Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Republicans Plan Voter Challenges in Florida

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the ounce-of-prevention-worth-a-pound-of-lawsuits dept.

Republicans 172

An anonymous reader writes "Greg Palast, the journalist who first reported on the initial Florida voter scandal (Warning large PDF), thinks he's found a new threat for this election, reported here at the BBC. He did uncover some interesting shenanigans last time, is this significant, or is he just fishing this time?"

cancel ×

172 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nigger. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10638024)

I win.

Yeah, yeah ... (3, Interesting)

crmartin (98227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638029)

Ohio has counties with 30,000 more registrations than there are people, and we're talking about 1200 questionable registrations in Florida.

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638272)

Actually it's around 1800 and the intent is to intimidate minority voters.

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

nes11 (767888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638345)

perhaps you missed the point. 30,000.....1800.....you do the math.

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (3, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638487)

Actually it's around 1800 and the intent is to intimidate minority voters.

In short. I call bullshit.

Florida has a large number of minority voters who are Republicans. Miami Cubans alone are a huge block of Republican voters. Jeb Bush is married to a Latina.

If you're trying to argue that people who are voting illegally are more likely to vote Democrat. I won't argue, I don't know for sure, but minority does not equal Democrat. Especially in Florida.

LK

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638898)

By minority, he meant black. The hispanics in Florida are largely Republican, and the blacks are largely Democrat.

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (2, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638972)

Oh spare us the politically correct bullshit, will you? Nobody said "minority equals Democrat". That's your own strawman.

It's perfectly valid to evaluate an attack on minority voting demographic as a partisan maneuver, even if it involves what look like stereotypes when applied at an individual level. "So-and-So is black so he must be voting for Democrats" is a politically incorrect statement. "Blacks tend to vote Democratic" is not, especially if it happens to be true. Politically incorrect assertions about minorities tend to lack statistical validity. That's partly why they're offensive.

Interesting too, from a statistical viewpoint, is how 22,000 Democratic-leaning blacks but only 61 Republican-leaning Hispanics were among the 48,000 people on the 2000 felons list.

Quit pretending to be stupid. Everyone can see what is going on here.

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639153)

It's perfectly valid to evaluate an attack on minority voting demographic as a partisan maneuver, even if it involves what look like stereotypes when applied at an individual level.

Why is it that those on the "progressive" side are assuming that criminals who happen to be black were going to vote Democrat?

Interesting too, from a statistical viewpoint, is how 22,000 Democratic-leaning blacks but only 61 Republican-leaning Hispanics were among the 48,000 people on the 2000 felons list.

So what you're saying, by not actually saying it, is that about 26,000 of those people were white.

More than half of the people on the list that you refer to are not black.

Assuming that the numbers are accurate and that someone hasn't "cooked the books" so to speak. It still proves nothing. Let us not forget the numbers of hispanics who are counted as white.

Before you try to say that it doesn't happen...Have you ever seen the movie Blow? The very ethnic Diego Delgado [bop.gov] is catagorized as "White" by the government.

So let's summarize your points. Less than half of those the Republicans tried to remove from the rolls are black. A government that routinely classifies latinos as "white" only lists a handfull of "hispanics" on the list of those that the Republicans tried to remove from the rolls.

Anything else?

Quit pretending to be stupid. Everyone can see what is going on here.

Yes we can. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill so you can have an excuse if your guy loses.

LK

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (4, Interesting)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639636)

Why is it that those on the "progressive" side are assuming that criminals who happen to be black were going to vote Democrat?

You are probably not familiar with the controversy. The problem with the list, and the reason it was so controversial to begin with, was that it was full of people who were not criminals, who were put on the list by mistake. Criminality aside, blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic, so it was naturally seen as a very convenient mistake for Jeb to make, especially now that it's 4 years later and many of the same incorrect names are still on it.

So what you're saying, by not actually saying it, is that about 26,000 of those people were white.
More than half of the people on the list that you refer to are not black.

Yeah, so? Are you implying that these white people were all going to vote for Bush? Or they would split their votes between candidates any less evenly than any other group of white people?

Assuming that the numbers are accurate and that someone hasn't "cooked the books" so to speak. It still proves nothing. Let us not forget the numbers of hispanics who are counted as white.

Before you try to say that it doesn't happen...Have you ever seen the movie Blow? The very ethnic Diego Delgado is catagorized as "White" by the government.


