NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting.

But millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights.

....

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6306466

Look at that. The Republicans will do ANYTHING to stop people from voting. :rolleyes: :mad:

While distasteful, the full article goes on to list the number of people who are "disenfranchised" because of felony convictions. I don't think they can be considered as disenfranchised because that is an issue for the states to decide. If a state has a rule that people with felony convictions can't vote, then it doesn't matter if those people are black, white, green, or blue. It is part of their penalty for what crime they've committed.

However, this article discusses the scare tactics on predominantly black communities to keep them from voting and that is a disgusting and appalling tactic.

YEah and I bet you won't hear a word from any Republicans denouncing this practice. We saw it in 2000 and I havne't heard a single Republican agree that it's wrong to do such things. I find it dispiccable.

While distasteful, the full article goes on to list the number of people who are "disenfranchised" because of felony convictions. I don't think they can be considered as disenfranchised because that is an issue for the states to decide. If a state has a rule that people with felony convictions can't vote, then it doesn't matter if those people are black, white, green, or blue. It is part of their penalty for what crime they've committed.

However, this article discusses the scare tactics on predominantly black communities to keep them from voting and that is a disgusting and appalling tactic.

I agree with both of your points.

YEah and I bet you won't hear a word from any Republicans denouncing this practice. We saw it in 2000 and I havne't heard a single Republican agree that it's wrong to do such things. I find it dispiccable.

Thats funny....when asked...not ONE person came forward to say they had been prevented from voting...NOT ONE!!

That's funny, several thousand people have come forward over the past 4 years to state that they were blocked from voting.

That's funny, several thousand people have come forward over the past 4 years to state just that.

Really? A link? Cause Congress called hearings and could not find ONE person who would say that.....

While distasteful, the full article goes on to list the number of people who are "disenfranchised" because of felony convictions. I don't think they can be considered as disenfranchised because that is an issue for the states to decide. If a state has a rule that people with felony convictions can't vote, then it doesn't matter if those people are black, white, green, or blue. It is part of their penalty for what crime they've committed.

However, this article discusses the scare tactics on predominantly black communities to keep them from voting and that is a disgusting and appalling tactic.


While I think it is okay for them to take people convicted of felonies off the voting roles if that is the state law.... We must watch them very carefull as in Florida in 2000 they had tens of thousands of mainly black democrats stricken off teh voting roles who had done nothign at all. The reasoning showed that they had commited a crime 30 years in the future.

you know, that's pretty stupid (not allowing anyone who was convicted of anything to vote ever again) i mean, part of going to prison is rehabilitation...

i dunno, here i know you can be restricted from voting if you're found to have made a false oath, which also prohibits you from certain jobs.

Really? A link? Cause Congress called hearings and could not find ONE person who would say that.....


Can you provide a link that says Congress could not find anyone who claims this?

Of course, in the upcoming election, everyone in a state with electronic voting could magically become disenfranchised - yet no one yells about that.

((not to say, of course, that *anyone* being wrongfully disenfranchised is a good thing - just pointing out that it could be *everyone* in this coming election))

YEah and I bet you won't hear a word from any Republicans denouncing this practice. We saw it in 2000 and I havne't heard a single Republican agree that it's wrong to do such things.

Well, guess what, I'm a Republican and I'm saying it's wrong to do such things. But, I mean, stereotyping and generalizations are fun, so why don't you just keep going with that.

Really? A link? Cause Congress called hearings and could not find ONE person who would say that.....

You know, it gets old for people to ask for links that they could just as easily have found themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/florida.election/

Widespread complaints of voting irregularities prompted the commission to hold hearings in Florida earlier this year at which more than 100 people have testified.

Isn't that....your state Biff?

Can you provide a link that says Congress could not find anyone who claims this?

Can you provide a link where anyone says they were denied the right to vote? I hear a lot of this here in Florida...but not one person here has come forward and said they were denied their right to vote. It did not happen....but it makes a good story though doesn't it?

Well, guess what, I'm a Republican and I'm saying it's wrong to do such things. But, I mean, stereotyping and generalizations are fun, so why don't you just keep going with that.


Glad to hear it. I actually said that because I wanted to see if I would be proven wrong, since in teh last four years as much griping that has gone on about this dastardly practice I havent seen a single Republican even acknowledge that it ever happened let alone denounce it if it were true.

You know, it gets old for people to ask for links that they could just as easily have found themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/florida.election/



Isn't that....your state Biff?

From your link.....

Two of the commission's eight members said the statement was premature. Abigail Thernstrom said it appeared the commission members had already reached their conclusions, and that the investigation is being conducted to fit that conclusion.

But the Florida governor interpreted Friday's statement as a vindication of sorts. "Today's statement confirms that, after three days of hearings involving over 100 witnesses, the Civil Rights Commission has yet to be presented with any evidence of intentional discrimination in the conduct of the November 7, 2000 election in Florida," said Gov. Bush in a statement.

So who is right?

Can you provide a link where anyone says they were denied the right to vote? I hear a lot of this here in Florida...but not one person here has come forward and said they were denied their right to vote. It did not happen....but it makes a good story though doesn't it?

hmmm that one article shows that more than 100 people have testified...


and here you can see the proof from the guy who actually broke the story

http://gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency

hmmm that one article shows that more than 100 people have testified...


and here you can see the proof from the guy who actually broke the story

http://gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency

I'm glad you saw why I specifically quoted that section of the story.

From your link.....

Two of the commission's eight members said the statement was premature. Abigail Thernstrom said it appeared the commission members had already reached their conclusions, and that the investigation is being conducted to fit that conclusion.

But the Florida governor interpreted Friday's statement as a vindication of sorts. "Today's statement confirms that, after three days of hearings involving over 100 witnesses, the Civil Rights Commission has yet to be presented with any evidence of intentional discrimination in the conduct of the November 7, 2000 election in Florida," said Gov. Bush in a statement.

