Full Version: Jimmy Carter and Florida
Former President Jimmy Carter had an interesting op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday.
He says that:
He seems to be saying that the Florida vote is NOT "transparent, honest, and fair".
Carter goes on to illustrate some points as to how he ascertains if foreign elections can be certified, among them:
He goes on to say that "as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms. "
What he seems to leave out is that the local officials who oversee the elections are largely Democrats, while the election officials in the state capital are Republicans. He seems to ignore that the recounts in Florida were overwhelmingly supervised by Democrats, not Republicans.
He does bring up some interesting issues, however.
Questions for Debate:
Is Jimmy Carter right in his assessment?
Is Carter ignoring the other side of the story and only reporting from one point of view?
Is Carter being objective in his analysis of the Florida election system?
He says that:
QUOTE
The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.
He seems to be saying that the Florida vote is NOT "transparent, honest, and fair".
Carter goes on to illustrate some points as to how he ascertains if foreign elections can be certified, among them:
QUOTE
• A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.
• Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.
• Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.
He goes on to say that "as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms. "
What he seems to leave out is that the local officials who oversee the elections are largely Democrats, while the election officials in the state capital are Republicans. He seems to ignore that the recounts in Florida were overwhelmingly supervised by Democrats, not Republicans.
He does bring up some interesting issues, however.
Questions for Debate:
Is Jimmy Carter right in his assessment?
Is Carter ignoring the other side of the story and only reporting from one point of view?
Is Carter being objective in his analysis of the Florida election system?
Is Jimmy Carter right in his assessment?
He is absolutely correct, Florida (as well as other states) still have many of the same problems that plauged them in the 2000 elections. In fact if it weren't for activist groups trying to change those procedures, we would be in exactly the same situation as we were 4 years ago.
Things like CNN requesting access to the Florida voter felon list and the numerous groups trying to exposure electronic voting problems come to mind.
Is Carter ignoring the other side of the story and only reporting from one point of view?
I don't think so, read the first paragraph of the editorial:
That to me sounds like he is dead on target Amlord. If we are talking about a bipartisan commission that was able to convince Congress to pass legislation then I think that Carter is in the right when he expresses disappointment that the laws are not being enacted due to funding and political squabbles.
Is Carter being objective in his analysis of the Florida election system?
I think he is personally, the recommendations that are listed in the article are sound in my opinion. It should also be noted that a law was passed and signed by the president, I would think that given all of those eyes on the problem his view of things was deemed objective.
He is absolutely correct, Florida (as well as other states) still have many of the same problems that plauged them in the 2000 elections. In fact if it weren't for activist groups trying to change those procedures, we would be in exactly the same situation as we were 4 years ago.
Things like CNN requesting access to the Florida voter felon list and the numerous groups trying to exposure electronic voting problems come to mind.
Is Carter ignoring the other side of the story and only reporting from one point of view?
I don't think so, read the first paragraph of the editorial:
QUOTE
After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.
That to me sounds like he is dead on target Amlord. If we are talking about a bipartisan commission that was able to convince Congress to pass legislation then I think that Carter is in the right when he expresses disappointment that the laws are not being enacted due to funding and political squabbles.
Is Carter being objective in his analysis of the Florida election system?
I think he is personally, the recommendations that are listed in the article are sound in my opinion. It should also be noted that a law was passed and signed by the president, I would think that given all of those eyes on the problem his view of things was deemed objective.
Is Jimmy Carter right in his assessment?
If you are asking if election reform is desperately needed in Florida and other places you are right. I’m not sure if electronic voting is the way to go, but at least state wide uniformity and clarity would be a big step forward.
Is Carter ignoring the other side of the story and only reporting from one point of view?
I’m not sure exactly how you could possibly construe Carter’s view point as partisan or one sided. Carter was defending the view that there needs to be election reform in Florida. There is no question that the 2000 election was a debacle. It took emergency action by the Supreme Court of the United States to avert a rapidly deepening crisis that struck at the very heart of our democratic institutions – the process of voting itself. No matter which side you think was right, there was a crisis precipitated by non-uniformity of electoral procedures and deep legal ambiguity on how to resolve local electoral crises at every level of government.
On the other hand, for my loyal conspiranoiacs, check this out:
Gambit Weekly
If you are asking if election reform is desperately needed in Florida and other places you are right. I’m not sure if electronic voting is the way to go, but at least state wide uniformity and clarity would be a big step forward.
Is Carter ignoring the other side of the story and only reporting from one point of view?
I’m not sure exactly how you could possibly construe Carter’s view point as partisan or one sided. Carter was defending the view that there needs to be election reform in Florida. There is no question that the 2000 election was a debacle. It took emergency action by the Supreme Court of the United States to avert a rapidly deepening crisis that struck at the very heart of our democratic institutions – the process of voting itself. No matter which side you think was right, there was a crisis precipitated by non-uniformity of electoral procedures and deep legal ambiguity on how to resolve local electoral crises at every level of government.
On the other hand, for my loyal conspiranoiacs, check this out:
Gambit Weekly
QUOTE
A switch to electronic voting might seem innocent enough at first -- until you look at who's implementing it, and how. Indeed, the transfer represents the privatization of the voting process into the hands of a select few fervent GOP supporters who've insisted on keeping their operating systems and codes a trade secret -- meaning that they enjoy absolute control over the entire voting process, including ballot counting and oversight. There is no paper trail.
