NationStates Jolt Archive

Just kind of wonder what democrats who have been screaming about disenfranchized in Florida have to think about the voters in NY and Florida, primarily democrats, who are registered to vote in both states? Here's the article.

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....IN TWO PLACES

This should not come as a surprise. In an exclusive, The New York Daily News is reporting that some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both New York and Florida. It's against the law, but it happens all the time because officials don't investigate across state lines.

Think about that....46,000 potentially fraudulent ballots. Bush won Florida by 537 votes in 2000. What's worse? Of the 46,000, 68% are Democrats. Adding insult to injury, at least 1,700 of those that vote both places actually have absentee ballots from the other jurisdiction mailed to their home.

The 2004 Democratic voter fraud machine is already gearing up.

Give me a link. Cite your sources.

Until then, you're full of shit :)

That's pretty bad. I'm sure that most Americans, Rep or Dem, would only want their candidate to win by legitimate means.

Bush still stole the 2000 election. ;)

And the problem is that they can get away with it, because the Democrats are a party of lawyers. In fact, one's running as VP.

Give me a link. Cite your sources.

Until then, you're full of shit

Second story down.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/224934p-193064c.html

In 1997 Maimi's mayoral had an unusual amount of felons and dead people voting. According to the Maimi Herald more than 50,000 felons and 18,000 were among Florida's registered voters. So the Florida legislature appropriated $4 million to fix said problem (felons can't vote in Florida, much less dead people). People were sent notices that they wouldn't be able to vote months in advance in many cases (so they could contest if they were indeed felons).

If it's happening--and I stress the if because I believe Neil Boortz about as far as I can throw him--then both the state of Florida and the state of New York need to determine where these voters' primary residences are and let them vote only in that state. The problem isn't that anyone is trying to steal an election--it's that the states aren't doing their jobs, assuming, again, that this is actually happening. More likely is that it's a situation where people have changed their registration and the notification hasn't caught up with the former state yet. We are talking about bureaucracies here.

In 1997 Maimi's mayoral had an unusual amount of felons and dead people voting. According to the Maimi Herald more than 50,000 felons and 18,000 were among Florida's registered voters. So the Florida legislature appropriated $4 million to fix said problem (felons can't vote in Florida, much less dead people). People were sent notices that they wouldn't be able to vote months in advance in many cases (so they could contest if they were indeed felons).
I heard once that a dead guy was elected to Congress. This was a long time ago, of course.

Hell, a dead guy was elected to Congress in 2000--he beat John Ashcroft.

http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/014663.html

Bitchslapped in commentary here. Read your own source, less then a thousand dual voted. The 46,000 just are accidently registered in two places.

Hell, a dead guy was elected to Congress in 2000--he beat John Ashcroft.
Oh yeah I saw that on Feirenheit 9/11! And If anyone on this thread is voting Bush, just give a reason to the nation Bad Republicans on why he should be re-elected, notice the only people that vote for him are working class poor southerners or Yee-Haw gun owners. Bush was found freezing cold in a drive-in movie lot, he had been there for three days seeing the movie, Closed for Winter. An example of Bushs America: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :sniper:

Bitchslapped in commentary here. Read your own source, less then a thousand dual voted. The 46,000 just are accidently registered in two places.

1000 people cast illegal votes....how is this worse than disenfranchisement now?

1000 people cast illegal votes....how is this worse than disenfranchisement now?
It's not?

Election scandal in Florida? Surely not!

46,000 dual registered, but how many actually voted? And were the proportions of democrats among those who voted the same as the proportions of democrats among those who registered? And source, please.

dual registered, but how many actually voted? And were the proportions of democrats among those who voted the same as the proportions of democrats among those who registered? And source, please.

Hehe, thanks....that is exactly my point about disenfranchizement too.

Hehe, thanks....that is exactly my point about disenfranchizement too.
Ah, ok, you're trolling. Sorry I responded seriously.

Ah, ok, you're trolling. Sorry I responded seriously.

Hardly, but it is nice for you to make a point for me. They throw out these numbers for disenfranchizement, but they are just smoke in wind. Nobody knows how many of these people would have actually voted or which ones.

Hardly, but it is nice for you to make a point for me. They throw out these numbers for disenfranchizement, but they are just smoke in wind. Nobody knows how many of these people would have actually voted or which ones.
No, but you can make some extrapolations based on voter models and the general population. Take the number of people disenfranchised--I've read figures that estimate anywhere from 58,000 to 98,000, but I'll be generous and go with the low number. Voter turnout was about 50%, which it usually is, but for the sake of argument, I'll allow that only 20% of the people who were disenfranchised would have tried--or did try and were turned away--to vote. That's about 11,600 voters. African-Americans were overwhelmingly targeted, and they went for Gore nationally 92% to 8% for Bush, but again, I'll be conservative and say they went 60/40 for Gore. That would be an additional 6,960 votes for Gore versus another 4,640 for Bush, for a difference of 2,320 votes. What was that margin again in Florida 2000? 537 votes? And I've been real conservative in my estimations here. So yes--it's more than fair to say that disenfranchisement was an issue, was indeed the issue in the Florida 2000 election.

Try a thousand. The article said that 400-1,000 voted two times.
Different discussion--we're talking about disenfranchisement here, not double voting.

