Slashdot Mirror
DNC and Voter Suppression
An anonymous reader points to this Drudge Report story about an election day manual specifying aggressive tactics to be used in the event of any election problems. While Drudge says the Democrats are planning to "declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists", that's not what the manual says.
So what's your idea of a good rebuttal? Strawman?
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
we know already.
republicans are the spawn of lucifer himself and democrats are all budda.
republicans will burn in hell and democrats will get little stupas built over them.
come on, the are f^ckers on both sides of the aisle and in between. get over it and prosecute the criminals, whoever their golden god is.
always mosh clockwise
That right there is worse.
Bullshit. Forcing someone on the ballot because you think it's going to hurt your candidate is what they do in third world countries. For Democrats to be pulling this just shows that they want to win at all costs... And at the same time, they profess to be the "party of the little guy". They might have been at one time, but now that's a bunch of horsecrap. The party has been taken over by left-wing nuts, who will say and do absolutely do ANYTHING to win.
That includes supressing military votes, widespread voter fraud, making up problems where none exists (look at the Colorado manual), and people trashing campaign headquaters, and breaking into others.
Sounds to me like the Democrats are so freaking scared that they can't win they're resorting to this sort of thing.
THESE ARE DOCUMENTED FACTS.
Now in the last days of the campaign, Mary Beth Cahill calls talking about the kids of candidates is "fair game". We have John Edwards prove he's a moron for saying that if he and Kerry are elected that people in wheelchairs will walk again.
Yeah, that's real fair. People that do this make me puke.
Earlier this week former employees of Sproul & Associates (operating under the name Voters Outreach of America), a firm hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters, told a Nevada TV station that their supervisors systematically tore up Democratic registrations.
The accusations are backed by physical evidence and appear credible. Officials have begun a criminal investigation into reports of similar actions by Sproul in Oregon.
Republicans claim, of course, that they did nothing wrong - and that besides, Democrats do it, too. But there haven't been any comparably credible accusations against Democratic voter-registration organizations. And there is a pattern of Republican efforts to disenfranchise Democrats, by any means possible.
Some of these, like the actions reported in Nevada, involve dirty tricks. For example, in 2002 the Republican Party in New Hampshire hired an Idaho company to paralyze Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts by jamming the party's phone banks.
But many efforts involve the abuse of power. For example, Ohio's secretary of state, a Republican, tried to use an archaic rule about paper quality to invalidate thousands of new, heavily Democratic registrations.
That attempt failed. But in Wisconsin, a Republican county executive insists that this year, when everyone expects a record turnout, Milwaukee will receive fewer ballots than it got in 2000 or 2002 - a recipe for chaos at polling places serving urban, mainly Democratic voters.
And Florida is the site of naked efforts to suppress Democratic votes, and the votes of blacks in particular.
Florida's secretary of state recently ruled that voter registrations would be deemed incomplete if those registering failed to check a box affirming their citizenship, even if they had signed an oath saying the same thing elsewhere on the form. Many counties are, sensibly, ignoring this ruling, but it's apparent that some officials have both used this rule and other technicalities to reject applications as incomplete, and delayed notifying would-be voters of problems with their applications until it was too late.
Whose applications get rejected? A Washington Post examination of rejected applications in Duval County found three times as many were from Democrats, compared with Republicans. It also found a strong tilt toward rejection of blacks' registrations.
The case of Florida's felon list - used by state officials, as in 2000, to try to wrongly disenfranchise thousands of blacks - has been widely reported. Less widely reported has been overwhelming evidence that the errors were deliberate.
In an article coming next week in Harper's, Greg Palast, who originally reported the story of the 2000 felon list, reveals that few of those wrongly purged from the voting rolls in 2000 are back on the voter lists. State officials have imposed Kafkaesque hurdles for voters trying to get back on the rolls. Depending on the county, those attempting to get their votes back have been required to seek clemency for crimes committed by others, or to go through quasi-judicial proceedings to prove that they are not felons with similar names.
And officials appear to be doing their best to make voting difficult for those blacks who do manage to register. Florida law requires local election officials to provide polling places where voters can cast early ballots. Duval County is providing only one such location, when other counties with similar voting populations are providing multiple sites. And in Duval and other counties the early voting sites are miles away from precincts with black majorities.
Next week, I'll address the question of whether the votes of Floridians with the wrong color skin will be fully counted if they are cast. Mr. Palast notes that in the 2000 election, almost 180,000 Florida votes were rejected because they were either blank or contained overvotes. Demographers from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission estimate that 54 percent of the spoiled ballots were cast b
Actually thats not the case. Tricky Dicky did make an effort to contest the vote through a bunch of proxy committees, but it was totally pointless because narrow as the popular vote was the electoral college was not close at all and Nixon had to get multiple states votes reversed to get in.
The big difference between 1960 and 2000 was that in 2000 Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris were in control of the election count and made every move they could to prevent the legitimate requests for recounts.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/