One prime example is Diebold Inc., one of the nation's top e-voting machine manufacturer, whose equipment was responsible for the Florida debacle. Diebold already operates more than 40,000 machines in 37 states across the country. Many of these are in Georgia, which last November became the first state to conduct an election entirely with touch-screen machines. Oddly enough, incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes lost to Republican candidate, Sonny Perdue, 46 percent to 51 percent -- "a swing from as much as 16 percentage points from the last opinion polls," wrote Andrew Gumbel in the Independent. In the same election, incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland likewise lost to his Republican challenger, Saxby Chambliss, thanks to "a last-minute swing of nine to 12 points." And in and around Atlanta, 77 memory cards went missing or were otherwise temporarily unaccounted for before the votes they'd registered could be counted.
Similar upsets occurred "in Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, and New Hampshire -- all in races that had been flagged as key partisan battlegrounds, and all won by the Republican Party," Gumbel continued.
"It makes it really hard to show their product has been tampered with if it's a felony to inspect it," voting systems specialist and research fellow at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government Rebecca Mercuri told the Independent.
One prime example is Diebold Inc., one of the nation's top e-voting machine manufacturer, whose equipment was responsible for the Florida debacle. Diebold already operates more than 40,000 machines in 37 states across the country. Many of these are in Georgia, which last November became the first state to conduct an election entirely with touch-screen machines. Oddly enough, incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes lost to Republican candidate, Sonny Perdue, 46 percent to 51 percent -- "a swing from as much as 16 percentage points from the last opinion polls," wrote Andrew Gumbel in the Independent. In the same election, incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland likewise lost to his Republican challenger, Saxby Chambliss, thanks to "a last-minute swing of nine to 12 points." And in and around Atlanta, 77 memory cards went missing or were otherwise temporarily unaccounted for before the votes they'd registered could be counted.
Similar upsets occurred "in Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, and New Hampshire -- all in races that had been flagged as key partisan battlegrounds, and all won by the Republican Party," Gumbel continued.
"It makes it really hard to show their product has been tampered with if it's a felony to inspect it," voting systems specialist and research fellow at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government Rebecca Mercuri told the Independent.
How convenient Carter forgot that most of the contested counties in Florida(especially Palm Beach county) were run by democrats.
Is Jimmy Carter right in his assessment?
No. It's just preemptive whining coming from Carter. I supposed they already have hundreds of attorneys waiting in the wings to contest the results if not in their favor as well.
It just sounds to me that the democrats are laying out ground work for post election litigation.
Is Jimmy Carter right in his assessment?
No. It's just preemptive whining coming from Carter. I supposed they already have hundreds of attorneys waiting in the wings to contest the results if not in their favor as well.
It just sounds to me that the democrats are laying out ground work for post election litigation.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Sep 28 2004, 11:37 AM)
Is Carter ignoring the other side of the story and only reporting from one point of view?
I don't think so, read the first paragraph of the editorial:
That to me sounds like he is dead on target Amlord. If we are talking about a bipartisan commission that was able to convince Congress to pass legislation then I think that Carter is in the right when he expresses disappointment that the laws are not being enacted due to funding and political squabbles.
I don't think so, read the first paragraph of the editorial:
QUOTE
After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.
That to me sounds like he is dead on target Amlord. If we are talking about a bipartisan commission that was able to convince Congress to pass legislation then I think that Carter is in the right when he expresses disappointment that the laws are not being enacted due to funding and political squabbles.
Oh yes, he mentioned a Republican. He must be non-partisan.
Bush signed the HAVA. Bush Signs Help America Vote Act: Bill will help update voting systems in U.S.
The elections are held on the local level. State officials do little more than "certify" what the county supervisors report to them. The "local level" means DEMOCRATS. There were Democrat supervisors in 24 of the 25 counties with the highest ballot spoilage in 2000. In the 25th, the supervisor was an Independent. There were no (none, zero, nada) Republicans supervising recounts or running the polling places. The infamous "butterfly" ballot was designed by a Democrat. Ballot spoilage in 2000 was not out of line with other federal elections.
Read this article, it includes a link to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigation into the 2000 Florida election.
The political urban legend that facts won't kill.
Carter acknowledges none of this. Instead, he focuses on the top people in Tallahassee, which have very little to do with the actual counting of the votes, the design of the ballots, or the implementation of the voting mechanisms. He gives no evidence that Katherine Harris or anyone else had any effect whatsoever on the 2000 election or that any current official will have any effect on the 2004 election.
Is the voting system in Florida perfect? No, of course not. Is it any worse than it is in Texas or Arkansas or California? I don't think so. If anything, the additional scrutiny that is certain to be focused on Florida will insure a smoother and less contentious count of the votes. It also helps that Bush is ahead in Florida by 3.4% in RCP's polls.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 28 2004, 05:00 PM)
He gives no evidence that Katherine Harris or anyone else had any effect whatsoever on the 2000 election or that any current official will have any effect on the 2004 election.
If he could prove that (or anyone could for that matter), do you think Bush would be in the White House right now?
