In my best Earl Pitts voice.....

[poltr1]

Y'know what make me sick? Y'know what makes me so angry? It's when political parties gum up the works of voting, our most sacred duty.

The irregularities of the election in 2004 in Ohio is well-documented. Read here. And here. To recap:
1) Voting machines in inner-city precincts were either missing or non-functioning.
2) The building where the votes in Warren County were tabulated was put under a federal lockdown, citing a terrorist threat that turned out to be bogus.

I recently heard through the grapevine that there's an effort by the elephant dung flingers to disallow voter registrations that are received during the last week of voter registration season, potentially disenfranching voters yet again. Here's the scoop from Jeremy Bird,General Election Director of Ohio Campaign for Change: "You may have heard that last Friday, the Ohio Republican Party filed a lawsuit to block Buckeyes from casting absentee ballots if they register between September 30th and October 6th—the exact period of overlap when voter registration ends and absentee voting begins. Once again, Republican political operatives are attempting to disenfranchise Ohio voters."

It makes me so mad I want to throw a wrench in the Republican poltical machine.

Wake Up America!

Shout-outs: Happy birthday braider!

Comments

[billroper]

Apparently, the law in Ohio requires you to register a month before voting. The lawsuit is over whether someone who registers can vote absentee immediately, if I understand correctly. I also understand that the law hadn't been interpreted to allow this before, but I may not understand that correctly either.

Nothing would stop someone who registered to vote more than a month before the election (October 6th) from voting on the actual day of the election, although it certainly might be inconvenient for them and -- I'll agree! -- in some cases, impossible.

So "disenfranchise" is probably a strong word to use here.

And this would be the second case that you've reported where Democrats appear to be trying to change election procedures that have been used previously in the hope of gaining an advantage. I understand that because they're the "good guys" this is ok, I guess.

Or do I misunderstand that?

[poltr1]

No, I think you got that. :)

I'll admit that most of my data has been coming from what can be classified as the left-wing media. I have no idea how the right-wing media is reporting this, or if they're reporting it at all.

Who are the good guys, in my opinion? The ones who believe that every American is entitled to one vote per election.

I appreciate your use of calm logic here, unlike some people who try to use raw emotion to sway me. I think you'll agree with me that polarized partisan politics is poisoning America, would you not?

[billroper]

I saw this reported on one or another conservative web site, which is why I was somewhat familiar with the case. :)

Interestingly, the folks on the other side of this argument also believe that every American is entitled to one vote per election and suspect that there are folks who are getting more than that. My suspicion is that one of the reasons that this particular ruling is being challenged is because of the danger that someone who is not legally entitled to vote for one reason or another might find it easier to get through the process without being caught if they can register and vote (absentee in this case) at the same time. Although no one was prosecuted for it in the last Presidential election, there were a lot of pretty suspicious looking things that went on in Milwaukee, where same-day registration is allowed.

Bruce Schneier is fairly convinced that retail vote fraud is not a problem, but I can't manage to believe that. We had a number of discussions on the issue around the last election. But we know there are documented cases of people who voted in both New York and Florida in recent elections.

As far as using calm logic, well, doing anything else would be counter-productive, wouldn't it? :)

And, yes, both daisy_knotwise and I agree that the demonization of the opposition is doing no one in the U.S. any favors.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I hear you. I *so* hear you.

[owlsforodin.livejournal.com]

Maybe if the election weren't going to be so dadgum close, the major parties wouldn't try stunts like this. Less than 200,000 votes in a single state is way too close for my liking. I don't consider nail-biter elections to be a sign of strength of the system. I consider them to be signs of polarization in society that if allowed to fester will contribute to the overall breakdown of the system. A more substantial but yet still modest (say 55%-45%) margin of victory is more my style. A reasonably sound endorsement of a set of policies without it being a blank check.

[braider.livejournal.com]

Thank!