Starting from the 2000 census data [census.gov] , so that we include the effects of Florida's weird ideas about movie stars from Blow, Florida is 65.4% white (non-Hispanic), 16.8% Hispanic, and 14.6% black. The ex-felon population will have a slightly different racial makeup, but you can estimate it by assuming that the ratios of whites to Hispanics are about the same as for the rest of the state (blacks are obviously overrepresented). What's the probability that out of a random sampling of 26,000 non-black ex-felons, 4745 (18.25%) of which you'd expect to be Hispanic, you'll find exactly 61 Hispanics?

It's (.8175^(25939)) * (.1875^61) * 26000! / (25939! * 61!) That number is so small it's hard to calculate. You can use Stirling's Approximation to get the log of it: 25939*log(0.8175) + 61*log(.1875) + 26000*(log(26000)-1)) - 61*(log(61)-1) - 25939*(log(25939)-1) = -2270 - 18858 + 88789 - 47 - 88855 = -21241. Even allowing for the probability of finding fewer than 61 Hispanics, which changes the result by log(60) at most, you're still left with a probability of a 1 with at least 21240 zeroes to 1 of finding 61 or fewer Hispanics on the felons list by chance.

Maybe you're right and the felons list is full of movie stars from Blow. Even if the list "really" contains 600 Hispanics, ten times as many as are estimated, the log of the probability would be 25400*log(0.8175) + 600*log(.1875) + 26000*(log(26000)-1)) - 600*(log(600)-1) - 25400*(log(25400)-1) = -2223 - 436 +88789 - 1067 - 86482 = -1419, or a one with 1400 zeroes to one. We'd have to hold more elections than there are protons in the universe for even 600 Hispanics to appear on the list, without someone "cooking the books."

Don't you think you might be wrong?

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639743)

Yeah, so? Are you implying that these white people were all going to vote for Bush? Or they would split their votes between candidates any less evenly than any other group of white people?

Well, since you bring it up, yes. In states that have a lower proportion of minority voters, like Pennsylvania [census.gov] or California [census.gov] , a higher percentage of the white voters voted for Gore in 2000.

If the Democrats are right about why the Republicans are trying to exclude the black people on that list, they have to concede that the white people were more likely to vote Republican. A higher percentage of the whites in Florida voted for Bush than the whites in Pennsylvania or California. As evidenced by the offsetting of the larger minority voting block in that state.

It's not logically consistant to claim that the whites were going to split their vote evenly but that the "minority" voters were going to vote Democrat. If that was reality, Republicans would never win.

Maybe you're right and the felons list is full of movie stars from Blow.

No. Not movie stars. Did you even click on the link? It's for the federal bureau of prisons. Diego Delgado is a real guy. He was a cocaine smuggler. Blow was based upon some of the things he did. I mentioned the movie because it illustrates that this guy (from central America) is Latino. But the government still calls people like him white.

We'd have to hold more elections than there are protons in the universe for even 600 Hispanics to appear on the list, without someone "cooking the books."

All we'd need is 1. How many lottery tickets does someone have to buy to be a winner? Just 1. I'm not sure if you're intentionally misrepresenting probability or you just don't understand.

Don't you think you might be wrong?

Why? Because you can arbitrarily present a formula to "prove" that you're correct?

That's not how probability works, and I suspect that you already know that.

LK

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (2, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639916)

It's not logically consistant to claim that the whites were going to split their vote evenly but that the "minority" voters were going to vote Democrat. If that was reality, Republicans would never win.

"Whites split their vote evenly" is another strawman of yours. I never said that. They don't split their vote evenly but per capita white people still affect the vote less than blacks do because they tend to split their vote more evenly than do blacks. But there are lots of white people. If white people voted Republican the way blacks vote Democratic we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I mentioned the movie because it illustrates that this guy (from central America) is Latino. But the government still calls people like him white.

"What the government calls people" should be reflected in the census data. And like I explained even if 9 out of 10 Hispanics on this list were misclassified as white, the chance of randomly picking even as much as 600 Hispanics out of a group of 26,000 whites and Hispanics is 10^1400 to 1. It's a straightforward binomial calculation. If they make up 20% of the population you should expect to find about 5000 on the list. Not 60, not even 600. This won't happen by chance, even with the help of Diego Delgado.

All we'd need is 1. How many lottery tickets does someone have to buy to be a winner? Just 1. I'm not sure if you're intentionally misrepresenting probability or you just don't understand.

Do you even understand the difference between possible and probable?

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 9 years ago | (#10641281)

What's the probability that out of a random sampling of 26,000 non-black ex-felons, 4745 (18.25%) of which you'd expect to be Hispanic, you'll find exactly 61 Hispanics?

