ext_306469 (
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in
talkpolitics2012-05-14 12:10 pm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
They'll Do it Again in Florida
Why wouldn't they? It worked in 2000.
Via Crooks and Liars
The last time, the target was black voters and the rationale for removing names was the voters were convicted felons. This time the target is Hispanic voters and the rationale offered that they are “illegal immigrants”:
A list of “suspect voters?” Matching names to voter rolls? Anyone who remembers the 2000 presidential election, and is up on what happened in Florida is going to find this nastily familiar.
This news story was aired in Great Britain in the wake of the last election. It goes into devastating and well-documented detail about how the election was stolen in Florida. But one of the most telling moments, one that helps explain the mystifying inertia of Democratic leadership in the wake of that fiasco, comes near the end, at about the 11:35 mark, when reporter Greg Palast talks to Democrats at a $5,000 a plate fundraiser.
The Democratic Party Chairman, Bob Poe, who was apparently attending that fundraiser, does bitterly denounce the disenfranchisement of voters in this clip. But here in 2012, with our greater awareness of the divide between rich and poor, that unnamed Democratic fat cat whispering his contempt for the vote resonates painfully. For many Democrats back then, it was a shock to discover how little the integrity of the vote mattered to the people in power, Democrat or Republican. Those of us (like the Black Caucus) who objected too loudly and too persistently were essentially told to sit down and shut up. It was an sign of just how much big money had come to matter, and how little the rest of us did.
The Republicans plainly haven’t changed. Have the Democrats?
We’ll see.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
Via Crooks and Liars
The last time, the target was black voters and the rationale for removing names was the voters were convicted felons. This time the target is Hispanic voters and the rationale offered that they are “illegal immigrants”:
The full universe of potentially ineligible voters that state elections officials plan to check for possible removal from the roles is about 180,000, a spokesman for the Division of Elections said Friday, reports David Royse of the News Service of Florida.
Elections spokesman Chris Cate told the News Service that in all, when matching voter rolls against newly available citizenship data from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, officials found that number of possible matches, and began further investigating each one to see if they were likely to be wrongly registered to vote…
But earlier this week it wasn’t clear how many more names might eventually be checked. On Friday, Cate said the larger number was the total identified so far, but that it will take some time to further cull through that list to determine which names are most likely accurately identified as non-citizens.
(Emphasis added)
A list of “suspect voters?” Matching names to voter rolls? Anyone who remembers the 2000 presidential election, and is up on what happened in Florida is going to find this nastily familiar.
This news story was aired in Great Britain in the wake of the last election. It goes into devastating and well-documented detail about how the election was stolen in Florida. But one of the most telling moments, one that helps explain the mystifying inertia of Democratic leadership in the wake of that fiasco, comes near the end, at about the 11:35 mark, when reporter Greg Palast talks to Democrats at a $5,000 a plate fundraiser.
It’s back to champagne politics as usual. One Democrat, a big shot at the soiree, whispered they would have done the same as Katherine Harris [Florida Elections official who oversaw the purging of thousands of legal Democratic voters from the rolls] if they had the chance.
The Democratic Party Chairman, Bob Poe, who was apparently attending that fundraiser, does bitterly denounce the disenfranchisement of voters in this clip. But here in 2012, with our greater awareness of the divide between rich and poor, that unnamed Democratic fat cat whispering his contempt for the vote resonates painfully. For many Democrats back then, it was a shock to discover how little the integrity of the vote mattered to the people in power, Democrat or Republican. Those of us (like the Black Caucus) who objected too loudly and too persistently were essentially told to sit down and shut up. It was an sign of just how much big money had come to matter, and how little the rest of us did.
The Republicans plainly haven’t changed. Have the Democrats?
We’ll see.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
no subject
no subject
because SOME OTHER PERSON WHO IS NOT ME committed a crime
I'm supposed to psychically know about that and spend the time and energy to double-check my registration status?
Look Jeff, I'm a registered voter. I know this. I assume you are too.
What time of year do you double-check your registration status to make sure SOME OTHER PERSON BY YOUR NAME DIDN'T FUCK IT UP FOR YOU?
for fucks sake. If you want to remove felons from the voting rolls, don't just go by their name. Use their SSN as well, or SOMETHING, to make sure that 100 Bob Jones don't suffer for the criminality of a single Bob Jones.
no subject
You're supposed to make sure that your registration is current.
What time of year do you double-check your registration status to make sure SOME OTHER PERSON BY YOUR NAME DIDN'T FUCK IT UP FOR YOU?
Usually a couple weeks before the registration deadline. On one hand, it hasn't been as urgent here because Massachusetts doesn't care so much about secure voting, but, on the other, they've screwed up my registration before.
for fucks sake. If you want to remove felons from the voting rolls, don't just go by their name. Use their SSN as well, or SOMETHING, to make sure that 100 Bob Jones don't suffer for the criminality of a single Bob Jones.
SSN isn't on the voter registration. At least it isn't here.
no subject
And remind me again, how is the GOVT FUCKING UP MY VOTING REGISTRATION my responsibility for once, how is it, YOU are defending the govt?
no subject
no subject
no subject
They are not cleaning the rolls of ineleigible voters.
They are cleaning the rolls of voters.
SOME ineligible, others, PERFECTLY eligible.
This is like computer programs that predict who a terrorist is.
EVEN IF they are 99.99% accurate, they will produce MASSIVE amounts of false-positives.
I'm not accountable if the GOVT uses one of these MASSIVELY INEFFECTIVE PROCEDURES and fucks my shit up.
I'm an eligible voter. If they remove me from the voting rolls, THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG
again, how is it, that YOU, you of all people, are not JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON TO BLAME THE GOVT FOR SOMETHING?
oooooh. partisanship. I get it now. good job.
no subject
They are cleaning the rolls of voters.
SOME ineligible, others, PERFECTLY eligible.
Yes, it's imperfect. Thus the need for people to keep their registrations current and check them before elections.
I'm not accountable if the GOVT uses one of these MASSIVELY INEFFECTIVE PROCEDURES and fucks my shit up.
No, you're accountable for your voter registration.
again, how is it, that YOU, you of all people, are not JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON TO BLAME THE GOVT FOR SOMETHING?
Mainly because only those who should be eligible to vote should be voting.
(frozen comment) no subject
Good god.
You really must be getting paid to be this bad of a shill.
(frozen comment) no subject
no subject
no subject
I'd wager that under 2% of the population does that. For 98% of us, we expect that THE GOVT DOESN'T REMOVE US FROM THE VOTING ROLLS FOR NO REASON
no subject