|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2004 11:11:37 PM · #26 |
Ron, I spoke with my father this evening, who lives in Broward and he told me that what you say is in fact true, but he also added that they just don't have enough polling locations. In addition, this is just going to complicate matters on election day and there are bound to be problems with voters not getting into vote and/or their votes not being counted with all the confusion.
In addition, Broward is not the only location where problems are arising. They are happening in many places around the country, but to stay in Florida yet again, Greg Palast is now reporting that he has obtained a secret document from the Bush campaign headquarters that appears to suggest that once again, a plan to dissupt voting in black areas of Florida by challenging these voters when they show up at their polling locations. It seems that a "caging" list has been compiled of more than 1800 names and addresses of people living in predominantly black and democratic areas. What could they be using a list such as that for?
Story can be read here:
Greg Palast BBC Reporter
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Seems like Florida is really having problems with the early voting and their mailings of the absentee ballots. There are two hour long lines to get into the voting booth if you want to vote early, as well as, limited parking, so that many people who want to vote early are not voting. What does this portend for Election day? |
In a word, longer lines, and Problems with a capital P. The reason for the problem is NOT with the process ( or the machines ). It is because, in addition to the "normal" slate of federal, state, county, district, and town offices, there are EIGHT constitutional amendments to vote on, as well as county, district, and town initiatives. For MANY, the first time they will be aware of those amendments and initiatives is when they see them listed on the ballot IN THE VOTING BOOTH. Thus, it will take them an inordinate amount of time to read, try to comprehend the "legalese" language, and decide on how to vote on those amendments and initiatives. The limited parking is because county supervisors underestimated the turnout ( this was the first time early voting has been available ). So, part of the problem is an insufficient NUMBER of voting places, and part of the problem is the media hype to vote early. Tom Joyner, an extremely popular black radio talk show host, was in Orlando earlier in the week and ran his show from one of the designated early voting venues. Naturally, the lines were 3-hours long that morning. On Election Day, the lines are sure to be long for the same reason - voters who have not yet seen the amendments and initiatives - even though sample ballots containing them have been mailed to every registered voter.
The problems are TOTALLY unrelated to the supposed problems of 2000 - most of which were related to voters who couldn't follow simple directions - and it is outrageous to be pointing a finger at Jeb Bush for the problems associated with early voting or this years absentee ballots. But then, considering your apparent vendetta against anything Bush, it's not unexpected that you would stoop to that tired tactic. After all, it is in the Democratic playbook.
But anyway, how do Florida's voting problems relate to dsmboostaholic's original questions? |
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 12:26:11 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, I spoke with my father this evening, who lives in Broward and he told me that what you say is in fact true, but he also added that they just don't have enough polling locations. In addition, this is just going to complicate matters on election day and there are bound to be problems with voters not getting into vote and/or their votes not being counted with all the confusion.
In addition, Broward is not the only location where problems are arising. They are happening in many places around the country, but to stay in Florida yet again, Greg Palast is now reporting that he has obtained a secret document from the Bush campaign headquarters that appears to suggest that once again, a plan to dissupt voting in black areas of Florida by challenging these voters when they show up at their polling locations. It seems that a "caging" list has been compiled of more than 1800 names and addresses of people living in predominantly black and democratic areas. What could they be using a list such as that for?
Story can be read here:
Greg Palast BBC Reporter |
Well, First of all, Greg Palast has an axe to grind, so some if not much of what he says is of the innuendo and unsubstantiated claims variety - by merely posing the QUESTION, the reader is made to question the allegation in his/her own mind, even if there is no basis whatsoever in truth. That being said, the article itself nowhere states explicitly that there is anything illegal about either the list itself, or what he perceives to be its intended use. YOUR statement that the list contains some 1800 names and addresses of people living in predominantly black and democratic areas is conjecture. The republicans maintain that mailings to those addresses came back as undeliverable - meaning that the addresses were not REAL. SO, wouldn't it stand to reason that anyone showing up claiming that residence address would NOT be a valid voter - and NOT entitled to vote?