So who is right?


http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=1

THE GREAT FLORIDA EX-CON GAME How the 'felon' voter-purge was itself felonious
Harper's Magazine
Friday, March 1, 2002
by Greg Palast


In November the U.S. media, lost in patriotic reverie, dressed up the Florida recount as a victory for President Bush. But however one reads the ballots, Bush's win would certainly have been jeopardized had not some Floridians been barred from casting ballots at all. Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.) A portion of the list, which was compiled for Florida by DBT Online, can be seen for the first time here; DBT, a company now owned by ChoicePoint of Atlanta, was paid $4.3 million for its work, replacing a firm that charged $5,700 per year for the same service. If the hope was that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more voters, then the state appears to have spent its money wisely.


http://www.gregpalast.com/Harpers.gif


Click here to view full size (http://www.gregpalast.com/Harpers_img.htm)


Two of these "scrub lists," as officials called them, were distributed to counties in the months before the election with orders to remove the voters named. Together the lists comprised nearly 1 percent of Florida?s electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters. Most of the voters (such as "David Butler," (1); a name that appears 77 times in Florida phone books) were selected because their name, gender, birthdate and race matched - or nearly matched - one of the tens of millions of ex-felons in the United States. Neither DBT nor the state conducted any further research to verify the matches. DBT, which frequently is hired by the F.B.I. to conduct manhunts, originally proposed using address histories and financial records to confirm the names, but the state declined the cross-checks. In Harris?s elections office files, next to DBT?s sophisticated verification plan, there is a hand-written note: ?DON?T NEED.?



Thomas Alvin Cooper (2), twenty-eight, was flagged because of a crime for which he will be convicted in the year 2007. According to Florida?s elections division, this intrepid time-traveler will cover his tracks by moving to Ohio, adding a middle name, and changing his race. Harper's found 325 names on the list with conviction dates in the future, a fact that did not escape Department of Elections workers, who, in June 2000 emails headed, ?Future Conviction Dates," termed the discovery, "bad news.? Rather than release this whacky data to skeptical counties, Janet Mudrow, state liaison to DBT, suggested that ?blanks would be preferable in these cases." (Harper's counted 4,917 blank conviction dates.) The one county that checked each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only 34 as actual felony convicts. Some counties defied Harris' directives; Madison County's elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it.



Rev. Willie Dixon (3), seventy, was guilty of a crime in his youth; but one phone call would have told the state that it had already pardoned Dixon and restored his right to vote. On behalf of Dixon and other excluded voters, the NAACP in January 2001 sued Florida and Harris, after finding that African-Americans?who account for 13 percent of Florida's electorate and 46 percent of U.S. felony convictions ?were four times as likely as whites to be incorrectly singled out under the state's methodology. After the election, Harris and her elections chief Clay Roberts, testified under oath that verifying the lists was solely the work of county supervisors. But the Florida-DBT contract (marked "Secret" and ?Confidential?) holds DBT responsible for ?manual verification using telephone calls.? in fact, with the state?s blessing, DBT did not call a single felon. When I asked Roberts about the contract during an interview for BBC television, Roberts ripped off his microphone, ran into his office, locked the door, and called in state troopers to remove us.



Johnny Jackson Jr. (4), thirty-two, has never been to Texas, and his mother swears he never had the middle name ?Fitzgerald.? Neither is there evidence that John Fitzgerald Jackson, felon of Texas, has ever left the Lone Star State. But even if they were the same man, removing him from Florida?s voter rolls is an unconstitutional act. Texas is among the thirty five states where ex-felons are permitted to vote, and the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids states to revoke any civil rights that a citizen has been granted by another state; in fact, the Florida Supreme Court had twice ordered the state not to do so, just nine months before the voter purge. Nevertheless, at least 2,873 voters were wrongly removed, a purge authorized by a September 18, 2000 letter to counties from Governor Bush's clemency office. On February 23, 2001, days after the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights began investigating the matters, Bush's office issued a new letter allowing these persons to vote; no copies of the earlier letter could be found in the clemency office or on its computers.



Wallace McDonald (5), sixty-four, lost his right to vote in 2000, though his sole run-in with the law was a misdemeanor in 1959. (He fell asleep on a bus-stop bench.) Of the "matches' on these lists, the civil-rights commission estimated that at least 14 percent - or 8,000 voters, nearly 15 times Bush's official margin of victory - were false. DBT claims it warned officials "a significant number of people who were not a felon would be included on the list"; but the state, the company now says, "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified." Last May, Florida's legislature barred Harris from using outside firms to build the purge list and ordered her to seek guidance from county elections officials. In defiance, Harris has rebuffed the counties and hired another firm, just in time for Jeb Bush's reelection fight this fall.


###


Special thanks to Fredda Weinberg for cracking the Florida computer files and crunching the numbers as well as to all the volunteer researchers who contributed to this investigative effort.

hmmm that one article shows that more than 100 people have testified...


and here you can see the proof from the guy who actually broke the story

http://gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency


Yes...100 people testified...but not ONE was able to prove they were denied the right to vote. Not ONE person has been found that was denied their right to vote.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm

The US Commission on Civil Rights seems pretty certain about Florida election 2000.

Full report at:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm

The US Commission on Civil Rights seems pretty certain about Florida election 2000.

Full report at:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm

Yes, it is easy to say that all these people were turned away, and maybe they were...but not one came forward that could prove they were denied their right to vote. Those that did come forward were either not registered or were on the felony list. Not one could prove that they were properly registered and turned away. The whole thing was turned into a race issue by Jesse Jackson and his ilk.

I think the article distorts the problem. The vast majority of those people being "blocked" from voting are felons, whose voting privileges have been revoked as legal punishment. I don't think the punishment is necessary or even particularly beneficial, but it's not insidious. The problem seems not so much to be with the law preventing convicted felons from voting, but the rate of felony crimes committed by blacks---a sad testimony to the continued failure of our society and culture to deal rightly with the black community.

