Slashdot Mirror
Election Dirty Tricks About To Begin
An anonymous reader writes "ABC is warning that dirty election tricks are about to start. In the past, they've ranged from late-night robo-calls to voter intimidation. ABC has a pretty good list of what to watch out for as told by Allen Raymond, a former Republican operative, who was reformed after spending three months in prison in 2006 for pulling some of the stunts he now helps to prevent." To make this story timely, last week someone broke into a McCain campaign office in Missouri and stole a laptop computer containing "strategic information" about the local campaign.
like voter fraud?
CLEVELAND - Volunteers supporting Barack Obama picked up hundreds of people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling place yesterday on the last day that Ohioans could register and vote on the same day, almost no questions asked.
The huge effort by a pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, takes advantage of a quirk in the state's elections laws that allows people to register and cast ballots at the same time without having to prove residency.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
... except for:
1) citizenship
2) name
3) birthdate
4) state driver's license or SSN (required)
But hey, they're poor, so obviously they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Especially since they so often vote the wrong way, and thus prove how unAmerican they are.
its how america was founded. cheating, lying, and stealing helped build this country and made it the best/worst(depending on who you talk to) country in the world. You show me equality among men AND women, and i'll show you a world where peace thrives, where war does not build asset to countries and where the constitution holds as much truth as the christian bible. show me justice, and i'll show you a world that does not put drug dealers away for life to save room for rapists and child molesters. show me democracy and ill show the soldiers in iraq their families again. you speak of a perfect world sir, but this world is not round.
"A plague on both your houses" is the correct line (from Romeo and Juliet)
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Mod parent up!
+5 funny!
As a non-US person, some of these comments are hysterically funny. That one was great - I imagined some doddering old guy in some home for the aged, waiting to die, being mocked by those evil democrat politicians... And then I realised it was McCain you're talking about! Oh, how I laughed.
Bombula was trolling. You trolled back every bit as hard. Hilarity ensued.
Try the turn of the 19th Century. Look up the Adams vs. Jefferson election if you want to see really dirty tricks.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
vote Bush out
He's gone, regardless. He's limited to two terms.
That is a horrifyingly accurate post. The real victors in war are the people who sell the bullets. Everyone else only plays along to use their products.
The shocking part was that they somehow had my full name on the address label....
Shocking? Not so much.
Paul Ries, Graduate Student
Email: par9r@virginia.edu
Phone: (434)244-6842
Address: PO Box 400325 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4325
Maybe he meant McCain = Yet Another Bush
Your post sounds like you're trying to advocate the "reasonable middle ground" or something, but since it contains at least one explicit lie, I suspect you may have a particular agenda. Though you may have just been misled by others with the same agenda.
First, for the true but misleading part of your post: it's true that both parties do this. All political parties always have and always will play dirty tricks to some degree. But that's hardly the "bigger point" if it's always true of everyone, because it ignores the matter of degree: not all political parties have always pulled the same amount of dirty tricks at all times in all locations. For the last few US elections, either the Republicans have pulled dirty tricks on a much larger and more systematic scale than the Democrats, or the Democrats are much better at hiding it. But the typical republican "voice of reason" response is to find some minor incidences of Democratic corruption and treat those as if they're equivalent -- or to give up on specific data and just repeat "Chicago!" over and over.
Now, for the explicit lie, which is actually an instance of Republican intimidation and corruption: Obama supporters did not go to the police to have dissenting voices intimidated in Missouri. Some state employees volunteered to work for the Obama campaign in their private capacity, that is, as citizens. They did not use their state powers to help Obama. State employees have been doing identical volunteer work for the McCain campaign. This is as it should be. No police or prosecutorial powers were abused, or even used, in this process. These were just citizens participating in the political campaign. That the governor could make this into an issue of Democrats hiring police squads to track down and suppress their opponents, and not be torn to shreds by his constituients for the obvious falsehood, is a travesty. Nonetheless, it's become a Republican talking point even though it has no basis in reality.
So, no, the bigger point is not that both parties do this. I wish the Democrats did it even less than they do, but that doesn't mean that both parties are somehow on the same ethical level right now.
I am the man with no sig!
The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies. Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight.
Either approval voting or range voting (aka score votingwould break the forced two-valued dichotomy of the current system.
(In fact, approval voting is just one version of range voting-- in games theory, they are identical).
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It is when you're trying to convince a voter who's voting in the right state that he's registered in a different state.
the only thing i have to say is
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
please read it in full..
then look up the history of Presidential Directives and what in history they have changed including overruling the supream court - (freeing of slaves, the march of tears, WWII jap camps to name a few)
then ask - why - if it isn't to be used, was it passed at all?
then realize that economy is listed
"(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions; "
and just look around..
and again ask.. if it isn't to be used then why was it put in place?