Message edited by author 2004-10-29 15:41:19. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 03:37:26 PM · #28 |
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Ron, you just don't get it. There doesn't need to be any proof or evidence to raise the charge. The democrat rule book for running elections (which, of course, is the only fair way to run elections), explicitly states that if there's no evidence of voter intimidation, then you launch a pre-emptive strike.
The funny thing, of course, is that even though this tactic managed to be exposed, they're still employing it effectively.
You know, all this negative talk about republicans is setting a very intimidating political tone for me. I'm feeling a bit disenfranchised. I think I need to go out and cast two or three votes to make up for it. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 03:51:08 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, I spoke with my father this evening, who lives in Broward and he told me that what you say is in fact true, but he also added that they just don't have enough polling locations. In addition, this is just going to complicate matters on election day and there are bound to be problems with voters not getting into vote and/or their votes not being counted with all the confusion. |
In addition to what Ron pointed out, here in San Diego they opened up early voting, but there's only one place in the entire country (as far as I can tell) to go cast an early ballot. On the flip side, on election day there are probably thousands of polling sites around the county (I can't find an exact number anywhere, but they are very localized). So it would make sense that if there is only one location for early voting, and enough people are scared into voting early, that you would overwhelm the limited number of early voting locations. Then add to that a little hysteria when the first day of early voting gets national coverage for the lines.
Also, its interesting how one side in this debate keeps accusing the other side of playing on people's fears, but the amount of fear being generated by the side making the accusations is monumental. The democrat campaign slogan should be "Scare Out the Vote". |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 04:00:03 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
you explicitly strike republicans and feel make up. |
Strange how selective quoting can change the meaning of something, isn't it Scott ?
For another example of selective editing
Amazing, the Drudge report yet again turning out to be not entirely trustworthy. Who'd a thunk it ?
Message edited by author 2004-10-29 16:09:05.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 06:22:11 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ScottK:
you explicitly strike republicans and feel make up. |
Strange how selective quoting can change the meaning of something, isn't it Scott ?
For another example of selective editing
Amazing, the Drudge report yet again turning out to be not entirely trustworthy. Who'd a thunk it ? |
I'm sure there's a point there somewhere....?
If you're implying that I left out part of Olyuzi's post with some malicious intent, then you're confused. My first paragraph was in response to his first paragraph. My second paragraph was a sentiment I almost posted in another thread. It didn't fit there, so it was still in my mind. My only real reason for cutting the rest of what was in his post was for clarity, and to keep the page just a tad bit shorter. I really don't have any opinion on Greg Palast, and Ron already responded with more than I could or would care to. It was irrelevant. Should I quote every post in this thread, just for "context"?
And on an entirely separate tangent, how was this taken "out of context":
Originally posted by "DNC":
II. HOW TO ORGANIZE TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATION
The best way to combat minority voter intimidation tactics is to prevent them from occurring in the first place and prepare in advance to deal with them should they take place on election day.
(***BIG NOTE SO NOBODY THINKS I'M BEING DISHONEST: THERE'S A SECTION 1 HERE THAT ISN'T REALLY RELEVANT. BUT IF YOU'RE WORRIED THAT I'M HIDING SOMETHING, YOU CAN READ THE ENTIRE SECTION AT THE LINK GORDON POSTED PREVIOUSLY, AND WHICH I LEFT UNALTERED IN MY REPLY.***)
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Issue a press release
i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls |
Now, what exactly does the "context" add, which changes the meaning of this statement: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike'"? It still says that even if there's no voter intimidation, raise the issue of voter intimidation. Isn't that intimidation itself? Which goes back to my previous statement: One side in this debate keeps accusing the other side of playing on people's fears, but the amount of fear being generated by the side making the accusations is monumental.
Hope you don't mind, but I quoted myself out of context. :)
Message edited by author 2004-10-29 18:23:44. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 06:00:53 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 06:00:53 PM EDT.
|
