As I said before, we are going to do this the American way (the same way as you liberal posters insist on when you post liberally biased material) I posted them, you question them (no mention of the ones not from that website???)prove them wrong. If you won't do it then either concede or find a new thread to play on. It's very simple!
Every single "quote" you provided was from the page I linked to. They have been shown to be insufficient as "evidence." You are the Republican party's wet dream - you will swallow anything they throw at you as long as it conforms to your narrow world view. You got bitch-slapped. Live with it. Twit.
Strange I saw no mention of "Business First" or "Courier-Journal" on that website *slap* You are the Republican party's wet dream - you will swallow anything they throw at you as long as it conforms to your narrow world view. You got bitch-slapped. Live with it. Twit. [/QUOTE] And because I knew you were one of those liberals who expects everyone else to do all the work for you and then will never believe anything if it doesn't fit your agenda, I spent about two minutes and found this: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov00/smokes15111400a.asp Next time don't lie about how you couldn't find the articles, just admit you didn't try. *slap*
So the ONE article you can provide us is about a woman who gave 15-25 homeless men a cigarette to vote in Milwaukee? An action by a single individual who admitted it was wrong and paid $5,000 fine (expensive smokes!) This is your evidence of massive and pervasive voter fraud by minority and lower income individuals? Dude you are clueless. If you level a serious charge as you have it is up to YOU to provide concrete, non-partisan evidence of such activity. Calling us lazy for not coming up with YOUR evidence is absurd!
I admit it, I stopped looking after the first one. I figured it would be a waste of time. Turns out I was right.
You have to be a bot since there are few other explanations for your lack of comprehension. The governor called for an anti-voter fraud initiative statewide, which given the voter fraud history of eastern Kentucky is probably not a bad thing. The GOP county chairman appointed challengers to black polling precincts in Louisville on a totally "random" basis. You're not even paying attention anymore, are you? I would have a lot more respect for you if you would just admit that they're trying to scare blacks away from the polls, but hey, it's legal, and there's nothing stopping Democrats from doing the same thing elsewhere. That's the honest answer here, not some "we picked randomly" bullcrap. Of course they didn't. You're acting Clintonesque when you bring up Milwaukee as an excuse for what the GOP is doing in Louisville.
I do find it refreshing that you can actually say something that is critical of Clinton, most liberals on here can't. The point I have been trying to make is that there is precedent all over the country of this kind of fraud and in the state of Kentucky. So much so that even the Democratic candidate has previously called for this. The choice of precincts may be suspicious but these are the types of areas that usually have these voter frauds, so it would be logical. What they are doing is actually helping people to follow a state law. you must show ID to vote. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that. I also don't see why if you are properly registered you would be intimidated by someone wanting proof (ID and voter card) that you are registered to vote in that district. All I am looking for is someone to provide a good reason why this is wrong.
Okay, House, here you go. Over-Voting. In Democrat strongholds like St. Louis, Philadelphia and Detroit, some precincts had 100% of their registered voters voting, with 99% of the ballots going to Gore. Clearly, multiple voting resulted in extra tallies for Gore in the 2000 election. (New York Post, 12/09/00). Boy, you’d have thought this would make news. As a matter of fact, Christopher Bond, Republican Senator from Missouri, asked the FBI to investigate alleged St. Louis fraud. They came up with nothing. Amusingly, I can’t find any trace of a Post article to this effect. There’s a Washington Times article about Philadelphia, which I take about as seriously as anything else ranting Moonies say. Dead Voters. This classic Democratic method of vote fraud goes all the way back to 1960 in Chicago and Dallas. The 2000 election was no exception. In Miami-Dade County, for example, some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who's been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00). The real dead voters here were every man and woman in the United States – http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181 is a mind-bogglingly partisan site which nevertheless has real numbers. As we will see, the Reeps padded their totals far more than the Democrats. In any case, it was of course the Supreme Court who voted in 2000, not anyone in Florida, California, or Kentucky.
Amazing what you can find with some effort, and you even admitted bias on a site, too bad your fellow libs can't see something like that! Of course this still does not prove that they shouldn't make sure that people are registered voters.