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the list... does anyone know where it is available? However, Greg Palast has this screenshot [gregpalast.com] on his website of a segment of the list. (Ignore for the moment that he apparently uses Windows, AOL, and has 16 non-standard icons in his system tray.) While I don't dispute that ChoicePoint used poor methods to determine matches, what else can we glean from the spreadsheet? For one thing, there are no "Hispanics" in the race column, despite there being two names that appear to be hispanic in origin. One is listed as unknown, and one as white. So, the argument that "hispanics have been removed because they tend to vote Republican" is probably bunk. Much more likely, ChoicePoint correctly identified Hispanics as an "ethinic group" and not a race. This would very reasonably explain why there are no "hispanics" on the list.

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (2, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639947)

PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004

If I hear just one more Democrat tell me those LIES about how President Bush creates hostility and anger among the American people, I WILL STRANGLE HIM WITH MY BARE HANDS!!!

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640823)

Wanted to note, the reason many hispanics were removed from the felons list is that many of them have the same name, and they could not be sure that they were the right person. Hell I work with similar data in my job, and it gets really difficult to tell if juan martinez really did move around a lot of if its actually 3 or 4 differnt juan martinez's just all with the same birthday.

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639730)

Alright, I'll go to those Republican districts in Florida and indiscriminately hassle people, claiming I need to see INS documents, proof of address, whether they have any unpaid trafic tickets, convictions, etc. You know, make sure that voting in the Republican districts goes nice and slow, all in the name of seeing to it that no illegitimate votes are cast. Would you think this is a dirty strategy to support my favored candidate? If so, you shouldn't look the other way when your party essentially announces they're about to do just this.

Yes, Democrats were sent in, but only to to try to keep the vote blockers under control, not to do their own blocking of Republican votes. Again, perhaps more nobility than these ugly circumstances warrant.

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640514)

Yes, Democrats were sent in, but only to to try to keep the vote blockers under control, not to do their own blocking of Republican votes. Again, perhaps more nobility than these ugly circumstances warrant.

LOLx2 Come on. The whole point of what is going on in Florida by both sides is to set the election to be determined by the courts if it is close. The Dems win in state courts, the republicans at the US Supreme court. The gamble the dems are taking is that the appeal will not make it to the Supreme Court fast enough.

All the paritsan politics aside, the process needs some reform to get the political operatives off the premisis.

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10640484)

How do you intimidate a voter in the US in 2004? The only people that would be "intimidated" by possible challenges are people who are voting illegally....

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

Intocabile (532593) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638338)

The excess registrations in Ohio are due to contract companies getting paid per registrant and therefore making more money by registering the same person multiple times. Everyone will still only vote once.

The problem with Florida is that the list consists of primarily black voters. Not only that but the list consists of only people in Jacksonville, imagine how many other counties are doing the same thing. From what I saw they seem to be checking if the registrations are valid, more then likely though this is done in the most half-ass way possible. The email subjects and attachments also suggest something more sinister "Re: caging" "Caging.xls". This may be a serious effort to disenfranchise black voters.

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (2, Informative)

Intocabile (532593) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638450)

Just so I don't get flamed I just found out what they meant by caging. It's a direct mailling term meaing "The process of receiving, processing, and reporting the mailing results".

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639130)

Did you forget how many votes Florida was won by in 2000?

Re:Yeah, yeah ... (1)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 9 years ago | (#10641129)

I don't think that statistic proves that any sort of voter fraud is going on. It may just be that they're slow at removing old names from the list.

It's like the "controversy" going on in Philadelphia, which has an overall voter registration of 99% (and climbing). Republicans are crying fraud, but really it's a simple effect of their Motor Voter bill. The bill requires them to retain voter registrations for more election cycles.

Basically, people move into the city, register to vote, and eventually move back out, leaving their records behind.

List of Names == EVIL! (1, Funny)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638053)

In other news, a box of paperclips was found in a local Republican campaign office. Regional Democrats agreed that said paperclips could only be used for evil.

Re:List of Names == EVIL! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10639121)

You bet, we should just ignore this. No need to take it seriously. Not like anything untoward has ever happend in Florida WRT election legal wrangling and fraud in the past. Yeah.

Re:List of Names == EVIL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10639137)

From TFA: "An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day." Ion Sancho, a Democrat, noted that Florida law allows political party operatives inside polling stations to stop voters from obtaining a ballot."

Re:List of Names == EVIL! (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639141)

In an interview, the Republican campaign chairman said that the paperclips were only there to help the Republicans write letters.

Re:List of Names == EVIL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10639170)

ROTFL!

Re:List of Names == EVIL! (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639797)

Clippy unavaliable for comment.

Re:List of Names == EVIL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10639157)

Heh... mod parent up. best laugh I've had in weeks.

The problem with the dems is that they overreact to the small things, and submit to the big things. That's why it's impossible to take them seriously nowadays. Sure, I don't like war and invasions and stuff, but I like the idea of a flip-flopping president even less.

Re:List of Names == EVIL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10639992)

In all fairness to the dems, paperclips are probably on Ashcroft's list of things you can't bring onto an airplane...

Re:List of Names == EVIL! (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10641078)

The "list" is given the somewhat odd filename caging.xls [georgewbush.org] . Vague, but not exactly positive, as it appears to imply a negative use, and it's difficult to think of positive uses for the list anyway.

I guess if the box of paperclips had the label "Eye pokers", the analogy would be complete.

Look on the bright side… (3, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638069)

If they are so worried about keeping likely Democratic voters from casting ballots, maybe they really don't have root on all the electronic voting machines.

Re:Look on the bright side… (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10638632)

No, they're just being thorough.

Outside the box thinking? (5, Funny)

ugmoe (776194) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638073)

When told of a list of 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida, the election supervisor said: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day."

Isn't it possible that someone wanted to send letters them letters asking them to vote for Bush?

Re:Outside the box thinking? (1)

name773 (696972) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638100)

who would think such a thing?
Ockham, is that you?

Not at all (4, Insightful)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638191)

Well, considering that the republican party in FL has tried a number of shennanigans (remember the felons list recently?) in the hope of preventing dems from getting to the polls it's bloody hard to trust them on this. Especially in an election where bush has all but given up the black vote (he didn't even meet with the NAACP!)

Actually - Bush's share of black vote doubled (1)

ugmoe (776194) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638379)

"The Joint Center for Economic and Political Studies, a leading think tank on issues affecting African-Americans, released a poll Tuesday that found 18% of black Americans would vote for President Bush. That's twice the share of black votes Bush drew in 2000, though far lower than Kerry's 69%."

Perhaps - Blacks no longer their allegiance to an organization that refers to them as 'Colored People'

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nat ion/president/2004-10-19-kerry-black-vote_x.htm/ [usatoday.com]

You'd have a point if (1)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638443)

From This article [cbsnews.com] where they interview a guy at hte organizaiton that created that number.

"George Bush will get a higher share of the black vote than he did in 2000 because he was at the total bottom," Bositis says. "The only people who voted for him were the most totally and completely hard-core black Republican voters."

So no, the Democrats aren't losing their appeal, the repubs are just sucking less.

Furthermore, the fact that the document contains the names of not just black, but also traditionally democratic areas makes me think that this is more than just a get out the bush message effort. If it were black voters alone, you'd have a point.

Article presented an incorrect statement (2, Insightful)

ugmoe (776194) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639294)

The article states "NAACP officials claimed he was the first president since the 1930s to skip the annual gathering."

Truman was the first president to address the NAACP. Truman took office in 1945.

Roosevelt was president until 1945 and never addressed the NAACP.

Therefore, Roosevelt was the first president since the 30's to skip the annual NAACP gathering.

Since Roosevelt was the first president since the 30's to skip the gathering, it is impossible for Bush to also be the first president since the 30's to skip the gathering

So, it is technically correct to say "the NAACP officials said blah" when the the NAACP officials did in fact say "blah." But, it is poor journalism to include a quote with an easily verifiable falsehood.

Re:Not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10638404)

Yeah, I mean the NAACP loves Bush, and would never give him a hard time in a meeting! Hey, Bush didn't go to the Democratic National Convention, either!

I'm not a big fan of either candidate, but I don't blame Bush for avoiding a group of people that would potentially be openly hostile to him. It probably would have been best if he found a smaller, possibly more conservative organization to talk with instead. But then all the liberals would have said he was pandering to the black vote instead of avoiding it.

Re:Not at all (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638525)

Especially in an election where bush has all but given up the black vote (he didn't even meet with the NAACP

In case no one ever told you, the NAACP does not speak for all black people.

First Black Secretary of State, appointed by Bush. Second Black Supreme Court Justice, appointed by elder Bush. First Black National Security Advisor, appointed by Bush.

Why should he waste his time by trying to win over people who have already set their opinions in stone?