Yeah, I read that article. Most of the "evidence" and "methods" were pulled from the asses of people with an anti-Republican/anti-Bush agenda. Some of the statements were so outrageous as to be laughable. If those things were truly happening, and people were coming forth saying it happened to them, heads would have rolled by now.

I'm not quite white, and I registered to vote a few years ago while a friend was voting. I haven't voted yet, though. Last year I saw a huge stack of paper at the convenience store across the street from my house. It was a list of all the registered voters in the district, sorted in one section by name, in another by address. My name wasn't in either list, but my brother who lived TWO THOUSAND MILES AWAY was listed as a registered voter who lived at my address. We don't even have the same last name. So apparently I was de-regged. How nice! BTW, I have a clean record.

Yes...100 people testified...but not ONE was able to prove they were denied the right to vote. Not ONE person has been found that was denied their right to vote.

Jack: "I went to the store today and they wouldn't let me shop!"
Jill: "I doubt that, prove it."
Jack: "Well, it happened."
Jill: "Do you have a receipt?"
Jack: "Of course not, I didn't get to buy anything."
Jill: "Did anyone else see it?"
Jack: "Well, shopping is a private thing, so no one else was with me. The people who kicked me out saw it."
Jill: "So you have no proof?"
Jack: "Well, you can see that I didn't get to shop."
Jill: "So? That could just mean that you never went to the store anyways."
Jack: "Well, what kind of proof can I offer?"
Jill: "Take me down to the store and show me that they won't let you in.
Jack: "I can't - the store is only open on certain days!"
Jill: "You have no proof then."
Jack: "My name was falsely put on a list to not let me into the store."
Jill: "So, you still haven't proven that you actually went to the store."

According to the US Commison for Civil Rights:

"Poorer counties, particularly those with large minority populations, were more likely to use voting systems with higher spoilage rates than more affluent counties with significant white populations"

"Even in counties where the same voting technology was used, blacks were far more likely to have their votes rejected than whites"

"During Florida’s 2000 presidential election, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors, and inadequate resources in the Florida election process denied countless Floridians of their right to vote... This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans"

Whether or not one disenfranchised voter came forward to congress (if they won't listen to you at the ballot box, why would they listen to you at Congress?) there is fairly overwhelming evidence that the votes of African Americans are less often counted than those of whites. Period.

Right Wing propoganda (not one came forward to congress...) does not defeat the facts.

Yeah, I read that article. Most of the "evidence" and "methods" were pulled from the asses of people with an anti-Republican/anti-Bush agenda. Some of the statements were so outrageous as to be laughable. If those things were truly happening, and people were coming forth saying it happened to them, heads would have rolled by now.

That's so naive, *that's* laughable

Yes...100 people testified...but not ONE was able to prove they were denied the right to vote. Not ONE person has been found that was denied their right to vote.


Well I provided a link to an article with the partial list of scrubbed voters names and 5 (not just one) voters who were wrongly disenfranchised. Now what say you? You need me to have them all call you personally before you will believe it? Give me afreaken break... I see you more and more as someone who just argues for the sake of arguing.

Well I provided a link to an article with the partial list of scrubbed voters names and 5 (not just one) voters who were wrongly disenfranchised. Now what say you? You need me to have them all call you personally before you will believe it? Give me afreaken break... I see you more and more as someone who just argues for the sake of arguing.
Maybe he dosen't trust Palast?

Look at that. The Republicans will do ANYTHING to stop people from voting.

While distasteful, if you think this practice is limited to Republicans you are kidding yourself. How about the memo democrats sent out in 2000 on how to disallow military absentee voting on technicalities. Or the thousands of democrats discovered to be registered to vote in both New York and Florida? People on both sides of the house play this game.

I will also point out that a number of Democrat ex-felons who are not allowed to legally vote voted in previous election in Florida. Also, the disenfranchised voters were sent notices to the addresses they are registered to vote at lond prior to the election notifying them that they were being removed from the voting rosters and giving a chance to anybody that was falsely removed to correct the problem.

Maybe he dosen't trust Palast?

Why not? Palast has no political ties... he has his gripes with all political parties and he doesn't live in the US so I don't see it as being anything but good investigative journalism.

Can you give proof that discredits what Palast has uncovered? He has video of when he went to Florida to question someone who was in cahoots with the voting scandal and the guy went RUNNING to his office. It was hilarious and very telling.

While distasteful, if you think this practice is limited to Republicans you are kidding yourself. How about the memo democrats sent out in 2000 on how to disallow military absentee voting on technicalities. Or the thousands of democrats discovered to be registered to vote in both New York and Florida? People on both sides of the house play this game.

I will also point out that a number of Democrat ex-felons who are not allowed to legally vote voted in previous election in Florida. Also, the disenfranchised voters were sent notices to the addresses they are registered to vote at lond prior to the election notifying them that they were being removed from the voting rosters and giving a chance to anybody that was falsely removed to correct the problem.

Also disgusting practices by the democrats if that is true. I haven't seen these memos (do you have a source?).

and perhaps you missed this post: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7083003&postcount=19

While distasteful, if you think this practice is limited to Republicans you are kidding yourself. How about the memo democrats sent out in 2000 on how to disallow military absentee voting on technicalities.

I hate to say it, because I know people get sensitive about the military - but if you can't properly vote, then you don't get to vote. Sorry. My vote wasn't counted in 2000 because I voted by absentee vote and it didn't get there on time, but you don't see me freaking out and crying conspiracy over it.

It may be distasteful, but it isn't singling out people who have names sorta kinda in a way like a convicted felon who might maybe sorta kinda have moved to this state so we're gonna block them. "Hey look, John Smith is a convicted felon - that means we take the vote away from the 100s of John Smiths in this country!"

Similarly, Bush and Nader should not be on ballots in states where they didn't follow the rules and meet the deadlines to be there. The fact that they are president/running for president doesn't make them above the rules. If they waited too late to get on there, they just need to suck it up and run a write-in campaign.

