Obama victory will prolong US racial divide...

[Baptist Believer]

I can imagine past times when a police presence outside of a voting place may have surpressed the black vote in the deep south - but not in this day and age.

What tactics would one employ to surpress the voters of the opposition?

I imagine that a police presence would tend to discourage those with false documents, those with arrest warrants, fugatives from justice, those with contraband, and those under the influence of alcohol of illegal substances from voting.

Other than that, in these days of video cameras everywhere and lawsuit-happy civil rights lawyers, I can't imagine getting away with it.

 

[KenH]

Proof, please?

I heard this being discussed on a radio program last night that the GOP officials were objecting to the use of paper ballots in this coming Tuesday's primary in Ohio even though the primary doesn't mean much on the Republican side because they are afraid of the precedent it might set for the general election.

 

[tinytim]

Don't worry about it, Republicans will carry Ohio anyway...
Just a hunch.

 

[carpro]

The other side of the coin is that an Obama loss will also prolong a racial divide.

No doubt a loss by the first Black Presidential candidate will be seen as a stolen election by many disappointed supporters.

Remember the reaction when Gore lost?

Only this one would be much worse since there is the additional emotionalism due to the racial factor.

You may be right.

Democrats do like to whine when they lose.

 

[targus]

I heard this being discussed on a radio program last night that the GOP officials were objecting to the use of paper ballots in this coming Tuesday's primary in Ohio even though the primary doesn't mean much on the Republican side because they are afraid of the precedent it might set for the general election.

Objecting to paper ballots doesn't sound like voter suppression to me.

It sounds more like vote fraud suppression.

 

[KenH]

Objecting to paper ballots doesn't sound like voter suppression to me.

It sounds more like vote fraud suppression.

A typical Republican/conservative response. Republican voter suppression will be fought against in 2008. Just watch and see.

 

[targus]

A typical Republican/conservative response. Republican voter suppression will be fought against in 2008. Just watch and see.

I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion as to my political affiliation...

Could you explain how objecting to paper ballots results in voter suppression?

I am unable to make the connection.

 

[KenH]

Why do you object to using paper ballots? The first time I voted - in 1974 - I used a paper ballot.

 

[targus]

Why do you object to using paper ballots? The first time I voted - in 1974 - I used a paper ballot.

I did not say that I object to using paper ballots.

I am asking how objecting to paper ballots equals voter suppression.

 

[rbell]

I heard this being discussed on a radio program last night that the GOP officials were objecting to the use of paper ballots in this coming Tuesday's primary in Ohio even though the primary doesn't mean much on the Republican side because they are afraid of the precedent it might set for the general election.

That's hardly "proof of surpressing voter turnout."

Not to mention...both parties have elements of "vote contesters." Florida was overrun with 'em in 2000.

To suggest that one party has a monopoly on it is incorrect.



(stepping in it) in recent years, it would seem that there has been more of that in the Democratic side. (I'm thinking of some of the corruption that has plagued inner-city election processes recently...I'm thinking of the train wreck that is West Alabama. Greene County a few years back had more Absentee votes than registered voters.)

In AL, GA, and MS, "voter ID" has been a hot topic. In all three states, some democrats (not all, just those who are either really liberal, or others like AL's state senator Alvin Holmes, who were not elected honestly) blocked measures to require voters to be able to prove that they are who they claim to be.


But I must be honest....in this day and age, I trust neither party implicitly.

 

[JustChristian]

I've heard of charges from both parties concerning voter suppression...

As I recall the most recent charge was from Bill Clinton claiming that the Obama campaign was suppressing the vote...

But I find it difficult to conceptualize how exactly someone suppresses voting in our current times.

I can imagine past times when a police presence outside of a voting place may have surpressed the black vote in the deep south - but not in this day and age.

What tactics would one employ to surpress the voters of the opposition?

Absent a means to do it, the charge sounds like a silly throwback.

Most votes are cast using electronic voting machines today and counted by computers. All you need to do to suppress your opponents vote is to gain control of voting machine manufacturers and pay then to miscount the vote. In addition, you can "lose" voting registration records and refuse to let people vote. It is claimed but not proven that this is how George Bush won the last two elections.

 

[rbell]

Most votes are cast using electronic voting machines today and counted by computers. All you need to do to suppress your opponents vote is to gain control of voting machine manufacturers and pay then to miscount the vote. In addition, you can "lose" voting registration records and refuse to let people vote. It is claimed but not proven that this is how George Bush won the last two elections.

If we're gonna play the "claim but not proven" game, we should also talk about military votes not being counted...some significant voting irregularities in cities such as St. Louis, New York...as well as numerous "no-campaign zone" violations in heavily democratic areas of Florida. Better yet...let's let both sides of this drop. Had there been systematic voter supression on either side, a court would have heard about it.

I'm no Bush fan, but he didn't steal the election.

 

[just-want-peace]

I'm no Bush fan, but he didn't steal the election.

BDS is alive and well!!!!

What I fail to grasp is that there are enough legitimate gripes about him, w/out all this liberal dreging up some "un-proven, but--" bovine excrement.

Guess it's easier to just open the big orifice and let come what ever does with no mental filtering.

 

[targus]

Most votes are cast using electronic voting machines today and counted by computers. All you need to do to suppress your opponents vote is to gain control of voting machine manufacturers and pay then to miscount the vote. In addition, you can "lose" voting registration records and refuse to let people vote. It is claimed but not proven that this is how George Bush won the last two elections.

As to the paper ballot question, I understand that the ACLU has joined in the opposition to going back to a paper ballot.

I don't know what system would prevent lost or misread votes. Paper ballots can be lost just as easily as electronic ballots. Perhaps we need a redundent system which uses both and can be cross checked against each other.

I have not heard of any charges of lost voting registration records. In fact my understanding is that voters who do not show up on the registration records are still allowed to vote if they produce an ID. The practical effect of that is people may end up voting more than once.