Let's not forget about the purged felon lists and the disenfranchised voters Amlord, where the Democrats had no involvement.
And if you want to blame the ballot design on a Democrat, then the errors with Electronic voting in elections that have taken place since 2000 can easily be blamed on Republicans. But let's not play the blame game and instead discuss why Florida (and many other states) has serious voting problems.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Oh yes, he mentioned a Republican. He must be non-partisan
"months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations." That is all I need to say to that.
Is Carter being objective in his analysis of the Florida election system?
Yes. Consider:
And allegations of voter intimidation. There are too many concurring "coincidences" pointing to Florida election deja vu for Carter to simply be towing the party line. Finally, both campaigns have raised millions for just such an occasion. If Florida's election process is "transparent, honest, and fair" there is no good reason for either camp to set aside a fortune better spent on campaigning.
Yes. Consider:
QUOTE
* Theresa LePore, the election supervisor who designed the infamous butterfly ballot, will once again be on the job. She "strongly endorse[s] the state's Republican-controlled legislature's new rule that outlaws manual recounts."
* Optical-scan or touch-screen machines failed in the 2002 elections, the recent March primaries, and mid August when a backup system failed in a test run in Miami-Dade.
* "...nearly all of Flordia's current troubles share a common denominator—they were decisions made or endorsed by Florida's secretary of state and chief elections officer, Glenda Hood, who was handpicked by Gov. Jeb Bush in November 2002."
* Gov. Bush's own task force on the 2000 election recommended that the Legislature change county election supervisors from elected to nonpartisan positions. But the Legislature did not act on this recommendation, nor on the suggestion of election reform groups that the secretary of state also be selected by a nonpartisan commission, to ensure the necessary firewall between election officials and politicians.
* Florida's GOP voiced its doubts about the electronic voting systems and suggested Republicans vote absentee.
* However, Bush and Hood "championed a new state law that abolishes Florida's longtime requirement that absentee ballots be witnessed."
* Voter fraud in Florida is nothing new. "...sheriffs have been known to let certain boxes of ballots—thought to be unfavorable to a particular politician—fall out of their squad cars..." and in Miami-Dade "a remarkable number of dead people have been known to rise up... Without the state's witness requirement, officials would never have been able to prove that the absentee ballots were bogus [in Suarez's mayorial election]."
* Optical-scan or touch-screen machines failed in the 2002 elections, the recent March primaries, and mid August when a backup system failed in a test run in Miami-Dade.
* "...nearly all of Flordia's current troubles share a common denominator—they were decisions made or endorsed by Florida's secretary of state and chief elections officer, Glenda Hood, who was handpicked by Gov. Jeb Bush in November 2002."
* Gov. Bush's own task force on the 2000 election recommended that the Legislature change county election supervisors from elected to nonpartisan positions. But the Legislature did not act on this recommendation, nor on the suggestion of election reform groups that the secretary of state also be selected by a nonpartisan commission, to ensure the necessary firewall between election officials and politicians.
* Florida's GOP voiced its doubts about the electronic voting systems and suggested Republicans vote absentee.
* However, Bush and Hood "championed a new state law that abolishes Florida's longtime requirement that absentee ballots be witnessed."
* Voter fraud in Florida is nothing new. "...sheriffs have been known to let certain boxes of ballots—thought to be unfavorable to a particular politician—fall out of their squad cars..." and in Miami-Dade "a remarkable number of dead people have been known to rise up... Without the state's witness requirement, officials would never have been able to prove that the absentee ballots were bogus [in Suarez's mayorial election]."
And allegations of voter intimidation. There are too many concurring "coincidences" pointing to Florida election deja vu for Carter to simply be towing the party line. Finally, both campaigns have raised millions for just such an occasion. If Florida's election process is "transparent, honest, and fair" there is no good reason for either camp to set aside a fortune better spent on campaigning.
QUOTE
Let's not forget about the purged felon lists and the disenfranchised voters Amlord, where the Democrats had no involvement.
Geez Cube
Did you even read the article that Amlord provided.QUOTE
Much has been made of the "felon purge list", i.e., a list of those individuals who, under Florida law, were to be barred from voting due to felony convictions (see the "Felon Franchise). The list had been prepared to prevent the kind of fraud that had occurred in the infamous Miami mayoral election in which a number of ineligible felons voted.
The list was inaccurate; it included people who shouldn't have been on it. Thus, the myth holds that the purge list was somehow a tool to deny blacks the right to vote.
But facts are stubborn things. Whites were actually twice as likely as blacks to be erroneously placed on the list. In fact, an exhaustive study by the Miami Herald concluded that "the biggest problem with the felon list was not that it prevented eligible voters from casting ballots, but that it ended up allowing ineligible voters to cast a ballot" (This quote, as well as many of the facts contained herein, come from Commissioners Abigail Thernstrom's and Russell Redenbaugh's dissent to the Commission report.). According to the Palm Beach Post more than 6,500 ineligible felons voted.
The list was inaccurate; it included people who shouldn't have been on it. Thus, the myth holds that the purge list was somehow a tool to deny blacks the right to vote.
