![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWhy 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)
Date: 14/5/12 21:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/5/12 21:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/5/12 22:17 (UTC)"The most significant part of the settlement is how the central voter database will be set up, restoring to the rolls the people who were wrongfully purged," said Anita Hodgkiss, a plaintiffs' attorney with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights."
(no subject)
Date: 14/5/12 22:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/5/12 22:33 (UTC)The NAACP didn't merely say "we're right" (which seems to be your method of argument.) They brought forth witness after witness, legal voter after legal voter, who'd been denied the right to vote.
You have nothing but your own denials.
(no subject)
Date: 14/5/12 22:44 (UTC)"The Republicans" didn't do squat. The individual counties, per Florida law, swept the voter rolls to clear felons who could not vote from the rolls, and offered an appeals process to anyone who was improperly removed.
The NAACP didn't merely say "we're right" (which seems to be your method of argument.) They brought forth witness after witness, legal voter after legal voter, who'd been denied the right to vote.
Yes, they did. But that doesn't mean "The Republicans" did anything to them, or that the were not responsible for their own voting status. Unless you're saying that minorities cannot handle that sort of responsibility, right?
(no subject)
Date: 14/5/12 22:57 (UTC)Let's say I go to vote this year. But I get turned away because SOMEBODY ELSE WITH MY NAME COMMITTED A FELONY.
How the FLYING FUCK is that my responsibility?
And yes, I'm angry at you for your complete lack of disgust at a dishonest election.
(no subject)
Date: 14/5/12 23:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:05 (UTC)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)
Date: 15/5/12 00:10 (UTC)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)
Date: 15/5/12 00:13 (UTC)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)
Date: 15/5/12 00:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:23 (UTC)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)
Date: 15/5/12 00:25 (UTC)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) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:21 (UTC)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)
Date: 15/5/12 19:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/5/12 23:03 (UTC)bdj: "The Republicans" didn't do squat.
The Republican administration of Jeb Bush hired a private company to purge voter rolls using very rough name matches as part of a highly publicized "election reform." They instructed this company to make those name matches as imprecise as possible in order to "net" as many voters. The result was a high number of false positives -- which the Republicans considered desirable.
bdj: The individual counties, per Florida law, swept the voter rolls to clear felons who could not vote from the rolls, and offered an appeals process to anyone who was improperly removed.
The individual counties were doing the bidding of the Republican controlled state elections division. And many individuals did not in fact learn that they had been purged until the day they attempted to vote.
Paft: The NAACP didn't merely say "we're right" (which seems to be your method of argument.) They brought forth witness after witness, legal voter after legal voter, who'd been denied the right to vote.
bdj: Yes, they did. But that doesn't mean "The Republicans" did anything to them, or that the were not responsible for their own voting status.
These voters did not purge themselves, nor had they done anything wrong or negligent.
bdJ: Unless you're saying that minorities cannot handle that sort of responsibility, right?
Minorities who are victimized by voter suppression aren't irresponsible. They are victims of voter suppression.
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:01 (UTC)Nope, sorry. It was done by individual counties pursuant to Florida law.
They instructed this company to make those name matches as imprecise as possible in order to "net" as many voters. The result was a high number of false positives -- which the Republicans considered desirable.
They instructed the company to cast a wide net, again, per law. The idea is to keep illegitimate voters off the rolls. To ensure that those who are valid voters didn't get permanently removed, an appeals process was put in place.
And many individuals did not in fact learn that they had been purged until the day they attempted to vote.
That's their fault.
Minorities who are victimized by voter suppression aren't irresponsible. They are victims of voter suppression.
Except that no one was victimized by voter suppression.
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:17 (UTC)bdj: Nope, sorry. It was done by individual counties pursuant to Florida law.
So you're claiming, in all seriousness, that the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, and the Florida Director of Elections, Clay Roberts, had nothing to do with it?
bdj: They instructed the company to cast a wide net, again, per law. The idea is to keep illegitimate voters off the rolls.
And they were warned -- repeatedly -- that the net was so wide that a very, very high number of legal voters were being labeled as illegitimate.
bdj: To ensure that those who are valid voters didn't get permanently removed, an appeals process was put in place.
Which, given the sheer volume of people who'd been purged, was unlikely to be completed before the election.
Paft; And many individuals did not in fact learn that they had been purged until the day they attempted to vote.
bdj:P That's their fault.
Why?
jbdj: Except that no one was victimized by voter suppression.
Are you denying that law-abiding voters were falsely labeled felons and refused access to the ballot?
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:24 (UTC)Katherine Harris had absolutely nothing to do with it, no. She was not in charge of individual counties.
Clay Roberts may have been the person who took all the bids, I don't know his exact role in that scenario. In any regard, he can't choose not to follow the law.
And they were warned -- repeatedly -- that the net was so wide that a very, very high number of legal voters were being labeled as illegitimate.
Thus the appeals process.
Which, given the sheer volume of people who'd been purged, was unlikely to be completed before the election.
So you say.
Why?
If you don't check your registration and there's a problem, that's your fault. You're responsible for your voter registration.
Are you denying that law-abiding voters were falsely labeled felons and refused access to the ballot?
Yes.
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:46 (UTC)bdj: Katherine Harris had absolutely nothing to do with it, no. She was not in charge of individual counties.
No, actually, she and Clay Roberts were in charge of how ALL of them handled the voting rolls. They set the policy for the individual counties to follow. They issued the orders.
Paft: Which, given the sheer volume of people who'd been purged, was unlikely to be completed before the election.
bdj: So you say.
So say many of the counties who had to notify the voters, and many of those voters.
bdj: If you don't check your registration and there's a problem, that's your fault. You're responsible for your voter registration.
I'm sorry, but that's simply ridiculous. Once a citizen has registered to vote, and done so accurately and honestly, it's up to the government to ensure that the voting rolls are accurate.
Paft: Are you denying that law-abiding voters were falsely labeled felons and refused access to the ballot?
bdj: Yes.
So every single one of those voters purged were felons?
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:49 (UTC)Which means they had nothing to do with the specifics. They gave a general order and it was up to the individual counties to act.
I'm sorry, but that's simply ridiculous. Once a citizen has registered to vote, and done so accurately and honestly, it's up to the government to ensure that the voting rolls are accurate.
Except when such attempts to ensure the rolls might hit people who could be felons.
So every single one of those voters purged were felons?
Every single one was purged in accordance to the law, and had an opportunity to appeal if need be.
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/12 00:56 (UTC)bdJ: Which means they had nothing to do with the specifics. They gave a general order and it was up to the individual counties to act.
They set the policy, Jeff. The counties were legally bound to follow their instructions, and those instructions resulted in thousands of legal voters being purged.
paft: I'm sorry, but that's simply ridiculous. Once a citizen has registered to vote, and done so accurately and honestly, it's up to the government to ensure that the voting rolls are accurate.
bdj: Except when such attempts to ensure the rolls might hit people who could be felons.
Your response makes zero sense. Are you claiming that it's up to registered voters to prove to the government that they aren't felons?
Paft; So every single one of those voters purged were felons?
bdj: Every single one was purged in accordance to the law, and had an opportunity to appeal if need be.
That's not what I asked.
Was every single voter a purged from the rolls a convicted felon? Yes or no?
And no, not all of them had an opportunity to appeal because many of them didn't find out they'd been purged until election day;.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: