|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 9, 2012 22:31:55 GMT -5
I truly believe there should be a test before you vote. You should be able to distinguish the basic platform of the person you are voting for compared to the opponent(s). Voting is a fundamental right, not a fundamental right for people that Demosthenes thinks are smart enough. Who, specifically, would you put in charge of writing and maintaining this test? Since we're in a thread about alleged voter fraud/suppression, what is your specific plan to ensure that this test isn't deliberately catered to serve the testmaker's own interests? And then how, specifically, do you ensure that it's applied and graded fairly in all precincts? Not only does it smack of literacy tests and Jim Crow laws, whether intended or not, but it would take the Supreme Court about 9 seconds of deliberation to rule it unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act explicitly prohibits these sorts of tests, whether or not the discrimination is intentional. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 9, 2012 22:34:51 GMT -5
Also, the LAST thing most elected officials want is an educated electorate.
|
|
|
|
Post by marktaggart on Nov 10, 2012 0:38:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 10, 2012 1:09:59 GMT -5
To me, these are the questions we really need to be asking:
1.) Is it REALLY technologically possible to achieve massive voter fraud over mulitple states?
2.) Is it possible to have such a widespread conspiracy which assumedly would need to include a large number of people, and keep it completely unnoticed?
Literally every website covering these supposed frauds that I could find are right-wing whackjob wingnut sites like the freepers and people who talk about America being "browned out." Places that make the denizens of Fox News or AM radio look like Michael Moore. Most of these people simply can't handle the fact that their echo chamber was proven wrong--the same people decrying Nate Silver for his pesky FACTS can't handle the fact that he hit everything on the button. Or is Nate in on this, too? Yeah, something tells me that former Baseball Prospectus writers aren't folks who have their finger on government cover-ups.
Years ago Republicans loved to bring up an alleged quote of the noted film critic Pauline Kael for when she supposedly said that she couldn't believe Richard Nixon won the '72 election in a landslide, because she didn't know anyone who voted for him. The people aghast that their projections were proven wrong (Romney was never "neck and neck" with Obama at any point, not even after the first debate) have become what they used to make fun of.
I don't believe in the moon landing hoax, or the 9/11 truth movement. I tend not to believe in conspiracy theories--that a government that couldn't cover up a hotel break-in could secretly bring down buildings that killed 3700 people. If there was actual hard evidence worth looking into instead of random false leads, Fox News would be all over it by now. Contrary to popular belief not all media is a Liberal Conspiracy.
ADDENDUM: St. Lucie is missing vote cards if that count is correct, it doesn't have too many--there are two vote cards for every voter in the county.
I would say this is an instance where the phrase, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence" applies.
|
|
|
|
Post by marktaggart on Nov 10, 2012 2:15:58 GMT -5
It is INCREDIBLY easy. Test runs have been done with the voting machines, and programmers have testified in court about the way in which it can be done.
Furthermore, it does not take a "massive and widespread" conspiracy (oooh, the spooky buzzword of our era). It simply takes small pockets of like-minded people with an agenda. If enough of them are collected, it looks like a larger orchestrated effort. To whit, I KNOW people who have committed such "conspiracy". As I wrote in the initial post, I WORK with them and I pointed this out four years ago (in the case of coerced voting). When I took it to the top of the agency, they did find problems and it did elicit a change in the way people are allowed to handle the clients in the agency for which I work. I also PERSONALLY KNOW people who have told me of voting "early and often" for their guy. It seems to be a sport to some people.
Let's try to focus here. Case sample: Please address the situation in Philly where poll watchers were illegally kicked out and the candidate of choice (the one the election official was wearing clothing supporting) took 99-percent of the vote with 90 percent turnout (far above national average, and far above citywide average). There is a HEAVY appearance of impropriety there
Stick with the subjects at hand; don't try muddying the waters by throwing a ton of "wacky" stuff at the wall.
THE WHOLE ELECTION AND VOTING PROCESS IN THIS COUNTRY IS FLAWED. This is not a left/right issue (as I don't ascribe to either of the two party/one party mindset). This is a right/wrong issue. Third party voices are shut out entirely and the two major cartels control the show. Every year it seems more obvious that the one with the most devoted cheaters wins. How about Florida in 2000? I suppose you didn't find anything wrong there, did you? All was on the up and up and it was just incompetence that gave Bush the win?
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 10, 2012 9:35:06 GMT -5
I truly believe there should be a test before you vote. You should be able to distinguish the basic platform of the person you are voting for compared to the opponent(s). Who, specifically, would you put in charge of writing and maintaining this test? These guys look like a good start. Comes with great music too! Disclaimer: I realize it's easy to pick on fad-following Obama band wagoners. but that isn't the point. The point is there are uninformed voters on BOTH sides. And like Demosthenes carefully points out, there are already enough fully capable voters completely unaware of their surroundings that a test is merited. Taking advantage of, or "steering" the mentally incapable is obviously wrong. Defending it is bizarre. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 10, 2012 10:28:08 GMT -5
Let's try to focus here. Case sample: Please address the situation in Philly where poll watchers were illegally kicked out and the candidate of choice (the one the election official was wearing clothing supporting) took 99-percent of the vote with 90 percent turnout (far above national average, and far above citywide average). There is a HEAVY appearance of impropriety there I see an out-of-focus photo of a blue cap with indeterminate white lettering. No one, NO ONE, has reported this being "Obama clothing" except for the aforementioned tinfoil hat websites. Again, Fox News hasn't even touched this shit yet. Before I have to explain shit I want actual solid proof that what happened is what these websites state. If the Democrats can will themselves to win whatever seat they want, what happened in 2010? Why didn't they just take the House this year while they were at it? Why not make the Senate filibuster-proof? How did the results breakdown so closely match careful analysis of the polling? Hell--the ballots are supposed to be secret anyway. Why put on this big show in public where you can get found out? You could just skip a step and declare whoever you want to be the winner, the winner. Who'd be the wiser? This is where Occam's Razor takes over. People say "this isn't a left/right issue" but the only people making it an issue in this election cycle are on the right. Go find an election result that the left would really hate--Michelle Bachmann winning, for example. That was a close, tight race that's come close to a mandatory recount. Go find talk of a "conspiracy" there. District-gerrymandering plainly isn't the same thing. Actually yes. I was never big on the "Bush stole the election" train. Sorry if that doesn't fit one's narrative of me as a blind left-wing bleeding-heart. EDIT: Clearly something was and is hideously wrong with the Florida process. I'm talking about conspiracies and fraud and stealing. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 10, 2012 11:05:41 GMT -5
99% support for Obama in a ward of 10,000 voters in a heavily black neighborhood? That's a lot but under the circumstances, really not overly ridiculous. This isn't 99% support from an entire big city.
I want to hear more about this guy who was "forcibly" removed from a voting station. Was he threatened with a gun, or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by marktaggart on Nov 10, 2012 13:13:44 GMT -5
Pete, I can't help it anymore: this is ridiculous. "Tin foil hat" now. Wow. Examples have been given, both from a number of sources and from MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You want to start (as most of your ilk) with the dismissive name calling and pejoratives against any source that doesn't lean so far to the left it is walking on its side, and if someone knocked at your door and said "sorry Pete, I cheated" you'd still find a way to blame "the demon right wingers". It's absurd like clown shoes at this point and I don't think anyone can take it seriously. washingtonexaminer.com/philly-gop-poll-inspectors-being-ousted-for-dems/article/2512714#.UJ6XBGfVoU4I suppose since this wasn't in Huffington Post or New York Times it won't count to you, but verifiable info is posted. I'll tell you what: you are always so quick to sit back and demand proof of everyone else. Why don't YOU come back with some facts and switch it up a little. Don't sit back and expect someone to do all of the work for you. Isn't that what all of those "angry, evil right wing nuts" always accuse you guys of doing? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 10, 2012 13:29:51 GMT -5
Pete, I suppose since this wasn't in Huffington Post or New York Times it won't count to you, but verifiable info is posted. I'll tell you what: you are always so quick to sit back and demand proof of everyone else. Why don't YOU come back with some facts and switch it up a little. Don't sit back and expect someone to do all of the work for you. Isn't that what all of those "angry, evil right wing nuts" always accuse you guys of doing? I'm not the one making the claim, so I'm under no obligation to do anything. Can't prove a negative and all of that. |
|