Or the thousands of democrats discovered to be registered to vote in both New York and Florida? People on both sides of the house play this game.

Actually, if you look at how many people registered in both states that actually voted in both states, I believe the Republicans take the cake. Not that it matters, really. People who register as any particular party tend to be (although all may not be) sheep anyways.

Also, the disenfranchised voters were sent notices to the addresses they are registered to vote at lond prior to the election notifying them that they were being removed from the voting rosters and giving a chance to anybody that was falsely removed to correct the problem.

Were they sent certifed? If not, it doesn't count.

When were they sent? I got my absentee ballot the day before voting - does that give me time to take care of it?

When it comes to fixing things that have been incorrectly put into records about you - you are looking at a process that takes months, and sometimes years. Hell, my boyfriend is currently listed on Equifax as being 75 (he's 25) and can't get it changed, regardless of having sent them copies of his driver's license and SS card. He's already been trying for about 3 months to get that taken care of.

Ordon, that's not true. About 5% of them were actual convicts.

Really? A link? Cause Congress called hearings and could not find ONE person who would say that.....
Incorrect. Not one of the SENATORS PRESENT would SPONSOR action on part of at least nine different districts of huge numbers of disenfranchised voters. Check it again Biff.

Of course, in the upcoming election, everyone in a state with electronic voting could magically become disenfranchised - yet no one yells about that.

((not to say, of course, that *anyone* being wrongfully disenfranchised is a good thing - just pointing out that it could be *everyone* in this coming election))
I'll attempt to follow your thread later, but here, i say i bitch loud and hard about it. Good thing our state isn't buying into the electronic thing without a paper trail. Too bad Diebold AND one of the others, ES&S or Siemens AG, are outright Republican/Bush supporters to the tunes of near $100,000 or more.
What about notice from Jeb Bush for Repubs to vote absentee? There's great potential for fraud there. Either way SOMEONE is trying to nail this election as well.

Yeah, I read that article. Most of the "evidence" and "methods" were pulled from the asses of people with an anti-Republican/anti-Bush agenda. Some of the statements were so outrageous as to be laughable. If those things were truly happening, and people were coming forth saying it happened to them, heads would have rolled by now.
Someone's head is rolling around in their own ass.

Well I provided a link to an article with the partial list of scrubbed voters names and 5 (not just one) voters who were wrongly disenfranchised. Now what say you? You need me to have them all call you personally before you will believe it? Give me afreaken break... I see you more and more as someone who just argues for the sake of arguing.
To be fair, Biff has stated on this forum he likes to play the devil's advocate, for sake of advocacy. Not this link but on the one regarding UN and the Rule of Law.

Let's add taxation to the mix. If they are not allowed to vote, and they pay taxes, they're being forced to pay them without representation.

To be fair, Biff has stated on this forum he likes to play the devil's advocate, for sake of advocacy. Not this link but on the one regarding UN and the Rule of Law.

OK thats fair, I like to do the same thing sometimes.
:)

Sheilanagig, that is a fair point and I would like to see a rebuttal for that one. Perhaps we should stop felons from having to pay taxes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram the video of when Palast when to Florida to investigate this debaucle. It's only 13 minutes long.

Why not? Palast has no political ties... he has his gripes with all political parties and he doesn't live in the US so I don't see it as being anything but good investigative journalism.

Can you give proof that discredits what Palast has uncovered? He has video of when he went to Florida to question someone who was in cahoots with the voting scandal and the guy went RUNNING to his office. It was hilarious and very telling.
Taking a look at Palast's page, if its not obvious for what side or what agenda (Anti-Bush, Anti-War) he has and you think he's independent or unbiased, you're diluding yourself. Other people including Michael Moore have made the claim that scrubbing took off innocent people, but only Palast has put up such a huge number. No, I can't off the top of my head disprove what he's saying right now. He's given a bunch of stuff and posted it on the internet. Nothing has happened based off this information besides a bunch of online lefties thinking they've got a slam dunk case against Bush.

Jack: "I went to the store today and they wouldn't let me shop!"
Jill: "I doubt that, prove it."
Jack: "Well, it happened."
Jill: "Do you have a receipt?"
Jack: "Of course not, I didn't get to buy anything."
Jill: "Did anyone else see it?"
Jack: "Well, shopping is a private thing, so no one else was with me. The people who kicked me out saw it."
Jill: "So you have no proof?"
Jack: "Well, you can see that I didn't get to shop."
Jill: "So? That could just mean that you never went to the store anyways."
Jack: "Well, what kind of proof can I offer?"
Jill: "Take me down to the store and show me that they won't let you in.
Jack: "I can't - the store is only open on certain days!"
Jill: "You have no proof then."
Jack: "My name was falsely put on a list to not let me into the store."
Jill: "So, you still haven't proven that you actually went to the store."

I love it! Biff, you seem to be the male equivalent to Formal Dances. The more that evidence is presented to you, the more you refuse to listen and instead say that there is not proof.

Come on, if you have to stick to your guns, at least do it with some semblance of reason.

Taking a look at Palast's page, if its not obvious for what side or what agenda (Anti-Bush, Anti-War) he has and you think he's independent or unbiased, you're diluding yourself. Other people including Michael Moore have made the claim that scrubbing took off innocent people, but only Palast has put up such a huge number. No, I can't off the top of my head disprove what he's saying right now. He's given a bunch of stuff and posted it on the internet. Nothing has happened based off this information besides a bunch of online lefties thinking they've got a slam dunk case against Bush.

It's obvious what side he is on? What side is that then? Anti-war and anti-Bush may be his agendas but that doesnt make him pro-Democrat because I know for a fact that he hates them as well. He also dislikes the Green party. He can merely spot a liar and theif when he see's one so he outs them. Good investigative journalist. So He obviously isn't doing it for any political party. I think he is just an idealist that thinks America can do better than it is. Nothing wrong with that. How does that make him untrustworthy?