In Pittsburgh on an "urban" radio station, I heard a Bush commercial where they slam Kerry for opposing school choice(voichers). After all, rich people can already send their children to private schools. It's the middle class and the poor that need vouchers.

LK

You've got a point (1)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638699)

I didn't recommend that he waste time on the black vote. I was pointing to the futility of this as reason to cast a suspicious eye on his florida strategy. In fact we're in agreement on this.

And what the hell do his black appointments have to do with this? I never claimed he was racist.

Lastly you can't point to one of his policies (vouchers) and a highly controversial one at that and say X is the friend of Y. You have to look at a president's total record which we are NOT doing here.

I'm simply saying that this development doesn't jive with good campaigning. While bush may possibly have an 18% black vote nationwide, in florida the story is different:

If the Democratic primaries are any indication, Kerry has little to worry about. In multiple states, he exceeded Mr. Clinton's turnout among blacks. In Florida alone, Kerry earned 81 percent of the black vote versus Mr. Clinton's 74 percent in 1992. [cbsnews.com]

Re:Not at all (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639120)

he didn't even meet with the NAACP!

Why should he meet with a wing of the Democratic party who has treated him with nothing but contempt? When the NAACP gets back to being what it started as, maybe it will be recognized as something other than an attack machine for the Democrats. It ought be called the NAANAACP, if you know what I mean.

Bush has been more than willing to meet with legitimate black groups and in fact has appointed more blacks to high position than Clinton. And unlike Clinton, Bush actually picked qualified individuals who deserved their positions, some of whom happened to be black, as opposed to filling quotas (remember Janet Reno? Joycelyn Elders?).

Re:Not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10639187)

So the NAACP is nothing but 'an attack machine for the Democrats' yet it should be called the 'NAANAACP'? Assuming you mean 'National Association for the Advancement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples', you seem to be implying in your two statements that the NAACP is

1. An attack machine for the democrats
2. Only out for itself

Which is it?

Re:Not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10639209)

You're grasping at straws here.

Re:Not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10639341)

It's a blatent contradiction. I'm not grasping at straws.

Re:Not at all (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10641088)

The NAACP only looks out for itself by allying with the Democrat party, and thus getting their support and money.

This is opposed to an NAACP which works from principle and is not in bed with any particular political party.

Re:Not at all (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639210)

(remember Janet Reno? Joycelyn Elders?).

Yes; both were far more competent than their counterparts under Bush. I'd take Reno any day over Ashcroft, stormtroopers and all! And Jocelyn Elders was extremely intelligent and competent. She just got canned for saying masturbation wasn't as evil as the right wing fundies claimed it was. Meanwhile, Bush has Elliot Abrams (a convicted felon, by the way) sitting the fundies down and explaining to them on their own terms that Bush's policy towards Israel is in accordance with Revelations in the Bible. These idiots should never have been taken seriously and should have been thrown out of the white house; instead Abrams paints a smile on his face and pretends to believe their apocalyptic bullshit just to keep their votes.

Re:Not at all (1)

Mr. Ghost (674666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640855)

Wow, are you angry or upset? Maybe you are an atheist? Maybe you prefer it when the President of the US takes the time out to sit down and play nice with all of the Hollywood stars to keep them happy instead of kicking them out :-)

Re:Not at all (1)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 9 years ago | (#10641034)

Maybe it's because republican interest don't serve black interests. Ever thing of that?

Re:Not at all (1)

Phleg (523632) | more than 9 years ago | (#10641104)

...it's bloody hard to trust them on this.

I think the problem the parent had was that the guy is wildly jumping to conclusions. He found a list of people, and he's claiming that the only possible use George Bush has for a list of people is to prevent them from voting. Regardless of your impressions of George Bush, is that statement even backed by a meager shred of evidence? This is little more than a publicity stunt and a thinly veiled attempt to influence the outcome of the election in Florida. Come on.

Especially in an election where bush has all but given up the black vote (he didn't even meet with the NAACP!)

Actually, IIRC, the NAACP issue had more to do with Kweisi Mfume's repeated insults of Bush. I sure as hell know I wouldn't have done it if I were in his position; it's all about dignity.

Re:Outside the box thinking? (1)

Dausha (546002) | more than 9 years ago | (#10641197)

"Isn't it possible that someone wanted to send letters them letters asking them to vote for Bush?"

Having worked with a campaign or two, I can tell you that demographics lists like this are commonplace and are not themselves dispositive of an intent to do anything other than know the terrain.

