In article ,
thunder wrote:


On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:56:27 +0000, Jon Smithe wrote:


Can you point me to one story or link where this has been reported to a
problem? Or is this a problem being hidden by a rightwing conspiracy?

I'm won't say voter intimidation is widespread, but to say it doesn't
happen is BS. It's important to note, that many minorities are nervous
around law enforcement due to Jim Crow history.

And lots of people, minority or not, are nervous around law enforcement
because they are (or were) breaking the law but have not been caught.

This is not a racial issue.

There is no issue at all with having law enforcement present near or even at
polling places for the purpose of keeping the peace. Since the Democrats
have looted, shot at and broken into Republican campaign offices this
season, it appears that such a presence may be necessary to prevent such
antics from being used on election day in the precincts themselves.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

In article ,
thunder wrote:


On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:12:36 -0500, John S wrote:


And the many extra voters we have here in Ohio, notably more registered
voters in four counties than those old enough to vote deserve to be
challenged. Is that intimidation or just being fair, one man (woman) = one
vote.

That question isn't that simple. Truly, it is one person = one vote. No
one should have a problem with that, but how do you challenge? I can
easily see, how a challenger in a minority neighborhood could become
obstructionist, challenging legitimate voters and causing long lines.

Why is it only in a "minority" neighborhood where such challenges would
cause long lines?

And what's wrong with long lines? People waited 4+ hours to vote early.
This obviously wasn't a problem, so why is it suddenly a problem if you have
to wait in line to vote Tuesday because your precinct has more people
registered than you have living in the precinct?

I see no problem with requiring people to produce positive identification in
order to vote which shows that they live in the precinct that they are
showing up at.

This requirement would pevent multiple votes from being cast by one person
and is a very reasonable check and balance on the process.

I am asked for my D/L every time I go to vote. I can refuse and instead
swear out of affidavit, but I don't see why its a big deal to just produce
the ID instead. That request is a valid check and balance preventing me
from registering in more than one state and/or county in order to be able
to vote more than once, and I see no problem with it.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

In article w8rhd.341247$3l3.41959@attbi_s03, Jon Smithe wrote:


Thunder,

Thanks for the links, and you are correct, nothing I read would have
intimidated me or most voters, including most legitimate black voters. I do
not believe anyone should use illegal means to discourage voters, but it
does make sense to have party loyalist there to make sure all voter
challenges are handled legally. If people understand the procedures, I
don't believe anyone who has a legal right to vote will be intimidated by
voter challenges. If a party loyalists see anyone using illegal methods to
chase away voters, they should immediately contact the poll workers or the
police to stop this activity immediately, but for Harry to suggest he will
use force to stop someone whom they think is not acting in a legal manner is
nothing more than anarchy.

It is important to make sure that each vote and voter is legitimate. If
not, both parties will just follow that age old rule of "vote early and vote
often".

I noticed that Dems in Florida are objecting to voter challenges of voters
whose mail was returned as "undeliverable". To be able to vote, these
voters need to sign an affidavit that they are legally entitled to vote. I
for one think it would be a great idea to require everyone to sign such an
affidavit or provide ID to verify the voter is whom he states he is, but it
does not see unreasonable to request people whose mail is returned as
undeliverable to verify who they are..

The use of party loyalist who volunteer to work at the polling places is
used by both parties to insure that each vote is legitimate.

There seems to be a move to set up national standards to insure all voters
are legitimate and was to handle voter challenges. This seems very
reasonable and I would support the use of a fair national standard.

You should have to produce proof that you reside within the percinct that
you are attempting to vote at.

Period.

This, along with a voting book (currently kept for all precincts) prevents
voting more than once.

If you then correlate on a national level all absentee ballot requests
and insure that the requestor of same is struck from the precinct roll
for that election, then you prevent double voting via the absentee system
as well.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:

As I stated previously, I think states rights are so much bull****.

Then why not dissolve the States entirely?

Why should a State submit to being taxed (or forced to spend a given amount
of money - same thing) without the ability to sit at the legislative table
(be represented)?

Your argument is for the dissolution of the States entirely.

Or is it?

Harry, do you support the dissolution of States entirely?

--

Not at all.

Ah, so instead you support the ability of the Federal Government to impose
costs (that is, tax) a constitutency that has no representation at the
legislative table.

That would be called "fraud" by the founding fathers, and IMHO we should
continue to call it "fraud" - because it is.

Thanks for making your position clear.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:13:49 -0500, NOYB wrote:


I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

I think you mean Maine.

Correct. I thought that it was Maine, but when I asked a patient of mine
from Maine if they split their votes, she said no. What does she no though?
She came down her to vote. She voted Bush, and her husband voted Kerry. I
can't figure out why they took the trip down here 3 weeks early just to vote
when they effectively cancelled out each other's vote.





AFAIK, New Hampshire is winner take all.



Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.


I think we ought to trash the Electoral College entirely, and replace it
with the winner of the popular vote winning the election. The
Republicans are playing too many games trying to disenfranchise voters
in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and many other states, tactics which
play up the fallacies of the EC system.

I'll be working with a group of nice fellas who will be visiting the
approaches to certain polling places to ensure that Republican thugs are
not intimidating minority voters. If we come across any GOP voter
intimidators, we'll help them make other plans for the day. Anyone who
wants to get to a polling place should be able to do that without
interference. It's up to polling place workers to decide who is eligible
at that precinct, not a bunch of GOP guys in suits.

--
Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument
for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the
American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions
without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your
Commander-in-Chief."

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:11:01 +0000, Karl Denninger wrote:


I'm won't say voter intimidation is widespread, but to say it doesn't
happen is BS. It's important to note, that many minorities are nervous
around law enforcement due to Jim Crow history.