Palast is the guy who broke the Florida voting scandal story and has the documents to prove it. It was his investigative team that deciphered the spreadsheet to get the facts. If you can refute them go ahead, if you can't then I want to hear you say that you think it was wrong for the Republicans to do such a thing. If you don't think it was wrong then you are just a racist I guess.

But the Florida governor interpreted Friday's statement as a vindication of sorts. "Today's statement confirms that, after three days of hearings involving over 100 witnesses, the Civil Rights Commission has yet to be presented with any evidence of intentional discrimination in the conduct of the November 7, 2000 election in Florida," said Gov. Bush in a statement.

So who is right?
Isn't it sad how tenaciously ppl hold on to their opinions, regardless of how much evidence is presented to them. So far in this thread, there's been links to one video and 6 articles all saying the same thing and all Biff does is take Jeb Bush's word for it that there's nothing wrong. Oddly enough Jeb then goes on to say that:
he takes seriously "the alleged inefficiencies and bureaucratic errors" noted by the commission. "Many of these matters are addressed in the recommendations of the Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology. I am confident that the Legislature will act on the task force's recommendations and that the result will be a world-class election system in Florida."
If there was nothing wrong with the way the ballot and vote-counting was done, why are they acting on the recommendations to make Florida's election system World-class?

BTW Abigail Thernstrom claims that there was no bais in the 2000 Florida ballot seems to be based entirely on ballot spoilage, and ignores what most of the complaints were about: Disinfrancising legitimate voters before the election.
she claims that "Race was not a dominant factor explaining the rate of ballot spoilage...the best indicator of a county’s rate of ballot spoilage was not its racial composition, but other factors such as poverty."
The fact that Blacks and Coloureds make up the majority of poor ppl seems lost on her. Also the fact they usually vote Democrat.
She ignores the DBT list almost entirely, except to say this:
"Moreover, the racial disparity on the list was due to the indisputable fact that blacks are disproportionately represented in any count of convicted felons."
Which makes it ok I guess to ban other Blacks from voting.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/dissenting_report_press_releas.htm

i feel that it could go either way...If people we removed from the voters list then why didnt they take it up right away if they felt it was a problem..because its like..they didnt care enough to make a deal about it until things didnt go their way..and also..those that were sent the list of voters that were being taken off..should've seen there were several under the same name and checked into it if they really "cared". All it is is people complain when they dont get their way.

It's obvious what side he is on? What side is that then? Anti-war and anti-Bush may be his agendas but that doesnt make him pro-Democrat because I know for a fact that he hates them as well. He also dislikes the Green party. He can merely spot a liar and theif when he see's one so he outs them. Good investigative journalist. So He obviously isn't doing it for any political party. I think he is just an idealist that thinks America can do better than it is. Nothing wrong with that. How does that make him untrustworthy?

Palast is the guy who broke the Florida voting scandal story and has the documents to prove it. It was his investigative team that deciphered the spreadsheet to get the facts. If you can refute them go ahead, if you can't then I want to hear you say that you think it was wrong for the Republicans to do such a thing. If you don't think it was wrong then you are just a racist I guess.
Anti-Bush is his agenda... after all Bill O'Reilly goes after the Republicans and Bush occasionally, too - although I and probably you as well wouldn't consider him unbiased or lacking of support for the Republicans. The fact that his agenda is anti-Bush should make you sceptical about what he says about Bush, his Chavez piece comes to mind specifically for me.

I'm sure Palast and other people know that back in 1998, I believe, the Miami election had dead people voting, literally. This set off a red flag to Florida's government to more tightly enforce its voting laws, even if they hadn't been enforced before. So felons who had voted in past elections were taken off for sometimes the first time in 2000, which is why a lot of people complained that they suddenly had their rights revoked - they did, and they really shouldn't have had them before. When doing such a big sweep, there will be irregularities, as there are with any election. Palast lists five - and one important gem in the end of number 2 : "Some counties defied Harris' directives; Madison County's elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it." Even if there were 8,000 wrongly scrubbed felons, there are 67 counties in Florida, about 20% of which didn't use the list at all, allowing felons to vote anyway. 20% of 173,000 that were scrubbed in total far surpasses 8,000, in fact, less than 5% of 173,000 is more than 8,000 - the 8,000 number, of course, decreasing when the counties which allowed felon voting are included and also when including wrongly scrubbed people who were put back on the list, such as the 245 in Hillsborough county.

First off, when CNN is quoted as a source, watch out. Here's a quote taken directly from the linked article...

"Many African-Americans did not cast ballots because they were assigned to polling sites that did not have the resources to confirm eligibility status. "

Say WHAT?? Want to repeat that a couple times so I can understand what your gibberish is here? Is CNN stating for a fact that this combination of assigning and so-called "lack of resources" was caused by Republicans as some kind of plot to disenfranchise minority voters?? What the hell are you smoking?? How many NON-MINORITY voters also ended up assigned to sites that couldn't confirm their eligibility status???

And this vague and unsubstantiated quote is what you claim is "proof" of your opinion?? That's it!!

Does this mean voting is not a perfect science... you BETCHA!! A Republican or Democratic plot? Sorry, I think they left on the last UFO for Mars.

Now if you had to defend yourself in a court of law with such nonsense you'd be doing hard time... and then you could JOIN the ranks of the disenfranchised... ;-)

Ordon, that's not true. About 5% of them were actual convicts.

I didn't notice that statistic in the article, but perhaps I missed it.

Let's add taxation to the mix. If they are not allowed to vote, and they pay taxes, they're being forced to pay them without representation.


As are all residents of Washington, DC.

I love it! Biff, you seem to be the male equivalent to Formal Dances. The more that evidence is presented to you, the more you refuse to listen and instead say that there is not proof.

Insult Formal Dances again Thunderland, then you'll have to deal with me! :mad:

Ahaha. Dont take it so hard Corny. Every forum has its stubborn wacko's.

But at least formal is no Christofi.

Yeesh.