No, but you can make some extrapolations based on voter models and the general population. Take the number of people disenfranchised--I've read figures that estimate anywhere from 58,000 to 98,000, but I'll be generous and go with the low number. Voter turnout was about 50%, which it usually is, but for the sake of argument, I'll allow that only 20% of the people who were disenfranchised would have tried--or did try and were turned away--to vote. That's about 11,600 voters. African-Americans were overwhelmingly targeted, and they went for Gore nationally 92% to 8% for Bush, but again, I'll be conservative and say they went 60/40 for Gore. That would be an additional 6,960 votes for Gore versus another 4,640 for Bush, for a difference of 2,320 votes. What was that margin again in Florida 2000? 537 votes? And I've been real conservative in my estimations here. So yes--it's more than fair to say that disenfranchisement was an issue, was indeed the issue in the Florida 2000 election.

But it's all just a guess. Which is my point. No matter what, you are making assumptions. I'm not saying it wasn't bs, it definately was. But so was this double voting, and so was the attack on military absentee votes, so was the under votes/over votes, so was the media announcing Gore won before polls were closed in the primarily Republican panhandle, causing many voters to turn around and go home (estimates have put that number between 5 to 10,000 people left, turned around from the polls), but that number is as much speculation as any of the others.

But it's all just a guess. Which is my point. No matter what, you are making assumptions. I'm not saying it wasn't bs, it definately was. But so was this double voting, and so was the attack on military absentee votes, so was the under votes/over votes, so was the media announcing Gore won before polls were closed in the primarily Republican panhandle, causing many voters to turn around and go home (estimates have put that number between 5 to 10,000 people left, turned around from the polls), but that number is as much speculation as any of the others.I have to take some exception with your last claim there, namely that between 5 and 10,000 people turned around rather than voting because the media called Florida early. First off--who's making that estimate? Is there a reason for that number or is it provided rectally (not necessarily by you--a Limbaugh type, however, isn't out of the question)?

Secondly, let's look at the logic at play here. In order for this scenario to actually work, you have to have a fairly large number of people in a pretty sparsely populated part of the state (compared to the rest of it) decide that they were going to turn around rather than vote inside the space of an hour. After all, the election wasn't called the first time until after the polls closed in the eastern time zone, so there was less than an hour for this wave of despondent Republicans to suddenly give up and go home and unwittingly make the vote close. You also have to allow that while the panhandle is more Republican than Democratic, the scenario requires that only Republicans get despondent and go home, while the Democrats decide to run out and vote in a show of solidarity before they go out and force conservative Christians to have abortions and deny that Christ is their personal saviour.

Okay--I'm getting snarky here, but I think I'm allowed because of the ridiculousness of the scenario. The disenfranchisement of African American voters isn't some wacky theory--it happened. The state of Florida settled a lawsuit over the matter. To equate the disenfranchisement of voters with some wacky idea that tv anchors causes thousands of voters to go home without voting is insulting, actually.

But it's all just a guess. Which is my point. No matter what, you are making assumptions. I'm not saying it wasn't bs, it definately was. But so was this double voting, and so was the attack on military absentee votes, so was the under votes/over votes, so was the media announcing Gore won before polls were closed in the primarily Republican panhandle, causing many voters to turn around and go home (estimates have put that number between 5 to 10,000 people left, turned around from the polls), but that number is as much speculation as any of the others.

The so-called "attack" on military absentee votes was specific to ballots that were not properly filled out. I hate to say it, but an absentee ballot isn't all that hard to fill out - military or not, if you don't fill it out right, they don't count your vote.

My vote got discounted because it didn't get there on time, should I bitch and moan about it?

Hardly, but it is nice for you to make a point for me. They throw out these numbers for disenfranchizement, but they are just smoke in wind. Nobody knows how many of these people would have actually voted or which ones.
Well actually I made a point for me... which you then refused to address. You really don't know what you're talking about here do you?

Okay--I'm getting snarky here, but I think I'm allowed because of the ridiculousness of the scenario. The disenfranchisement of African American voters isn't some wacky theory--it happened. The state of Florida settled a lawsuit over the matter. To equate the disenfranchisement of voters with some wacky idea that tv anchors causes thousands of voters to go home without voting is insulting, actually.

It's not a ridiculous scenario....the panhandle is primarily Republican, and when they called the state for Gore, the polls there reported many people packing up and leaving without voting....5,000 to 10,000 votes lost for that part of the state in the final hour is hardly unreasonable. Saying that they would be mostly Republican isn't either. If it happened in Miami, like, say under voting and over voting, the dems would say it was mostly there votes. By the way, the state of Florida sent out letters to "disenfranchized" voters prior to the election, giving them time to protest. Where is the stretch that people who don't check their mail or don't care to do anything about the letter didn't go out and vote?

Well actually I made a point for me... which you then refused to address. You really don't know what you're talking about here do you?

I didn't have to make it a personal attack, why did you? Where is the strength in your arguement when you have to resort to stuff like that?

The so-called "attack" on military absentee votes was specific to ballots that were not properly filled out. I hate to say it, but an absentee ballot isn't all that hard to fill out - military or not, if you don't fill it out right, they don't count your vote.

I agree, but it is a little bit messed up for democrats to actively campaign against our soldiers, because they know they vote mostly Republican, don't you think? That is basically what they did....sent out a very specific list of things to look for to discount their votes.

The 2004 Democratic voter fraud machine is already gearing up.Funny that the one case sited was actually a republican. :rolleyes: