posted
Interesting report. Now, I could say something about how the Bluntmeister, a Republican, seemed to concentrate mainly on past voting fraud committed by Democrats in his litle potted history of the past century, but I won't. 8)
Now, what have we here? Not a lot, really. The Gore-Lieberman campaign in conjunction with a local Congressional candidate petitioned to extend voting hours, which isn't actually illegal. Since then, their reasons for doing so have been a bit confused and rather varied (now what does that remind us of?). Meanwhile, lots of felons voted, which they're not allowed to to, and some even obtained court orders to vote, which they're not allowed to do either. These two facts are not coterminous. Nor does the fact that among the given reasons for wanting court orders were these statements:-
"I want a Dem(ocratic) president."
"For the democratic party."
"Have been working for the NAACP, wasn't getting off in time."
That's three reasons out of twenty-eight listed, and three hundred and fifty-seven reviewed, and even the last one is dubious only in that I can't imagine many Republicans being members of the NAACP.
Meanwhile, in Wisconsin. . .
quote:It's impossible to know who all the illegal voters supported - or even whether they made a selection for president on their ballots.
Sure, there's a lot of stuff about demographics, and a research study that was carried out, and ignorance about the voting laws, but hey, Earth to librarians, ignorance is not a crime. It's not always an excuse either, but it doesn't point to some great plot by the Democratic Party and/or the NAACP to get felons to vote, or even establish that most felons vote Democrat.
After all, a recent poll established that 'most Americans' believe most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. You going to agree with that?
posted
Not to distract us from the extremely important and entirely relevant discussion of the political bias of felons (herring? nah, I'm trying to quit), but could someone who is opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage please explain to me why this is a bad idea? I mean like I'm actually curious because I can't see any way that this could be harming anyone or anything in any way, but that could be because I live in California (<50 south of Frisco.) I mean without launching into religious reasons, because I mean like church and state, ya dig? Thanks.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Being outside of the states, I have to ask one question. What does the potential bias of convicted felons, one way or another have anything to do with whether they should vote or not? i.e. Who cares?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think anyone here said the two subjects were related. Of course, various politicians might consider it very important, seeing as it might affect their chances of being elected.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Here's what I don't get: This happens all the time in the US. Not a congressional or school board or whatever election goes by without somebody whining about people voting who shouldn't be voting, or people being kept from voting who should be voting, etc. etc.
For all I know, voting irregularities might happen up here in Canada, too. But we never, ever, hear anyone whining about it. Elections are fought, if they're close they're recounted, and then we all shut up and deal. So, sure, maybe there are awful errors all the time up here and the Natural Law Party actually won the last federal election, and the only difference between Canada and the US is that we don't have such a keen and all-round brilliant media/political machine scrutinizing these things. But my hunch is that we're holding fair elections and a decent job is being done at ensuring those who can and wish to vote do.
So how the hell can you people have so much trouble carrying out a bloody election? Every other industrial democracy seems to get by just fine without any of this nonsense. Something to do with loving freedom and hating terrah more than everyone else, or what?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
In the US's case, it's because the losers just can't deal with it. The rest of us are quite happy to let the matter drop, but, you see, every time they complain about how they don't like something about Bush, they HAVE to bring it up again. Because they can't take losing.
You don't hear the "right" (outside of incidents such as the rebuttal testimony given above), talking about things like how the Democrats tried to steal the elections in various ways, how the FLSC breached protocol by referring a case to itself (without legal precedent), the attempts at disqualifying military votes (because the mulitary votes overwhelmingly Republican), and the declaration of a winner in FL hours before the polls closed, even though those claims are just as valid as any the Bush-bashers can dream up.
Because despite the name of their activist website, they're simply unable to "moveon."
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"You don't hear the 'right' (outside of incidents such as the rebuttal testimony given above), talking about things like how the Democrats tried to steal the elections in various ways..."
Um... That's because they got what they wanted. When was the last time you saw someone win something, and then proceed to complain about the manner in which they won it?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