Disenfranchised is a scary word isn't it?


I've got an interesting story for ya though. Last time I walked in to vote the lady highlighting names to show you have been there and voted saw that I was a Republican and looked over at the lady sitting next to her and said, "Oh look, another moron nazi." At this point could I have stormed out and called the local media and said I had been disenfranchised? Yes I could have. But, since I know, and everyone does, that if your 18 or over and a citizen of the United States they can't prevent you from voting. So I laughed and walked into the booth and punched out that little tab (even checked for hanging chads..).

The fact is, you can't be turned away from voting if you insist on it. And if these people truly were then you would have never heard the end of it. You telling me that the left slanted media didn't jump all over this and ride it out? They dropped it because there is no proof and not a single person would testify under oath that they were indeed kept from voting. Its probably fun as hell to tell newspapers this type of stuff when jailtime isn't on the line if your caught lying. The only scare tactic here is people saying vote democrat because republicans don't want your vote to count.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting.

But millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights.

....

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6306466

Look at that. The Republicans will do ANYTHING to stop people from voting. :rolleyes: :mad:

With republicans in power... the US is a fascist state and not a "democracy".

Isn't it sad how tenaciously ppl hold on to their opinions, regardless of how much evidence is presented to them. So far in this thread, there's been links to one video and 6 articles all saying the same thing and all Biff does is take Jeb Bush's word for it that there's nothing wrong. Oddly enough Jeb then goes on to say that:

If there was nothing wrong with the way the ballot and vote-counting was done, why are they acting on the recommendations to make Florida's election system World-class?

BTW Abigail Thernstrom claims that there was no bais in the 2000 Florida ballot seems to be based entirely on ballot spoilage, and ignores what most of the complaints were about: Disinfrancising legitimate voters before the election.
she claims that "Race was not a dominant factor explaining the rate of ballot spoilage...the best indicator of a county’s rate of ballot spoilage was not its racial composition, but other factors such as poverty."
The fact that Blacks and Coloureds make up the majority of poor ppl seems lost on her. Also the fact they usually vote Democrat.
She ignores the DBT list almost entirely, except to say this:
"Moreover, the racial disparity on the list was due to the indisputable fact that blacks are disproportionately represented in any count of convicted felons."
Which makes it ok I guess to ban other Blacks from voting.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/dissenting_report_press_releas.htm


Ok....how many of these people who were denied the vote, when offered, came forward to testify under oath that they were denied their right to vote? NOT ONE!! When push came to shove, not one would put their story on the line. Afterall...perjury is a convictable offense.

Insult Formal Dances again Thunderland, then you'll have to deal with me! :mad:

Ooooooh.

Gee, my comment could have been taken any way you chose and you chose that my comparison of Biff to Formal was bad. I did, of course, intend it that way but I'm surprised that someone across the aisle would have done the same.

But I stand by my statement. The similarities between the two are remarkable.

I'm not too worried about having to deal with you. I won't lose sleep over it

Ooooooh.

Gee, my comment could have been taken any way you chose and you chose that my comparison of Biff to Formal was bad. I did, of course, intend it that way but I'm surprised that someone across the aisle would have done the same.

But I stand by my statement. The similarities between the two are remarkable.

I'm not too worried about having to deal with you. I won't lose sleep over it
best be afraid they will assault you with illogic and irrationality

Ooooooh.

Gee, my comment could have been taken any way you chose and you chose that my comparison of Biff to Formal was bad. I did, of course, intend it that way but I'm surprised that someone across the aisle would have done the same.

But I stand by my statement. The similarities between the two are remarkable.

I'm not too worried about having to deal with you. I won't lose sleep over it

Yea, the worst I could do to you is insult you but that would be stooping to your level as well as to chess squares and I am above that. However, you do not know Formal Dances, but I do.

I hate to say it, because I know people get sensitive about the military - but if you can't properly vote, then you don't get to vote. Sorry. My vote wasn't counted in 2000 because I voted by absentee vote and it didn't get there on time, but you don't see me freaking out and crying conspiracy over it.

It may be distasteful, but it isn't singling out people who have names sorta kinda in a way like a convicted felon who might maybe sorta kinda have moved to this state so we're gonna block them. "Hey look, John Smith is a convicted felon - that means we take the vote away from the 100s of John Smiths in this country!"

Ah, you are missing the point. Some of the technicalities they disallowed them for were things a propper post mark on the ballot, which alot of military mail coming from the field doesn't have by nature of where it comes from. This was a willful attempt by the democratic party to disallow valid military votes because the military votes heavily Republican.

Millions Blocked from Voting

Yeah, how dare they disenfranchise minors!

Ah, you are missing the point. Some of the technicalities they disallowed them for were things a propper post mark on the ballot, which alot of military mail coming from the field doesn't have by nature of where it comes from. This was a willful attempt by the democratic party to disallow valid military votes because the military votes heavily Republican.

Thats correct....many military bases overseas do not put a proper postmark on outgoing mail because of where those bases are located. Some bases are in countries that would rather not have our presence known. ;) This happened to me as I was in the middle east in 2000 and voted Florida absentee from there. When I heard that Gore was trying to disallow my vote I was livid. Not only did he and Clinton deny payraises for 7 years, then trying to take away my vote was too much.

Yea, the worst I could do to you is insult you but that would be stooping to your level as well as to chess squares and I am above that. However, you do not know Formal Dances, but I do.

This is true, I don't know her at all except what I've seen through her posting.

I imagine her to be a very nice person. I already know she is extremely intelligent and have seen some of her comments in non-political threads and have found her to be far more insightful than someone her age should have any right to be.

For that matter, I've found Biff to have some great insights into some threads as well. While not agreeing with many of his positions, I can usually see the logic behind what he is saying. In fact, I found great humor when discussing weather with him in a previous thread.

My comparison between the two was based entirely on the fact that when each are called on something where mounting evidence is presented, instead of saying they might be wrong, they continue to attack the evidence or keep requesting more and more. Instead of presenting anything to counter said evidence, the replies generally become more and more cliched without presenting anything to further their own side.

