floor and voted down.

(5) The military is overextended etc. Now, this might be true -- although I work with the military and follow the more "technical" open sources pretty closely, and that's not the way it's being reported there. In fact, if you follow the reports more closely, you'll find that the areas in which "insurgents" are operating are getting smaller, the "insurgent" attacks are not being very successful and are losing steam, the Iraqis are increasingly trying to get rid of the "insurgents", and if you plot the attacks on a map you find that the attacks are very very highly correlated with where Western media is found.

But let's say you were right. Then you are still ignoring the fact that a draft would not solve that problem. Modern forces can't use "cannon fodder" -- you don't do modern oeprations by throwing a couple divisions up against the line, as we did even in Viet Nam. A modern infantryman has to have about a year of specialized training to be effective, and the infantry only accounts for about 10 percent of any fighting force. Everyone else needs even more training.

What's worse, the real issues -- the ones that are leading to people being recalled from the IRR or retained past their expected release date -- are the loss of specialized training or skills, like experienced intelligence analysts or people who speak foreign languages. We could also use lots more special operators -- Seals, Green Berets, Air Commandos, and so on.

You can't draft those people.

So, what you come down to is that there's no one in authority asking for a draft, which makes sense because a draft wouldn't solve their problems.

Now, up to this point, I've assumed that you're merely ignorant or ill-informed, but let's think about the other option: that you, like Charlie Rangel, actually know these things.

In that case, you're lying.

Pick one, you're choice: stupid or liar?

Flawed elections

[karnat10]

... the story about a voter registration company ...

That's were I start to worry already. Why do obscure private companies carry out tasks that important to build trust in an election's result?

Where I live (in the old world), my administration knows I'm a citizen and when there's elections, they send me all necessary stuff automatically. That's what a public administration is for, after all.

It's still before the elections, and I already know I'm not gonna trust the result.

But we'll have to live with it anyway, so please, dear Americans, take a wise decision.

Re:Flawed elections

[fenris_23]

The U.S. does not have a national registry of citizens like other countries making that unfeasible. It probably won't happen because of problems like illegal immigrants and the lack of consensus on what rights they actually have.

Therefore, the government would have to surmount a lot of bullshit in order to determine who can vote and who cannot. Whenever the government does make a determination about who can vote and who cannot, there is invariably a huge battle. Furthermore, it would worry me that our current administration could make such decisions.

Thus, I think it is better that people should be responsible for arranging their own voting registration (it really is not difficult).

I mean, can you imagine what would happen if the federal government (either the executive or legislative branches) began pre-emptively deciding who can vote and who cannot?

Indeed!

[Rayonic]

Whereas the Democrats are so anti-voter-suppression that they even encourage dead people to vote.

Wait, I'm sorry, I should have said "living-impaired people". ;-)

Re:What about DNC orders to claim voter intimidati

[gtwreck]

That is sort of like telling the cop who pulled you over for doing 50 in a 35 that the other cars on the road were going 60. Well, that doesn't make what you were doing any less wrong.

I do agree however on your point that we should know of shenanigans from both sides. Which is why I started this thread in the first place. There needs to be balance.

In general, I agree with a previous poster who stated that this is all part of a campaign to set the stage so that if the Democrats lose they can claim the election was stolen like they did last time. Even though all the independant investigations (Miami Herald, Civil Rights Commission, Justice Department, CNN-) into voter intimidation claims, etc. could find no major problems with the Florida results nor any substantiation to claims of police using dogs and firehoses, etc. to suppress minority votes. In fact they found that most of the problems were due to voter error.

Excruciating Editorial Bias

[Snerdley]

Once again, we have an abysmal editorial decision on Slashdot.

A submission from Indomitus, a left-leaning reader (nothing wrong with that) comes in citing the dailyKOS as a source of news, and the editor doesn't even explain that that site is so unbelievably slanted as to be unreadable.

Just as a test, I've submitted the following story just to see what response I get. I'll be FLOORED if it gets through, although it is at least as accurate as the post Michael approved.

Submission:

The DNC has now confirmed that the excerpt from their Training Manual reported on the Drudge Report is authentic.

The excerpt calls election workers to issue press releases and give interviews about voter suppression, and that, "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike".

Sinclair sotry even more so

[chatooya]

There's also been a huge amount of participation built up around this Sinclair Broadcasting scandal. People have been deluging advertisers with calls, mostly driven by interest on blogs. It seems to be working. (via The Regular)

Might as well get the whole story

[crmartin]

Have a look at the running log of voter fraud stories.

Re:Tell me again that Slashdot isn't biased...

[hey!]

Sure, but one thing you have to note -- this company is sponsored by the RNC. You can't say it was some local yahoo.

A question

[antizeus]

It looks like the standard right wing talking point response to this story is to mention a DNC document (usually citing the same Rocky Mountain News story) in which it is said:

If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike.

It's well known that the right wing is really good about distributing these talking points and hammering away on them in a consistent fashion. My question is: where is this particular point being coordinated from? Is it though a web site like Free Republic, or through the propaganda channels in the more traditional media outlets, e.g. Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc? I've been following these things on the left, but am curious about how the right is operating.

What's the word after "tax and spend"?

[Futurepower(R)]

One of my complaints about conservatives is that they are hypocritical.

One of my complaints about "conservatives" is that they are not only not honest, they are not conservative. Look at Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

Political Zealotry

[jazman_777]

The heated election environment (not just here) shows that politics is becoming our Holy War. There is a long-running streak of "America-as-Messiah" in our history but now there seems to be that extra dash of religious fervor about Running The State that makes this election a real zinger.

Whoever loses is going to have legions of bitter hardened zealots available to rally four years later.

Corrected: Might as well get part of the story

[Sevn]

Have a look at a cherry picked list of democrat only voter fraud stories being passed off as the whole story.

Disclaimer: Pissed off conservative sick of the biased "bored again conservatives" making the rest of us REAL Conservatives look like bushbots.

Re:Tell me again that Slashdot isn't biased...

[An Onerous Coward]

Story 1 - Lone gunman
Story 2 - Lone gunman
Story 3 - People paid on a "per voter registration card" basis have incentive to turn in forged voter registrations. No indication that these people actually intended to make use of these fake registrations for voting purposes.
Story 4 - Democrat governor wants his people to oversee elections. Republicans don't.
Story 5 - Only story nearly as newsworthy as the one Slashdot is reporting.

As for your final story about the Democratic playbook, discussing voter intimidation and fraud before it happens is a sound preventative measure. Nowhere does it specifically say to allege voter fraud without evidence, and I don't believe that was their intent.

Honestly.

[scootr1]

Is it *that* hard to get off your ass and go to your official voter registration area to vote?

If you're too lazy to go a little out of your way to register to vote, should you really even be trusted with making an educated decision on who you are going to vote for?