And lots of people, minority or not, are nervous around law enforcement
because they are (or were) breaking the law but have not been caught.

This is not a racial issue.

It damn sure can be. There are neighborhoods that do not see law
enforcement as protecting, they see it as oppressing. There are
neighborhoods whose elders remember poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, and cracker
cops with dogs.



There is no issue at all with having law enforcement present near or even
at polling places for the purpose of keeping the peace. Since the
Democrats have looted, shot at and broken into Republican campaign offices
this season, it appears that such a presence may be necessary to prevent
such antics from being used on election day in the precincts themselves.

Because you have no issue with it, doesn't mean there is no issue. Why
stop with cops? Why not have tanks and soldiers guarding our polling
places like the rest of the third world?

Karl,
It is surprising how many states do not require ID of those who are voting.
Anyone can vote for anyone they know is on the voter registration lists,
without showing any proof. Which is why in some districts the dead are
regular voters. It could also results in people showing up to vote, and
they find someone else has already voted for them. The place I vote has
always asked for ID, and I have never felt intimated. They must be asking
me for my ID because I have olive complexion. ; )


The only reason I can see why someone would not want voters to provide ID or
sign an affidavit is because it would upset their current method of using
voter fraud.


"Karl Denninger" wrote in message
news:0Crhd.1110$ep3.503@lakeread02...

In article w8rhd.341247$3l3.41959@attbi_s03, Jon Smithe
wrote:


Thunder,

Thanks for the links, and you are correct, nothing I read would have
intimidated me or most voters, including most legitimate black voters. I
do
not believe anyone should use illegal means to discourage voters, but it
does make sense to have party loyalist there to make sure all voter
challenges are handled legally. If people understand the procedures, I
don't believe anyone who has a legal right to vote will be intimidated by
voter challenges. If a party loyalists see anyone using illegal methods
to
chase away voters, they should immediately contact the poll workers or the
police to stop this activity immediately, but for Harry to suggest he will
use force to stop someone whom they think is not acting in a legal manner
is
nothing more than anarchy.

It is important to make sure that each vote and voter is legitimate. If
not, both parties will just follow that age old rule of "vote early and
vote
often".

I noticed that Dems in Florida are objecting to voter challenges of voters
whose mail was returned as "undeliverable". To be able to vote, these
voters need to sign an affidavit that they are legally entitled to vote.
I
for one think it would be a great idea to require everyone to sign such an
affidavit or provide ID to verify the voter is whom he states he is, but
it
does not see unreasonable to request people whose mail is returned as
undeliverable to verify who they are..

The use of party loyalist who volunteer to work at the polling places is
used by both parties to insure that each vote is legitimate.

There seems to be a move to set up national standards to insure all voters
are legitimate and was to handle voter challenges. This seems very
reasonable and I would support the use of a fair national standard.

You should have to produce proof that you reside within the percinct that
you are attempting to vote at.

Period.

This, along with a voting book (currently kept for all precincts) prevents
voting more than once.

If you then correlate on a national level all absentee ballot requests
and insure that the requestor of same is struck from the precinct roll
for that election, then you prevent double voting via the absentee system
as well.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:15:34 +0000, Karl Denninger wrote:


Why is it only in a "minority" neighborhood where such challenges would
cause long lines?

You are asking the wrong person. You should be asking the RNC. They are
the ones targeting minority neighborhoods in Ohio and elsewhere.


And what's wrong with long lines? People waited 4+ hours to vote early.
This obviously wasn't a problem, so why is it suddenly a problem if you
have to wait in line to vote Tuesday because your precinct has more people
registered than you have living in the precinct?

I see no problem with requiring people to produce positive identification
in order to vote which shows that they live in the precinct that they are
showing up at.

This requirement would pevent multiple votes from being cast by one person
and is a very reasonable check and balance on the process.

I am asked for my D/L every time I go to vote. I can refuse and instead
swear out of affidavit, but I don't see why its a big deal to just produce
the ID instead. That request is a valid check and balance preventing me
from registering in more than one state and/or county in order to be able
to vote more than once, and I see no problem with it.

--

"Karl Denninger" wrote in message
news:ayrhd.1109$ep3.480@lakeread02...

I am asked for my D/L every time I go to vote. I can refuse and instead
swear out of affidavit, but I don't see why its a big deal to just produce
the ID instead. That request is a valid check and balance preventing me
from registering in more than one state and/or county in order to be able
to vote more than once, and I see no problem with it.

If you have been able to successfully get people to vote early and often in
key districts, asking for ID will have a negative impact on the vote. Which
is why Harry is concerned about asking voters for ID.
While Harry will probably not leave his keyboard on election day, I would
love to read about a fat old man in Maryland threatening people legally
campaigning on election day. Maybe he can run them over with his truck.
; )

Thunder,
What do you think would be an effective way to make sure only legitimate
voters are able to vote and they are only able to vote once?


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:11:01 +0000, Karl Denninger wrote:


I'm won't say voter intimidation is widespread, but to say it doesn't
happen is BS. It's important to note, that many minorities are nervous
around law enforcement due to Jim Crow history.

And lots of people, minority or not, are nervous around law enforcement
because they are (or were) breaking the law but have not been caught.

This is not a racial issue.

It damn sure can be. There are neighborhoods that do not see law
enforcement as protecting, they see it as oppressing. There are
neighborhoods whose elders remember poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, and cracker
cops with dogs.



There is no issue at all with having law enforcement present near or even
at polling places for the purpose of keeping the peace. Since the
Democrats have looted, shot at and broken into Republican campaign
offices
this season, it appears that such a presence may be necessary to prevent
such antics from being used on election day in the precincts themselves.

Because you have no issue with it, doesn't mean there is no issue. Why
stop with cops? Why not have tanks and soldiers guarding our polling
places like the rest of the third world?