But facts are stubborn things. Whites were actually twice as likely as blacks to be erroneously placed on the list. In fact, an exhaustive study by the Miami Herald concluded that "the biggest problem with the felon list was not that it prevented eligible voters from casting ballots, but that it ended up allowing ineligible voters to cast a ballot" (This quote, as well as many of the facts contained herein, come from Commissioners Abigail Thernstrom's and Russell Redenbaugh's dissent to the Commission report.). According to the Palm Beach Post more than 6,500 ineligible felons voted.
What was that about the felon list?
QUOTE(Sleeper)
What was that about the felon list?
I don't know Sleeper what was your point exactly? I didn't specify that blacks were disenfranchised alone, those are words you are trying to put in my mouth.
From your article:
QUOTE
The list was inaccurate; it included people who shouldn't have been on it.
That is all that needs to be said, that means that people were disfranchised in 2000. And it would have happened again this year if CNN and other organizations didn't put so much pressure on Florida to release the names.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Sep 28 2004, 11:25 AM)
QUOTE(Sleeper)
What was that about the felon list?
I don't know Sleeper what was your point exactly? I didn't specify that blacks were disenfranchised alone, those are words you are trying to put in my mouth.
From your article:
QUOTE
The list was inaccurate; it included people who shouldn't have been on it.
That is all that needs to be said, that means that people were disfranchised in 2000. And it would have happened again this year if CNN and other organizations didn't put so much pressure on Florida to release the names.
Please point out where I said black(although you can't). The article does mention blacks but I never made mention of them.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Sep 28 2004, 12:16 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord)
Oh yes, he mentioned a Republican. He must be non-partisan
"months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations." That is all I need to say to that.
After the Carter-Ford commission, the Congress passed the NAVA, which I have linked to. Bush personally thanked both Carter and Ford for leading the commission. Yet Carter asserts that nothing has been done.
According to the United Press International
QUOTE
Twenty-four states have passed fairly comprehensive HAVA-compliance bills and the governor has signed them, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. They are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia. Most other states have legislation dealing with a few of the requirements.
(emphasis mine)Carter, who certified the elections in Venezuela, is hardly non-partisan. He has been highly critical of President Bush. His efforts in Venezuela were... dubious...to say the least. Questioning Jimmy Carter re Venezuela… and Do Birds of a Feather Flock Together?
We can remember that he is a Democrat, can we not? He is critical of Florida election officials chiefly because they are Republicans. He offers no evidence (conclusive or otherwise) that state election officials have tampered with anything, suppressed any voters, deliberately blocked measures of the NAVA. Nothing. He offers no balance in even acknowledging that for the most part, elections are conducted at the local level. He has simply thrown out the same old same old hoping it will stick this time because it comes from an elder statesman. Disgraceful, in my opinion.
Mr. Carter, please provide some facts to back up your claims.
Amlord, I am having a hard time working out what your intent in starting this topic was and the relationship it has with the actual topic. So a few questions for you:
- Do you agree or disagree that electoral law in Florida and other states is flawed?
You seem to suggest that you do, is that quote out of context?
- What do you think about the implementation of HAVA in Florida and elsewhere? Do you feel that it has been hampered by politics and funding?
I'd like to know what your stance is here and please separate it from the anti-Carter rhetoric. I think that elections around the country, including and especially Florida, are less than perfect and in a lot of cases capable of defeating democracy. Do you condone some of the things that went on in 2000 simply because your candidate won? Am I to be immediately suspect simply because I want a different candidate in office, or is it more rational to assume I just want everyone's vote to count, even those I feel are hopelessly mislead.
- Are we supposed to debate whether Carter is a partisan slimeball here or actually discuss the problems with our election law?
I'm getting the distinct feeling that it is the former, because most of the responses thus far have been to the effect of "Carter is a Democrat, he must just be whining".
I think you know how to read between the lines as well as I do Sleeper. By quoting an article that made that suggestion, asking if I even read the article and then asking me "what felon list?" - you tell me what you meant. But that isn't exactly important to this discussion so let's just let it be shall we?
- Do you agree or disagree that electoral law in Florida and other states is flawed?
QUOTE(Amlord)
Is the voting system in Florida perfect? No, of course not. Is it any worse than it is in Texas or Arkansas or California? I don't think so.
You seem to suggest that you do, is that quote out of context?
- What do you think about the implementation of HAVA in Florida and elsewhere? Do you feel that it has been hampered by politics and funding?
I'd like to know what your stance is here and please separate it from the anti-Carter rhetoric. I think that elections around the country, including and especially Florida, are less than perfect and in a lot of cases capable of defeating democracy. Do you condone some of the things that went on in 2000 simply because your candidate won? Am I to be immediately suspect simply because I want a different candidate in office, or is it more rational to assume I just want everyone's vote to count, even those I feel are hopelessly mislead.
- Are we supposed to debate whether Carter is a partisan slimeball here or actually discuss the problems with our election law?
I'm getting the distinct feeling that it is the former, because most of the responses thus far have been to the effect of "Carter is a Democrat, he must just be whining".
QUOTE(Sleeper)
Please point out where I said black(although you can't). The article does mention blacks but I never made mention of them.
I think you know how to read between the lines as well as I do Sleeper. By quoting an article that made that suggestion, asking if I even read the article and then asking me "what felon list?" - you tell me what you meant. But that isn't exactly important to this discussion so let's just let it be shall we?