Like I said earlier, you can chose to take my comments in any way you decide. If you believe that my comparison was insulting, that is for you to decide. I've found both of them to be very nice people outside of political threads but yes, I did infer a negative intonation with my comparison in that both become stubbornly attached to a failing position without evidence to the contrary.

I'm sure you'll be able to find more than a few people who would be happy to share with you their thoughts on me. Feel free to reply in public or via telegraph what they, or you, have determined. I'd be most interested in hearing.

My comparison between the two was based entirely on the fact that when each are called on something where mounting evidence is presented, instead of saying they might be wrong, they continue to attack the evidence or keep requesting more and more. Instead of presenting anything to counter said evidence, the replies generally become more and more cliched without presenting anything to further their own side.
which is exactly why i have the trio of them ignored: corneliu, formal and biff. in any political thread where one attacks some one or makes a point, the others come in and pat them on the back and tell them how smart and great they arre, right or wrong. and anyoen who disagrees is evil and stupid. and they have a virtual three way handshake going on grinning moronically at each other. at least thats what i imagine

You know, it gets old for people to ask for links that they could just as easily have found themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/florida.election/



So your proof that not a single person said they were disenfranchised is this:


Today's statement confirms that, after three days of hearings involving over 100 witnesses, the Civil Rights Commission has yet to be presented with any evidence of intentional discrimination in the conduct of the November 7, 2000 election in Florida," said Gov. Bush in a statement.

The brother of President George W. Bush said he takes seriously "the alleged inefficiencies and bureaucratic errors" noted by the commission.


So jeb bush thinks that the 100 witnesses didn't present any evidence? There's a coincidence.

This is true, I don't know her at all except what I've seen through her posting.

:)

I imagine her to be a very nice person. I already know she is extremely intelligent and have seen some of her comments in non-political threads and have found her to be far more insightful than someone her age should have any right to be.

She is extremely intelligent and insightful. Sometimes though, that can be her undoing and she can irritate the hell out of you with what she does know. Unlike me though, she can admit when she is wrong :p

For that matter, I've found Biff to have some great insights into some threads as well. While not agreeing with many of his positions, I can usually see the logic behind what he is saying. In fact, I found great humor when discussing weather with him in a previous thread.

Yea, weather discussions can be fun with him. In Fact, meteorology is actually my major. I'm hoping to work for NWS sometime in and around tornado alley.

My comparison between the two was based entirely on the fact that when each are called on something where mounting evidence is presented, instead of saying they might be wrong, they continue to attack the evidence or keep requesting more and more. Instead of presenting anything to counter said evidence, the replies generally become more and more cliched without presenting anything to further their own side.

I'm just protective of her. She can admit when she is wrong and it humbles her when she does. I guess I'll have to talk to her about that.

Like I said earlier, you can chose to take my comments in any way you decide. If you believe that my comparison was insulting, that is for you to decide. I've found both of them to be very nice people outside of political threads but yes, I did infer a negative intonation with my comparison in that both become stubbornly attached to a failing position without evidence to the contrary.

She has an annoying habit of doing that. Take it from me. She gets an idea in her head, it takes an act of Congress to remove it from her and even then its not a sure thing if it occured or not! LOL!!

I'm sure you'll be able to find more than a few people who would be happy to share with you their thoughts on me. Feel free to reply in public or via telegraph what they, or you, have determined. I'd be most interested in hearing.

Won't be necessary. I can see that your a nice person. I just get Protective of Formal and don't like it when people say bad things about her.

So your proof that not a single person said they were disenfranchised is this:



So jeb bush thinks that the 100 witnesses didn't present any evidence? There's a coincidence.

Giggle....um..no, I'm one of those who believe that people were disenfranchised. But yes, I agree with your interpretation of the article too. One person versus 100 witnesses....mindboggling.

Won't be necessary. I can see that your a nice person. I just get Protective of Formal and don't like it when people say bad things about her.

Would you prefer instead I say bad things about you from here on out?

Let me think on that for a while first because the only thing that comes to mind is that your screen name makes me think of the Great Cornholio and then I get AC/DC music blaring on my thoughtwaves. It wouldn't be so bad were it Thunderstruck but its not...so curses on you!

Would you prefer instead I say bad things about you from here on out?

Let me think on that for a while first because the only thing that comes to mind is that your screen name makes me think of the Great Cornholio and then I get AC/DC music blaring on my thoughtwaves. It wouldn't be so bad were it Thunderstruck but its not...so curses on you!

I will probably get hammered for saying this but the Bible says something along the lines that God will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you.

Or my old time favorite saying: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" :p

Besides, my nick is actually a modified name of a character in one of my favorite books. So :p

which is exactly why i have the trio of them ignored: corneliu, formal and biff. in any political thread where one attacks some one or makes a point, the others come in and pat them on the back and tell them how smart and great they arre, right or wrong. and anyoen who disagrees is evil and stupid. and they have a virtual three way handshake going on grinning moronically at each other. at least thats what i imagine

I'm really glad you don't do that, Chess. There is nothing worse than resorting to childish name calling and insults when in a debate. I believe it shows appalling intellectual weakness.

Ah, you are missing the point. Some of the technicalities they disallowed them for were things a propper post mark on the ballot, which alot of military mail coming from the field doesn't have by nature of where it comes from. This was a willful attempt by the democratic party to disallow valid military votes because the military votes heavily Republican.

Military mail from the field is sent back to the US by airmail - which does entail a type of postmark.

Military mail from the field is sent back to the US by airmail - which does entail a type of postmark.

Actually, it is sent by US Military aircraft. Not the USPS. It only hits distrubution when it hits the APO in New York. The Postmark shows that location, not the originating station.

Military mail from the field is sent back to the US by airmail - which does entail a type of postmark.

