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. Perhaps, you and I might
not find some of the following intimidating. That's not important. What
is important, is that many voters do.

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBNT3H8X0E.html

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368

http://www.sundayherald.com/45159

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6031311/

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...7864136340.xml

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know.

That's not true. A $1 bet on Bush wins you $1.65. A $1 bet on Kerry
wins
you $2. A $1 bet on Nader wins you $1001. The betting odds favor Bush.




The only poll that matters will be held Tuesday. What's left of my gut
tells me that Kerry is going to do very, very well in the Electoral
College and might achieve the Magic 300 number. I haven't a clue where
the popular vote will be. But if Kerry wins the EC and Bush takes the
popular vote, I'll be especially delighted...because that means the
Republicans will be calling for abolishing the Electoral College.
Delicious.

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

Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:04:28 -0500, 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. Perhaps, you and I might
not find some of the following intimidating. That's not important. What
is important, is that many voters do.

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBNT3H8X0E.html

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368

http://www.sundayherald.com/45159

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6031311/

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...7864136340.xml

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.

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.
Personally, the 2000 election showed how flawed our election system is.
Our leadership has had four years to fix it. That we are facing many of
the same issues as in 2000, shows the ineptness of our leadership. A pox
on *both* parties and, in a democracy, we get the leadership we deserve.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:10:33 -0500, 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.
Personally, the 2000 election showed how flawed our election system is.
Our leadership has had four years to fix it. That we are facing many of
the same issues as in 2000, shows the ineptness of our leadership. A pox
on *both* parties and, in a democracy, we get the leadership we deserve.

I do have to agree. At least where I vote, we have very reliable machines.
Unfortunately it is left up to the states and ultimately the state counties
to determine how much they wish to spend on voting equipment. It is up to
the voters to elect county commissioners that will spend the money for
decent machines. Sometimes other things priority. I consider myself
fortunate.

Nonetheless, I have voted on paper ballots, the old mechanical monsters, and
the newest electronic machines. I never had any problems. I have lived in a
number of different places and states in my career and never had an
unpleasant experience when I went to vote. Of course, I followed the rules,
knew where to go, located my precinct, etc. I educated myself on the voting
process. It is really quite simple.

My father in law (God rest his soul) had to have my mother in law help him
when they removed the "Vote all Democratic" button from the machine and he
had to vote on an individual basis. The poll workers were always kind enough
to let her in the booth with him.

I hope this election goes smooth and whoever wins will be accepted by all as
our President.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Karl Denninger wrote:

The House of Representatives was designed for direct election by the
several
states for the specific purpose of insuring that THE PEOPLE -
individuals -
had a clear and proportional voice in the federal government by the
population of the several states.

The Senate was designed specifically to provide a voice to the STATES -
via
their elected legislatures - likewise had an equal voice in the passage
of
laws which would bear on the states, or the people.

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

Meaning Krause, and his ilk, will have a very hard time installing their
socialist utopia if they have to fight the states on an individual basis.
Remove the states from the equation and move to elect the president from
direct popular election and the Democrats can take over the US just like
Hitler took over Germany with a bloodless coupe.

"Jon Smithe" wrote in message
news:Axhhd.446839$mD.64664@attbi_s02...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2ulakgF297hv3U3@uni- Nothing subtle about it. If we find you
interfering with folks on the
way to the polls, we'll ask you to move on. You'll have a choice at that
point. We're not talking about what happens inside the polling
place...but on the approaches... In other words, if you stop minority
voters heading to the polls and try to discourage them, we'll discourage
you.

I must live in the wrong neighborhood, I have never seen anyone stopping
anyone from voting. If they did, I or any intelligent person would just
call the cops, no matter who they were trying to stop. Are the majority
of people in these precincts so dumb they don't realize no one can stop
anyone from going to the precincts? In these neighborhoods do the people
have such withered up balls, that they need a bunch of old farts like you
to protect them, or is this just another one of your "Lobster Boat"
stories.




Me thinks the latter. ;-)

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" piedtypecase@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know.

That's not true. A $1 bet on Bush wins you $1.65. A $1 bet on Kerry
wins
you $2. A $1 bet on Nader wins you $1001. The betting odds favor Bush.




The only poll that matters will be held Tuesday. What's left of my gut
tells me that Kerry is going to do very, very well in the Electoral
College and might achieve the Magic 300 number. I haven't a clue where
the popular vote will be. But if Kerry wins the EC and Bush takes the
popular vote, I'll be especially delighted...because that means the
Republicans will be calling for abolishing the Electoral College.
Delicious.

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

Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.