The topic is about Carter and his assessment of Florida.
The first question asks whether Carter's assessment of Florida is correct. This is specific to Florida.
The second and third questions ask whether Carter is giving a fair analysis and (as part of that) whether or not he is looking at the "big picture".
Since you are asking for MY opinion (not the topic of this thread
):
To me, Carter seems to have bought into the "political urban myths" that Peter Kirsanow refers to. Instead of proving his blanket assertions, he simply states:
Bold statements like this require evidence. Carter supplies none. To me, it is rhetoric. I am sure others have differing opinions, which is the point behind this thread.
QUOTE
Is Jimmy Carter right in his assessment?
Is Carter ignoring the other side of the story and only reporting from one point of view?
Is Carter being objective in his analysis of the Florida election system?
Is Carter ignoring the other side of the story and only reporting from one point of view?
Is Carter being objective in his analysis of the Florida election system?
The first question asks whether Carter's assessment of Florida is correct. This is specific to Florida.
The second and third questions ask whether Carter is giving a fair analysis and (as part of that) whether or not he is looking at the "big picture".
Since you are asking for MY opinion (not the topic of this thread
): To me, Carter seems to have bought into the "political urban myths" that Peter Kirsanow refers to. Instead of proving his blanket assertions, he simply states:
QUOTE
It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy.
Bold statements like this require evidence. Carter supplies none. To me, it is rhetoric. I am sure others have differing opinions, which is the point behind this thread.
Those that are calling Carter's assessment biased are concentrating on who supervised recounts. But the problem is the recounts were rendered null and void because they were not allowed to fully complete. It was the court which decided the result. A Republican court.
Also, the issue of Replublican supporting companies providing electronic election machines/computers and the fact that the reform law has not been fully carried out is not a partisan point. Simply a fact. The law, as mentioned above was simply based on a bi-partisan committee's recommendations.
No man can be 100% objective but any lover of democracy would surely have very similar concerns to those expressed by Carter. Or am I wrong?
Also, the issue of Replublican supporting companies providing electronic election machines/computers and the fact that the reform law has not been fully carried out is not a partisan point. Simply a fact. The law, as mentioned above was simply based on a bi-partisan committee's recommendations.
No man can be 100% objective but any lover of democracy would surely have very similar concerns to those expressed by Carter. Or am I wrong?
QUOTE(Schoolboy @ Sep 28 2004, 04:28 PM)
No man can be 100% objective but any lover of democracy would surely have very similar concerns to those expressed by Carter. Or am I wrong?
While I'm certainly not 100% objective, I do share some of the concerns that Carter noted. Like the (Democratic) group that is Paying felons to sign up voters in Florida and Ohio, for instance. I think that this is probably not the best way to keep our democracy at the forefront.
QUOTE
By David A. Lieb, Associated Press | June 24, 2004
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A Democratic group working to defeat President Bush has paid felons -- some convicted of sex offenses, assault, and burglary -- to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states.
...
America Coming Together, or ACT, canvassers ask residents which issues are important to them and, if they are not registered, sign them up as voters. They gather telephone numbers and other personal information, such as driver's license numbers or partial Social Security numbers, depending on what a state requires for voter registration.
...
A review of federal campaign finance and state criminal records by the Associated Press revealed that the names and hometowns of dozens of ACT employees in Missouri, Florida, and Ohio matched those of people convicted of crimes such as burglary, forgery, drug dealing, assault, and sex offenses.
Although it works against the reelection of President Bush, ACT is an independent group not affiliated with the campaign of Senator John F. Kerry -- federal law forbids such coordination. Yet ACT is stocked with veteran Democratic political operatives, many with past ties to Kerry and his advisers.
...
Elleithee confirmed that felons have been hired in Missouri, Florida, and Ohio and said it is possible that felons have been hired in the other 14 states in which it's conducting its drive: Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A Democratic group working to defeat President Bush has paid felons -- some convicted of sex offenses, assault, and burglary -- to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states.
...
America Coming Together, or ACT, canvassers ask residents which issues are important to them and, if they are not registered, sign them up as voters. They gather telephone numbers and other personal information, such as driver's license numbers or partial Social Security numbers, depending on what a state requires for voter registration.
...
A review of federal campaign finance and state criminal records by the Associated Press revealed that the names and hometowns of dozens of ACT employees in Missouri, Florida, and Ohio matched those of people convicted of crimes such as burglary, forgery, drug dealing, assault, and sex offenses.
Although it works against the reelection of President Bush, ACT is an independent group not affiliated with the campaign of Senator John F. Kerry -- federal law forbids such coordination. Yet ACT is stocked with veteran Democratic political operatives, many with past ties to Kerry and his advisers.
...
Elleithee confirmed that felons have been hired in Missouri, Florida, and Ohio and said it is possible that felons have been hired in the other 14 states in which it's conducting its drive: Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
So after the sex-offending drug dealers con innocent voters out of their personal data, sell it to the DNC's proxy 527, and it's noted that dead people are registering, etc., what happens. Oh yeah, you have to send cops in to sort it out.