Perhaps I am missing something, as I am not familiar with the law in the state of Kentucky. But I don't understand the outrage against using the challengers. The article which is discussed in this thread clearly indicates that using election challengers is legal in Kentucky. It seems to me that election challengers will ensure a fair election and will kept fraud from ocurring. Only those planning to commit fraud should be concerned about the presence of these challengers. I voted as an American for the first time in the California recall election, and I was very surprised that I was not asked for any form of identification. I was only asked to sign next to my name on a list that they had, but how can they possibly authenticate my signature? Isn't our democracy too important to depend on the honor system? I wish there had been somebody there, a challenger or whatever, to ask for my identification. That would have made me more confident of the process.
ASF, I confess to only having skimmed this thread to date, but as I understand it, it's not the use of challengers per se, but the use of challengers only in heavily black districts that is the problem. In other words, you may be correct that a more stringent standard than in your case is appropriate, but if so why is the more stringent standard in some places and not others? Should there be any suspicion about why those particular places were chosen?
Add to that it appears they were, um, less than truthful about hwo they decided in which precincts to place challengers, and you kinda have to question their motivation.
If the article is correct, either party has the right to put challengers in any precinct. But you are right in that if they choose to do so only in heavily black districts then they are opening themselves up for questioning and criticism. If the party suspects fraud, then it would be smarter for them to put challengers in all districts. I know Argentina is not always the best example of a model democracy. But I remember (back when I voted there) that every political party which presented a candidate used to have two observers at every polling place to watch for irregularities. I remember a time when some of my relatives volunteered as observers and also to help in the vote count. And while I am not always proud of what happens in my birth-land, in this case I think it was a good thing.
Don't disagree with you that observers are a good thing as long as they are OBSERVING not intimidating. There are going to be some serious observers in affect in seing states this time around after the 2000 fiasco. ASF - on the signature thing. In most states the signature of the voter is checked against the signature on your voter registration card. Here in Oregon were we are entirely vote by mail every signature on envelope is checked against the signature on the registration card. If the signatures do not match then they call you, if they can't get ahold of you they put the ballot in a "holding pen" and continue efforts at follow-up. Signatures work alot better then ID cards because ID cards are more easily forged. On a final note. Folks less than half of America voted in the last Presidential election ( Why can't every state be like Oregon where 83% voter turnout happened - that's normal in Presidential years). Do we REALLY think fraud is that big of an issue?
Welcome to BigSoccer, where obie has never been a big fan of Bill. But not in Louisville! Can't you just admit that? If the Kentucky GOP was really concerned about the integrity of its elections, it'd be monitoring poll places in Clay and Knott Counties, not Louisville County. As Loney has pointed out in painstaking detail, that's a load of crap hoisted upon you by the GOP spinmeisters. Read up on it more if you don't believe that. But even if there were problems in St. Louis or Philly or wherever, these precincts in Louisville don't have a history of voter fraud, and all you're doing is lumping poor black people together into a "they're frauds" category. To assume that predominately black Louisville precincts are more susceptible to fraud is highly suspicious, but to say so when other, whiter counties in Kentucky have a documented history of voter fraud is racist. It's wrong because the election law is selectively enforced. If the cops started pulling over all of the black motorists driving 66 in a 65 mph zone, it'd be legal but not consistent. But when the black motorist is getting his driver's license checked while white drivers are flying by at 90+, why shouldn't they be suspicious? It's legal, but it makes voting at best less convenient and at worst nearly impossible. These people saw what the GOP was able to do in some precincts in Florida (link earlier in this thread) and thought, "what a great idea". And if Florida is any indication, the challengers will tie people up for a couple of hours by enforcing the arcane (what id's are acceptable, how much the person looks like their driver's license, why no 2nd form of ID even though it's not required by law) instead of just letting people vote like they will do in the whiter suburbs.
The outrage expressed in this thread absolutely amazes me! I have worked at the polls ever since I was 4 and could lisp "Please vote for my Daddy." I've been in mostly mid- to upper-class, mostly white districts, and I cannot tell you of ONE election where there wasn't observers! When I was Hatched, I acted as an observer (for the Democratic party, in case you're wondering). I have voted in the same district for the past 5 years, and am still expected to show ID - and the little old lady who asks me is in my Sunday School class! Obviously, different states & areas do things differently - but I fail to see where asking for ID in any polling district can be construed as anything but proper. But then again, if you really want an arguement, you can find one every time...
asf, as an immigrant, it's understandable that you have no concept of the danger black people who wanted to vote faced less than 40 years ago. But that's a large part of what is going on here...not mere "goo goo" anti-fraud stuff. But an attempt to intimidate.