Too bad your predictions don't mean crap, huh?

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.


"thunder" wrote in message
...
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. Perhaps, you and I might
not find some of the following intimidating. That's not important. What
is important, is that many voters do.

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBNT3H8X0E.html

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368

http://www.sundayherald.com/45159

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6031311/

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...7864136340.xml

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:
Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
Convince both legislative bodies and an appropriate number of states to
ratify your view of this matter, and you can have it.

I think we are moving in that direction. There's no reason not to do so.

I don't.

There are plenty of reasons not to do so. The reasons can be found in
places like The Federalist, to start.

There was a real concern that allowing direct presidential elections would
be disasterous. There was also a real concern that allowing direct
SENATORIAL elections would likewise be disasterous.

Yeah, well, there have been lots of concerns the last several hundred
years. Some panned out, some did not.

We now have nearly 100 years of a record on the latter, in the form of the
outrageous expansion of federalism since the 17th Amendment was passed.

Most Americans are satisfied to vote directly for their Senators.

Those who have discovered they can vote themselves a paycheck are often
satisfied with being able to do so.

Spurious argument. There's no problem with direct election of US
Senators, other than in your mind it prevents typically more
conservative state legislatures from turning the Senate into a
right-wing viper pit.

Certainly there is, in that it has removed one of the checks and balances
that the founders intended - that the State Legislatures be represented at
the Federal Lawmaking table.

The removal of a check and balance is ipso-facto proof of a "problem".

This does not mean that their satisfaction is well-founded, for if one
destablizes the underlying strength of the republic, there will be nothing
to be satisfied with.

There's no evidence that direct election of Senators has destabilized
the republic.

On the contrary. The entire folly of the Federal Government intruding into
State economic matters, and the growth of the entitlement state, currently
consuming over half of the Federal Budget, is traceable directly to the 17th
Amendment.

Without the 17th Amendment none of the "Great Society" package would have
passed. If it HAD passed, the Democratic rape of the budget via the removal
of the four promises made to people when Social Security was implemented
would have failed - specifically:
a. That the tax would never exceed 1.5% of the first $1,500 of gross
wages.
b. That the system would remain COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.
c. That the money collected would NEVER be co-mingled with other
parts of the Treasury.
d. That the benefits paid would NEVER be federally taxed.

The Democratic Party broke all four of the above promisesl; Clinton, in
fact, was responsible for (d), and he was ready to propose an even bigger
rape of retirement accounts in the form of a 15% one-time tax on ALL
tax-deferred retirement instruments (which you have conveniently ducked
discussing when I've raised it before - I have no intention of letting you
get away with that Harry.)

I'll
bet you also oppose women's suffrage, right?

The two issues are completely unrelated, and this gratuitous slam is so much
like you Harry. Why is it you're unable to debate a topic put forward on
the table for consideration, and must instead resort to personal attacks?

So, you do oppose the vote for women. I'll bet you also oppose it for
those without some sort of wealth, right, Karl?

I have said no such thing; all CITIZENS of the age of 18 years should have
the right to exactly one vote on matters in which they have a Constitutional
Right to vote.

This does not, by the way, NECESSARILY include voting for President of the
United States - whether that right exists in a given state (to vote for the
electors in a given state) is a STATE'S RIGHT ISSUE.

The issue is one of the federal government being able to unlawfully (under
the Constitution) to "cram" programs and funding mandates down the state's
throats without their consent.

Ahhh...so you think states should be able to maintain "separate but
equal," eh?

Excuse me?

There is nothing in any of my statements, here or elsewhere, that supports
such a preposterous idea.

The entire purpose of having two legislative houses is found in the writings
of the founding fathers. They were designed to represented entirely
DIFFERENT constituencies, such that before any federal law could be passed,
or any amendment to the constitution could be passed, that it must first
make it through TWO constituenties, not one.

Times change, society evolves, and we either move forward or we stagnate.

There are TWO constituencies Harry.

I know you have no respect for State's Rights (you've said so), but the fact
of the matter is that the founding vision of this nation is one of a WEAK
federal government and a strong state and local one.

The Federal Government was intended to guarantee only fundamental liberty
interests, regulate interstate and international trade, and provide for the
defense of the nation.

This is all covered in every High School civics class - if you passed.

The House of Representatives was designed for direct election by the several
states for the specific purpose of insuring that THE PEOPLE - individuals -
had a clear and proportional voice in the federal government by the
population of the several states.

The Senate was designed specifically to provide a voice to the STATES - via
their elected legislatures - likewise had an equal voice in the passage of
laws which would bear on the states, or the people.

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?

--
--
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