1,000 cases of suspicious voter registrations (in Ohio)
QUOTE
Friday, September 24, 2004
Steve Luttner and Michael Scott
Plain Dealer Reporters
More than 1,000 voter registration forms and absentee ballot requests may be fraudulent in Lake and Summit counties, where investigations of irregularities are broadening.
...
Lake County Sheriff Daniel Dunlap said Thursday that he will investigate an attempt to register a dead person and other possibly fraudulent documents that were submitted to the Lake County Board of Elections.
...
"We've seen voter fraud before, but never on this level," Coulson said Thursday. "I grew up in Chicago and this looks like the politics of Mayor Daley in the '50s and '60s."
Lake election and law enforcement officials said their investigation is centered on absentee registration attempts by the nonpartisan NAACP's National Voter Fund and an anti-Bush, nonprofit group called Americans Coming Together, or ACT Ohio.
...
Dunlap said the probe will include visits from detectives to addresses of the voters in question.
In one other instance, an elderly nursing home resident who usually signs with an "X" appeared to have a firm, cursive signature when she registered.
"We are going to have to see who's alive and who's well," Dunlap said. "We're going to have to burn up some shoe leather."
Steve Luttner and Michael Scott
Plain Dealer Reporters
More than 1,000 voter registration forms and absentee ballot requests may be fraudulent in Lake and Summit counties, where investigations of irregularities are broadening.
...
Lake County Sheriff Daniel Dunlap said Thursday that he will investigate an attempt to register a dead person and other possibly fraudulent documents that were submitted to the Lake County Board of Elections.
...
"We've seen voter fraud before, but never on this level," Coulson said Thursday. "I grew up in Chicago and this looks like the politics of Mayor Daley in the '50s and '60s."
Lake election and law enforcement officials said their investigation is centered on absentee registration attempts by the nonpartisan NAACP's National Voter Fund and an anti-Bush, nonprofit group called Americans Coming Together, or ACT Ohio.
...
Dunlap said the probe will include visits from detectives to addresses of the voters in question.
In one other instance, an elderly nursing home resident who usually signs with an "X" appeared to have a firm, cursive signature when she registered.
"We are going to have to see who's alive and who's well," Dunlap said. "We're going to have to burn up some shoe leather."
And when you send cops in you are doing what - intimidating would-be voters. Classic.
To recap, a small ($100 million in 2004) portion of the Democratic voting drive strategy in swing states:
1 - Send felons to collect personal data from would-be voters
2 - Pay incentives to ensure over-delivery
3 - When cops go to investigate the fraud, cry "voter intimidation"
Oh, yeah, and #4 - make jokes about it.
QUOTE
Teresa Heinz Kerry campaigned in the Twin Cities 9/27 on behalf of her husband, "attending a private fundraiser and visiting an urban youth agriculture program." As she was leaving, THK told students: "Be happy. Be good." To adults, "she advised in a light-hearted tone": "Vote often and vote well" (Von Sternberg, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/28).
carlitoswhey,
From your Plain Dealer article:
Overzealous hacks on both sides willing to circumvent the law at registration drives are nothing new. If the fraud leads all the way up to ACT let them be prosecuted. I understand Gillespie's concerns. I won't come to ACT's defense for their choice of temp workers. Let the felons catch up with DAs if they break a law.
However...
The Plain Dealer article deals with an Ohio county today. The Dealer and this Beacon article (may require reg.) don't mention felons. Were felons hired on a large scale prior to the Florida 2000 presidential election as well?
The latest incident of voter intimidation deals with the allegation of voter fraud after the votes were counted, not hired felons or Ohio. The group targeted in the intimidation investigation that I know of are elderly members of Florida's Orlando League of Voters. They appear to be a grassroots organization for registering black voters. State police have so far refused to comment on the investigation. Until Florida police provide a statement somehow tying OLoV to ACT and/or felons aren't you jumping the gun to make a point on bogus intimidation charges only the eeebil liberal party would cook up?
To recap:
1 - Although the Plain Dealer article doesn't mention felons imply the fraud taking place in Ohio is a direct result of hiring felons to register voters
2 - Imply what is true for Ohio is true for other states wherein ACT has hired felons
3 - Suggest the voter intimidation investigation is directly related to hired felons committing voter registration fraud in Florida
Leave conjecture to the blogs.
I hate WMD jokes too~
From your Plain Dealer article:
QUOTE(Plain Dealer)
Lake County Sheriff Daniel Dunlap said Thursday that he will investigate an attempt to register a dead person and other possibly fraudulent documents that were submitted to the Lake County Board of Elections.
Dunlap also said he has notified the FBI and the Ohio secretary of state.
"We want to make sure the election here in Lake County is the best possible," Dunlap said. "I don't know if this was a concerted effort or if it was just an overzealous, independent person here and there who decided to push the envelope."
Dunlap also said he has notified the FBI and the Ohio secretary of state.
"We want to make sure the election here in Lake County is the best possible," Dunlap said. "I don't know if this was a concerted effort or if it was just an overzealous, independent person here and there who decided to push the envelope."
Overzealous hacks on both sides willing to circumvent the law at registration drives are nothing new. If the fraud leads all the way up to ACT let them be prosecuted. I understand Gillespie's concerns. I won't come to ACT's defense for their choice of temp workers. Let the felons catch up with DAs if they break a law.
