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.
What's worse? Being overly-proactive in being ready to resist voter fraud or actively engaging in it?
And the Drudge Report? C'mon! Can I get my conspiracy theory about TWA Flight 800 posted as a story?
Maybe politics.slashdot.org is one giant piece of flamebait. Is there no room left for rational discussion?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
that slashdot links to a story from Drudge.
...oh nevermind
Thank god its...
That man tried to kill mah Daddy
How can this even remotely be called "voter intimidation"? Who is being encouraged or pressured not to vote? This looks like nothing more than the DNC calling on all citizens to raise a hue and cry whenever they experience vote fraud.
And I hate to be the one to break the story, but Drudge isn't he most reliable of sources...
If this is true, it makes sense. The country wasn't ready for the last electoral debacle and it caught many by surprise. In this case pre-emption may just be a good thing. Especially in states with E-Voting.
Question everything. Don't trust anyone. Damn, I'm beginning to sound like Fox Mulder.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
So let's say this is true. Is this worse of a crime, the same, or less of a crime than the wholscale destruction of voter registraiton cards as carried out by GOP operatives in multiple states over the past few weeks?
Of course not. But there are greater and lesser crimes, and this is a much, MUCH lesser crime than the active disenfranchisement of voters as sponsored by the RNC over the past two weeks. This action by the Democrats is tawdry at worst. The destruction of voter registration cards is CRIMINAL, and worthy of no lesser punishment than death.
The problem, some casual readers might think this is a professional news site and not realize its a news & gossip site from a man (Matt Drudge) with right wing view.
If you go over to Drudge.com You can read the Drudge Retort, a counter view from the left side.
I read many blog/news/gossip sites, but I like to know the views of the editors and owners. Would you blindly trust everything you read on the Internet? Most sites are not non-partisan, they lean and have viewpoints which cloud true reporting of the issues.
True non-partisan sites like Factcheck.org and Spinsanity.org have cleared up a some "Sound bites" from both sides. Why can't I get a news channel like this?
-
Partisan
That isn't an unreasonable interpretation of what the manual is advising as a practical matter. It says ""If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike," and then urges a P.R. offensive which would include getting civil rights leaders to denounce tactics of which there are "NO SIGNS" - that sounds to me like "complain about voter intimidation even though there are "no signs" that it exists.
Republicans and Democrats don't trust each other for good reason. Republicans think that Democrats stuff the ballot box with fraudulent votes... dead people, illegal aliens, people voting in multiple times in different jurisdictions etc. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.
Democrats for their part think that Republicans try to suppress turnout. For instance by putting out false information about voting requirements and locations and excessive challenges to the validity of voters. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.
The two types of bad behavior have a certain synergy... Everything that Republicans do about their legitimate fear of fraud is seen as further instances confirming Democrats legitimate fear of suppression and vice versa. For instance: Republicans convinced there is fraud going on (which is often true) are excessive in their efforts to purge the polls, those challenges are seen by Democrats as intimidation (which it often is), the more Democrats complain and insist on laws that prevent purging the rolls the more Republicans are convinced that the fix is in. Around and around it goes.
But I guess if you want to even things out how about the DNC fraud in Ohio:
http://hundredpercenter.blogspot.com/2004/09/autho rities-investigating-voter-fraud.html
Face it both parties are ripping up registrations and registering dead people (like in SD where someone paid 13K by the democrats registered a dead person and had many more suspicious cards turned in.
Did you read the thing?
Sure, it's partisan. They want to remind people of Republican dirty tricks... but aside from that, what's objectionable? It sounds to me like they're just trying to pre-emptively ensure that people retain the right to vote, and are not misled by false ads. If no intimidation or other dirty tricks happen, all that this will result in is making sure that people are on the watch for fraud, and that newspapers etc. don't print deceptive ads. If there are dirty tricks, then the Democrats are ready to react.
There's no fraud in reporting past dirty tricks. They're true, and it's good to be on guard against them. There's absolutely nothing there telling people to claim fraud if there isn't any.
So no, both sides are not equally complicit. The GOP is far and away more criminal.
The document doesn't say to make false allegations of intimidation. What it says is that in jurisdictions where intimidation and misinformation has happened in the past be proactive. It says to make sure that the media reports on the past unethical activities so that people are both watching out for it and aware of their rights as voters.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
I have never had to show ID in order to vote unless it was for the registration itself. This oddity has always been, well, odd. Why allegedly go through the trouble of verifying eligibility and then not ask for an ID when it's time to punch the holes or mark the circles? This is the most easily explotable area for fraud. You can bet I'd raise holy hell if someone "accidentally" voted on my behalf before I got to the polling place.
Slashdot reader poll:
Do you have to show an ID on voting day in order to vote?
--
dman123 forever!
Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
And yet htis gets modded interesting? yea this is not a troll/flamebait. I love it when Democtrats and Republican knee padders point to eachother and cry *liar* voting for a 3rd party this time around its great to see.
You point out something with a little more substance, we'll talk.
Ok put your knee pads back on cause I have something for you and I know your going to have to find a way to ignore/spin it.
South Dakota, Dems Paid $12,000 to South Dakota Vote Fraud Figure
The South Dakota Democratic Party reportedly paid the person at the center of a growing voter fraud investigation more than $12,000 in the last three months, according to the Rapid City (S.Dak.) Journal which revealed that the figure is shown in Federal Election Commission (FEC) records from July, August and September.
The FEC records revealed that Becky Red Earth-Villeda got 18 paychecks totaling $12,867 allegedly for administrative costs or voter drives. One of the checks in the amount of $3,500 was racked up as travel expenses.
Sarah Feinberg, indented by the Journal as a Democratic Party spokeswoman explained that contractors are paid by the number of voter registration cards and absentee ballots they collect.
See, I AM a Democrat, an active one
No fsck? really? I never would have guessed by the wear mark on the floor where you, ummm, assume the position for your party.
and I have NEVER heard a fellow Democrat encourage vote fraude by either word or deed. I HAVE heard Republicans defend it.
Oh well if a democratic partison says so who am I to argue..
Oh, sorry. I forgot I was on /.
.jpg posted has NOTHING about claiming intimidation where it does not exist.
Anyway, the
NOTHING.
It's all about making sure everyone (particularaly minorities who have been targetted in the past) knows the past attempts so that if they are attempted again they will not work.
But if this manual is real, I have to say that I am ashamed to be associated with whoever wrote it or intended to follow it.
Don't worry. I'm sure they feel the same way about people who won't read the material and, instead, listen to what other, biased, sources say about it.
It said people should pre-emptively issue a press release reviewing the past Republican tactics.
It said people should pre-emptively issue a press release quoting other people denouncing such tactics.
It said people should pre-emptively prime people with talking points for the media.
It said people should pre-emptively express their concern.
It said people should pre-emptively warn newspapers about false or misleading ads.
Hmmm, nothing at all about what you said it said.
Seems that you've lied.
I guess you missed the following in your thorough reading of the manual. "If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike"
.jpg)
.jpg in full. In no place does it say what you claimed it said.
No, I read that. And then I read the actions recommended. And they're short so I won't have to "summarize" them like you did. (Strange how your "summary" uses more words than were on that
If you bother to read the rest, it basically says that, if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were.
Nope, it says (and I quote):
2. If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there[sic] techniques have been tried in the past).
- Issue a press release
i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
- Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
- Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
- Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
Nothing at all about, as you claim, "if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were."
If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table.
I did. I quoted the
* Democrats claim Bush will reinstate the draft. Despite two bills introduced by Democrats, Bush absolutely claims that no draft will be done, even going as far as to explain that the draft would be contrary for their plans for better trained, more mobile army.
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who actively lynched blacks in the South for voting, who instituted poll taxes and reading requirements. Republicans are the ones who fought them and instituted federal rules on who is and is not allowed to vote, and prosecuted the lynchings by the Democrat Ku Klux Klan. (Yes, that's right, most KKK members were democrats!)
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who managed the counties where the voters were reportedly disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 election scandal. The butterfly ballot was approved by democrat election officials. This claim was unsubstantiated because it didn't happen, yet they continue to insinuate it.
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who want illegal aliens and non-citizens to vote. They impose the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for motor voters, where even the forms cannot state the requirements for voting.
* It is Democrats, not Republicans, who have told the elderly that if Bush is elected, their social security check would disappear. Newsflash: They are still getting their social security checks.
* When someone comes along and says, "Maybe we should purge the rolls of inactive or moved voters, or at least verify people's identity before they vote" it is Democrats, not Republicans, who scream bloody murder and say we are trying to disenfranchise voters.
I'll get modded down, and I know it, but those who browse at -1 will get to see the truth.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Do you remember the "Kerry affair" story that Drudge pounded for days, until finally the "woman involved" said it was ridiculous and pointed out that there was no substance to the story at all? Eventually Drudge apologized.
He posts uttery false crap all the time, but because he's not a "real journalist" nobody is supposed to mind.
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty