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.

Comments

what's worse?

[Shakrai]

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?

Re:what's worse?

[The Briguy]

Democrats don't have to - polling indicates that people who aren't currently registered favor Kerry by wide margins. Additionally, Voter intimidation only works in poor uneducated areas where people are unsure of thier rights. I suppose Democrats could send voter intimidators out to the backcountry, but the population density is too low to make this viable. In short, democrats time is far better spend trying to register people [since this results in a net gain of democrats], and in voter turnout on election day [again, because people who don't turn out are more likely to vote democratic]. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that democrats are "above" the tactics republicans use, just that it happens to be the case that legal tactics are better at improving the democratic vote.

Re:what's worse?

[hal9000]

Dude, you wanna talk about voter suppression? Read up about the Dems vs. Nader. Some serious antidemocratic stuff going on there.

Drudge report vs Druge Retort (More Politics)

[BrookHarty]

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

To be fair...

[overunderunderdone]

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.

Re:How is this "voter intimidation"?

[drakaan]

Okay...here's the thing. The page from the manual says:

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

If there's nobody being intimidated, do the following (why, exactly? because you wish there was intimidation to point out?)

• Send out a press release about past times when it *has* happened...nothing like creating problems where they don't exist.
• In the press release, quote stuff from respected people that talks about the (currently nonexistent) intimidation of voters being a horrible thing (which it is, when it happens)
• Get minority leaders ready to talk about it (even though it's not happening), and give them talking points to emphasise that the problem of voter intimidation (which isn't occurring) is a bad one
• Put stories from the leaders (about the intimidation tactics that you're just waiting to see evidence of) that you've primed wherever possible, so that people will see them
• Warn local newspapersnot 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 (hey, that one actually seems sensible, assuming papers are stupid enough not to know this already).

Perhaps "Make stuff up" vs. "emphasise what happened in the past (since there's nothing happening now)" is different, but please don't try to say that this manual isn't going to lead to some pretty big misperceptions about whether voter intimidation is happening. This is politics meeting group psychology, and not in a good way.