For anyone who is going to respond to this.. please read it in full first.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Not so. Maybe he could have "run" for an additional term, but "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice", period.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
And, just in case anyone thinks I'm making this up, or that this doesn't happen in the 21st century, just go to this link (it's a search result page for the "The State," South Carolina's biggest newspaper). The sixth entry on the page is a full article detailing what happened at Benedict the last time they tried this (you can pay to read the whole thing if you like, but the summary should give you a good idea).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
They may even report on Republican dirty tricks, but you'd never hear the word "Republican" uttered during the story, or they could even "goof" and attribute them to Democrats.
That's what they did last year when that Republican congressweasel from Florida got in trouble for sexually harassing his male aides. First they reported him as being a Florida Democrat, then they just omitted his party affiliation when they were called on it.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Ah, clearly my humorous comment wasn't well pitched.
I don't receive US TV, and all I know about your elections is from reading newspapers, commentary and blogs. I was (badly) attempting humour.
I'll leave that to the professionals next time. Or put a smiley face to bludgeon the message home.
Britain is not a typical European democracy, it is an effective two party system. The nearest thing to a viable third party (The Liberal Democrats) have their seat count kept low by our system of first-past-the-post (rather than proportional representation, the norm in mainland European countries that gives them their multiparty elections).
Leveling anti-European criticisms at Britain is stupid because of how politically aligned to the US we are. IMHO my country would be vastly improved by independence from America.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Ah, screw it.
When someone says "The biggest trick is the one that Obama is pulling. The one that makes us all think that he is somehow a better choice because he appears smarter, cooler, and more articulate than McCain," I feel okay to ask how you can tell just by looking that someone actually is "smarter, cooler and more intelligent." Clearly the original poster has never met either man, and can't make a judgement that way. That leaves either reading text or viewing on TV as the most common means a voter will have some contact, at whatever remove, with the candidates.
So when I ask this, I imagine that it's clear that I'm holding my tongue firmly in cheek. Obviously my post failed pretty comprehensively on that front.
To anyone who uses more of the media than the glass screen in the lounge room, it's clear which candidate has more functioning brain cells, higher intellect and more flexibility on complex issues. Sadly, few people look beyond that large screen.
Another one to be aware of is Michigan Republicans using lists of foreclosures in the precinct and challenging a voters eligibility to vote based on that list. NPR Story, Michigan Messenger Story.
If you're concerned about this, look up your states Voter Eligibility and Identification Requirements on a state.XX.us website. Print out a copy and bring them with you. If you're challenged, challenge them right back and stand up for fellow citizens around you who are being unfairly challenged.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution.
Riiiiiight.
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3162) aka the USAPATRIOT ACT: Biden (D-DE), Yea
On H.R. 3199 aka USAPATRIOT ACT II: Biden (D-DE), Yea
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The SCOTUS doesn't have to uphold nothing. It's in there.
Notmysig
The Democratic majority congress has only existed for 2 years. For 10 of the last (nearly) 14 years, Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress. For 12 of those 14 years they've had control of the House of Representatives. To say that Democrats are equally culpable is, I think, a little lopsided.
Well, yes, they have. If for one, you call 18 months "several years" (nice spin, pal), and if for two you ignore at least twelve instances of Republican filibustering, and if for three you ignore the impact of a President who has used more presidential vetos than every other President in US history COMBINED, not to mention signing statement.
Then I guess we could say that they've played a hand or two.
Yes, I'm aware that they've also handled some of the things they have done horribly, but still. Nonetheless, nice try, Dittohead.
``It sounds good to say that, but how do you actually do it? There's no real barrier to the creation of third (or fourth or fifth) parties here in the US, they just don't get votes of donations.''
That's because of the winner take all system. Suppose there are three parties. One party you hate, one party you hate less, and one that you like, but isn't likely to get a lot of votes.
Now, you aren't going to vote for the party you hate. So that leaves you with two choices: the party you hate less, or the party you like. If you vote for the party you hate less, it may win, but the party you like will get nothing. If you vote for the party you like, it will still probably get nothing, but you will have increased the chances of the party you hate most winning everything. So you would be foolish to vote for the party you like.
In a system with proportional representation, you could vote for the party you like most. You don't have to help some party win everything to keep the party you hate out. Your favorite party will still get only a small number of votes, but, with that, it will get a small number of seats, instead of nothing at all.
So, as you can see, it's the winner take all system that makes it impractical for more than two parties to exist.
Presedential elections, of course, are always winner take all - but you could have two rounds: a first round with multiple candidates, and a second round with only the two most popular candidates.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
It sounds good to say that, but how do you actually do it?
Easy, institute instant runoff voting. Now you can vote for Nader with out worry, since your losing vote will roll over to your next highest ranked candidate.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!