It is usually carried on military transports....thus needs no conventional postmark. Saudi Arabia does not allow postmarks denoting mail coming from there to the US from military bases. They, and a few other countries there are sensitive about the presence of US troops in their countries.

Actually, it is sent by US Military aircraft. Not the USPS. It only hits distrubution when it hits the APO in New York. The Postmark shows that location, not the originating station.
Yep yep. Typically via the venarable C-2 Greyhound (from navy battlegroups)
That was a fun beast to catch a ride on, landing on an aircraft carrier.

Actually, it is sent by US Military aircraft. Not the USPS. It only hits distrubution when it hits the APO in New York. The Postmark shows that location, not the originating station.

And that would be a valid postmark then.

And that would be a valid postmark then.

The problems lie in State Primaries and when they get their Absentee ballots. Then they have to fill them out and get it to people that handle these things and when it gets there, the mail process is slow.

And that would be a valid postmark then.

Not exactly. It would show that it was delivered from New York's APO (Army Post Office), but does not bear a "postmark" in the traditional sense, because it is exempt from postal fees.

latest trick I heard about... dementia patients, and others who are incapable of voting on their own are being "assisted" with their absentee votes.

Was no indication which side was doing this, probably both.

[Siniestro #1]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting.

But millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights.

....

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6306466

Look at that. The Republicans will do ANYTHING to stop people from voting. :rolleyes: :mad:

Hmmmmm...

So does anyone have any stats on Democrat "irregularities"...?

Hmmmmm...

So does anyone have any stats on Democrat "irregularities"...?

Sure, the sheriff in Logan County, WV...he was nabbed for vote buying. Vote buying is a long held tradition there. What's funny is that there is a story circulating that he actually attempted to buy his brother's (who is also a politician there) vote.

If you have to buy your brother's vote.....

All the bluster and all the yelling....still did not produce ONE person who would take the stand and testify that they were properly registered and were denied the right to vote.

Thats right....not ONE person could do so. Sure, there were a lot of people who were not properly registered who complained...but so what? You HAVE to register in order to vote. Those who are too stupid to register to vote are too stupid to vote.

All the bluster and all the yelling....still did not produce ONE person who would take the stand and testify that they were properly registered and were denied the right to vote.

Thats right....not ONE person could do so. Sure, there were a lot of people who were not properly registered who complained...but so what? You HAVE to register in order to vote. Those who are too stupid to register to vote are too stupid to vote.

No. 00-836 In the Supreme Court of the United States
Bush, George W. v. Palm Beach County Vanvassing Board, ET AL

For cripes sake Biff, you are basically saying that all these lawsuits were filed and then had to be dismissed because no one was willing to step forward to testify under oath that they were disenfranchised. Are you even paying attention? This has NOTHING to do with people who weren't registered to vote. Quit pulling things out of your rear end. This has to do with voters already registered who were not allowed to vote or whom had their vote not counted as a result of irregularities in the process.

Read the case I've cited. But of course you can come back and state that the plaintiff didn't testify in front of the Supreme Court. Well, you know what...sworn testimony also comes in the form of statements.

Lawsuits were filed in Florida, Tennessee, and Missouri. And you have the gall to sit there and spout tripe that no one got up to testify. Some of these were class action suits:

Boyd said the lawsuits are the result of more than 11,000 complaints from voters after the election. He said the complaints were whittled down to 14 active investigations and the five potential lawsuits.

That's from the USA Today...so you can look up the link.

People did, in fact, testify at these lawsuits. Sorry I don't have the transcripts from the cases but even if I did you still wouldn't believe them.

You can sit there and gloat so smugly about the fact that you haven't read anything that anyone has posted or you can understand the fact that your fellow citizens, who were registered to vote, were denied opportunity to cast their ballot. That should cause some concerned thoughts for you. These are your fellow citizens that have been disenfranchised. The same could happen to you.

One day soon, the situation will be reversed again, with Democrats holding power in Congress and the Supreme Court. If Republican voters are turned away and disenfranchised, don't come crying to anyone about that fact. Not if you can't grasp the fact that America is more than Democrat and Republican party lines.

lmfao! thanks for the chuckle Billy piff... I can see now that you cannot be serious and are just trying to make waves. Or maybe you are racist and could care less about the facts presented and the thousands of mainly black democrats that were stricken from the voting roles illegally.

Either way you are really amusing.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting.

But millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights.

....

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6306466

Look at that. The Republicans will do ANYTHING to stop people from voting. :rolleyes: :mad:

Guess what, I live in Baltimore, and I have since 1999. THis state has so many democrats that we call it the "People's republic of Maryland." If you think ANYONE in power in this state had anything to do with that, well you better take a look in the mirror, because in 2002 and in 2000 they were all democrats.

Mayor Martin O'Malley (http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/mayor/biography.html) Democrat was elected in 1999, and is still in office at the current time. You would have to go through the mayor to do something like that here in Baltimore.

Oh, and dont think you can blame our current Governor, Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. (http://www.gov.state.md.us/bio.html) he was elected Nov 5th, 2002, so he didnt take office until after.

Yes, it did happen, no, you cant blame us for it.

And as for a CONVICTED FELON not being able to vote being aimed at BLACKS??? BULL!!! And you know it!

Makes you wonder how many other elections were stolen in this fashion.

Makes you wonder how many other elections were stolen in this fashion.

They are all stolen....haven't you figured that out yet? The Republicans just have better operatives who devise methods to keep people who are properly registered and show up at the polls from voting. They use a variety of methods and single out one group especially. You know which one that is, "they" always vote for the guy we don't like. :rolleyes:

They are all stolen....haven't you figured that out yet? The Republicans just have better operatives who devise methods to keep people who are properly registered and show up at the polls from voting. They use a variety of methods and single out one group especially. You know which one that is, "they" always vote for the guy we don't like. :rolleyes:

Egad! THEY have finally admitted it!!! EEEEK!

With republicans in power... the US is a fascist state and not a "democracy".

Proof positive that you're wrong.