However...
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
And when you send cops in you are doing what - intimidating would-be voters. Classic.
To recap, a small ($100 million in 2004) portion of the Democratic voting drive strategy in swing states:
1 - Send felons to collect personal data from would-be voters
2 - Pay incentives to ensure over-delivery
3 - When cops go to investigate the fraud, cry "voter intimidation"
To recap, a small ($100 million in 2004) portion of the Democratic voting drive strategy in swing states:
1 - Send felons to collect personal data from would-be voters
2 - Pay incentives to ensure over-delivery
3 - When cops go to investigate the fraud, cry "voter intimidation"
The Plain Dealer article deals with an Ohio county today. The Dealer and this Beacon article (may require reg.) don't mention felons. Were felons hired on a large scale prior to the Florida 2000 presidential election as well?
QUOTE(PftAW)
In Florida, there were a number of troubling instances of voter intimidation in addition to the myriad of technical problems with Florida’s 2000 election. On Election Day, the NAACP national office in Baltimore reported receiving “scores of calls from Floridians all across the state” reporting intimidation and other irregularities.
Immigrant communities are often vulnerable to intimidation efforts, and Miami’s Haitian-American communities reported many instances in 2000. Marleine Bastien, founder of Haitian Women of Miami, Inc. recalled getting many calls from people who were prevented from voting due to intimidation and complained of being insulted.
People for the American Way
Immigrant communities are often vulnerable to intimidation efforts, and Miami’s Haitian-American communities reported many instances in 2000. Marleine Bastien, founder of Haitian Women of Miami, Inc. recalled getting many calls from people who were prevented from voting due to intimidation and complained of being insulted.
People for the American Way
The latest incident of voter intimidation deals with the allegation of voter fraud after the votes were counted, not hired felons or Ohio. The group targeted in the intimidation investigation that I know of are elderly members of Florida's Orlando League of Voters. They appear to be a grassroots organization for registering black voters. State police have so far refused to comment on the investigation. Until Florida police provide a statement somehow tying OLoV to ACT and/or felons aren't you jumping the gun to make a point on bogus intimidation charges only the eeebil liberal party would cook up?
QUOTE(ABC news)
There have been growing calls for a federal investigation of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's response to allegations of voter fraud in Orlando's mayoral election. Democrat Buddy Dyer's narrow victory sparked accusations that a black activist may have improperly filled out absentee ballots. FDLE agents interviewed dozens of voters who cast absentee ballots.
Civil rights groups and Democrats contended the agents' presence and behavior, including allegedly displaying their guns, intimidated the minority voters they visited.
ABC News
Civil rights groups and Democrats contended the agents' presence and behavior, including allegedly displaying their guns, intimidated the minority voters they visited.
ABC News
To recap:
1 - Although the Plain Dealer article doesn't mention felons imply the fraud taking place in Ohio is a direct result of hiring felons to register voters
2 - Imply what is true for Ohio is true for other states wherein ACT has hired felons
3 - Suggest the voter intimidation investigation is directly related to hired felons committing voter registration fraud in Florida
Leave conjecture to the blogs.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
Oh, yeah, and #4 - make jokes about it.
I hate WMD jokes too~
It's a moot topic because the election in Florida won't be close this time.
Carter is trying hard to look credible. He is a relic of the past that people would sooner rather forget.
Carter is trying hard to look credible. He is a relic of the past that people would sooner rather forget.
QUOTE(haemophilus @ Sep 29 2004, 12:48 AM)
It's a moot topic because the election in Florida won't be close this time.
Carter is trying hard to look credible. He is a relic of the past that people would sooner rather forget.
Carter is trying hard to look credible. He is a relic of the past that people would sooner rather forget.
Are you looking at polls that I haven't haemophilus? Because the last poll I could find on Florida was from Zogby, on 9/24, and it has Bush and Kerry deadlocked at 48% each.
In addition, a big shakeup could be happening in the Latino vote. Bush has 70% to Kerry's 19%, which sounds pretty good, until you realize that Bush had 82% of their vote in 2000. If the Latinos like what they hear from Kerry during the debates, a lot of those undecideds could well make the difference.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 28 2004, 08:48 PM)
carlitoswhey,
To recap:
1 - Although the Plain Dealer article doesn't mention felons imply the fraud taking place in Ohio is a direct result of hiring felons to register voters
2 - Imply what is true for Ohio is true for other states wherein ACT has hired felons
3 - Suggest the voter intimidation investigation is directly related to hired felons committing voter registration fraud in Florida
Leave conjecture to the blogs.
To recap:
1 - Although the Plain Dealer article doesn't mention felons imply the fraud taking place in Ohio is a direct result of hiring felons to register voters
2 - Imply what is true for Ohio is true for other states wherein ACT has hired felons
3 - Suggest the voter intimidation investigation is directly related to hired felons committing voter registration fraud in Florida
Leave conjecture to the blogs.
Mea culpa. There is no grand conspiracy, and I apologize for connecting too many dots to make a point. However, Jimmy Carter has done exactly what you are complaining about.
- Vague claims of voter intimidation, various unrelated, spurious charges being leveled in a coordinated way by Carter, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., as a set of circumstances in order to scare voters into thinking that the Republicans are somehow disenfranchising people. Their logic is not sound, but the charges keep getting repeated, even to the point of John Kerry mentioning 'one million black voters' being disenfranchised.
Right now in Colorado, Common Cause and other activists are suing to make sure that ID isn't required to vote, literally calling it a poll tax. How can a $5 state ID be called a poll tax. How about a utility bill? If you can't buy beer without it, is it really that onerous to require ID to vote?
denver post
QUOTE
The lawsuit - scheduled to be heard Tuesday in Denver District Court - seeks to stop two state rules making it tougher to cast provisional ballots and the state law requiring voters to present driver's licenses, utility bills or other forms of identification at the polls.
Plaintiffs say requiring IDs amounts to a poll tax because most forms of ID cost money.
"You can't have election rules that disenfranchise certain people, like minorities and the poor. Our constitution protects against it," said Common Cause attorney Martha Tierney.
Plaintiffs say requiring IDs amounts to a poll tax because most forms of ID cost money.
"You can't have election rules that disenfranchise certain people, like minorities and the poor. Our constitution protects against it," said Common Cause attorney Martha Tierney.
My concern is that we may go so far - moter voter, no ID, register by mail, etc., that we are encouraging fraud. That's why the regulations crept in in the first place. As a Chicago resident, I can tell you that the fraud was real, those jokes are based on how Mayor Daley's machine delivered Democratic votes. The scare-mongering from people like Carter is going to be used to repeal regs, which could then be abused by big-city machine politicians in order to swing elections.
NOT saying that there aren't problems in elections, of course there are - Florida was a mess. I just resent being the tone taken by Carter when he makes this type of vague claim (without evidence as Amlord notes) and helps bolster the other vague claims made as sort of a grand conspiracy of Republicans to steal elections.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Sep 29 2004, 08:34 AM)
Right now in Colorado, Common Cause and other activists are suing to make sure that ID isn't required to vote, literally calling it a poll tax. How can a $5 state ID be called a poll tax. How about a utility bill? If you can't buy beer without it, is it really that onerous to require ID to vote?
My concern is that we may go so far - moter voter, no ID, register by mail, etc., that we are encouraging fraud. That's why the regulations crept in the first place. As a Chicago resident, I can tell you that the fraud was real, those jokes are based on how Mayor Daley's machine delivered Democratic votes. The scare-mongering from people like Carter is going to be used to repeal regs, which could then be abused by big-city machine politicians in order to swing elections.
My concern is that we may go so far - moter voter, no ID, register by mail, etc., that we are encouraging fraud. That's why the regulations crept in the first place. As a Chicago resident, I can tell you that the fraud was real, those jokes are based on how Mayor Daley's machine delivered Democratic votes. The scare-mongering from people like Carter is going to be used to repeal regs, which could then be abused by big-city machine politicians in order to swing elections.
The Dems are politicking as far as allegations of intimidating voters when it comes to required identification in hopes of glutting traditional blocs of liberal voters at turnout. I can see a legitimate reason behind some of the concern. A homeless person has as much a right to vote as you and I. What is said homeless person going to put down for a legitimate address? If s/he gives the shelter's address or a friend's or picks one will his vote still count according to county/state rules? Why haven't (more?) secretary of states addressed this fundamental right that transcends employment status? This is a disenfranchisement issue; not intimidation. The Orlando investigation could be intimidation but...
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Sep 29 2004, 08:34 AM)
However, Jimmy Carter has done exactly what you are complaining about.
- Vague claims of voter intimidation, various unrelated, spurious charges being leveled in a coordinated way by Carter, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., as a set of circumstances in order to scare voters into thinking that the Republicans are somehow disenfranchising people. Their logic is not sound, but the charges keep getting repeated, even to the point of John Kerry mentioning 'one million black voters' being disenfranchised.
- Vague claims of voter intimidation, various unrelated, spurious charges being leveled in a coordinated way by Carter, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., as a set of circumstances in order to scare voters into thinking that the Republicans are somehow disenfranchising people. Their logic is not sound, but the charges keep getting repeated, even to the point of John Kerry mentioning 'one million black voters' being disenfranchised.
...voter registration rules by regional flavor give way to suspicion. Whether it is mistakenly or knowingly accusing the other side of impropriety, coordination, intimidation, etc. As long as voter drives can give away cigarettes to encourage registration, governors give the go-ahead to mail in absentee ballots without signed witnesses, congresses draft and presidents sign bills that don’t require paper trails someone caws. The Carebear story behind the touch-screen machine HAVA stipulated for states to be eligible for federal assistance was heavily lobbied by manufacturers as giving the disabled a chance to vote. HAVA's carrots don't come with a stick for either lobbyists or secretary of states that "don't need the federal government to tell them how to run elections but they need to have them to help finance the changes that they require."
I don’t mean to parrot Carter. Federal registration requirements, ID/SSN at the booths, and absentee ballots would curb allegations. It would also raise the argument of states' rights. Pick your poison. We’ll have to settle for more stories/threads devoted to allegations of “insert group” being disenfranchised/intimidated until then, sifting through ambiguity after the damage may already be done to both the wrongly accused and the unjustly targeted as in Florida 2000.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.