I'm sure if you visited a Democrat office, you'd find a list of 3,772 rich, white, Republicans. Would those who accuse the Republicans of intending a challenge make the same statement in this case with the same evidence?

Please... (1, Troll)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638075)

Please consider that source [wikipedia.org] . Visit his website [gregpalast.com] and ask [gregpalast.com] yourself if he is capable of unbiased [gregpalast.com] critical thought or is this another hatchet-job.

Re:Please... (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638127)

Palast is an *investigative reporter*. He finds out about bad stuff, then comes up with the evidence, carefully researched and coherently presented. He used to be a prosecutor before he became a full time journalist, bucking the reverse trend of bad PR writers becoming journalists. Ask yourself whether his facts tell the story, not whether he should be digging up "the other side of the story", which is produced by a Republican spin machine.

"The facts are clearly biased against George Bush." - a la _The Daily Show_

Re:Please... (1)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638189)

Hey, I respect your opinion, but you probably won't like this other post [slashdot.org] I just made about Palast. I'll be honest, I have read very little of his work, but what little I have read has some serious problems in reasoning. I have seen nothing that matches your statement "He finds out about bad stuff, then comes up with the evidence, carefully researched and coherently presented." Is he an investigative reporter? It doesn't seem to me that he is looking for "truth" but just what can hurt his enemies. If he were a scientist, he would be a bad one.

Re:Please... (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638357)

You should try reading Palast's _The Best Democracy Money Can Buy_. He dissected that "felon list", and documents how something like 90+% of its names were wrongly listed. And how the Florida election board, run by Republican Katherine Harris (cochair of Bush's Florida campaign, and Secretary of State to Bush's brother, Governor Jeb), disqualified voters with any similarity to the listed names, including crossing gender lines, matching only initials, etc. The list was so bad that several counties refused to use it, but not enough.

Palast's "Best Democracy" has a preface where he makes his bias clear. He grew up poor in LA, and resents the privilege of rich people to rig the game so they always win. He's made careers out of finding these rigged games, and exposing them. He's not a scientist, creating a detailed model of the laws of the universe. He's an investigative journalist, who finds out about serious wrongdoings, learns the facts of the story, and tells it.

Read "Best Democracy". The stories he uncovered are shocking enough that you won't be bored, or find yourself reading any long, convoluted justification for conclusions hung on meager facts. Instead you'll find details about serious wrongdoings by the Bush Republican Party, as it sacrifices democracy without blinking, to grab power and abuse it. If you want balance, try another book by someone uncovering Democratic wrongdoing. When you weigh them against another, factoring in the actual evidence presented, you'll find Palast's work a heavier truth.

Re:Please... (3, Insightful)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638897)

You should try reading Palast's _The Best Democracy Money Can Buy_. He dissected that "felon list", and documents how something like 90+% of its names were wrongly listed. And how the Florida election board, run by Republican Katherine Harris (cochair of Bush's Florida campaign, and Secretary of State to Bush's brother, Governor Jeb), disqualified voters with any similarity to the listed names, including crossing gender lines, matching only initials, etc. The list was so bad that several counties refused to use it, but not enough.

And yet, interestingly enough, when the USCCR [usccr.gov] held hearings, they were unable to find a single person that would testify that they were actually incorrectly prevented from voting because of the felon list.

Yes, the felon list had mistakes (nowhere near 90%, though). But the law was designed for that! The county election supervisors were responsible to verify the names as actual felons before any action was taken. If somebody was disenfranchised, the blame lies solely on the Election Supervisor of the county that he/she lives in.

Insightful? (2, Interesting)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639238)

Did you even look at the link you cited? This is from Chapter 9:
"Perhaps the most dramatic undercount in Florida's election was the uncast ballots of countless eligible voters who were turned away at the polls or wrongfully purged from voter registration rolls. While statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights, it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude, and inefficiency. Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic. And state officials failed to fulfill their duties in a manner that would prevent this disenfranchisement."

In other words, it concluded the exact opposite of what you pretend it concluded.

Re:Insightful? (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639740)

Thank you. I'm glad somebody here knows how to read.

Re:Please... (1)

4of12 (97621) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640700)


If somebody was disenfranchised, the blame lies solely on the Election Supervisor of the county that he/she lives in.

You'd think and hope that accountability and trasparency in government would make it difficult for partisans to game elections because public officials are accountable.

In The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Palast details how the felon purging of the voter lists was subcontracted out to a private corporation that could refute inquiries by claiming that revealing details of its operations would compromise trade secrets, proprietary information. Nevertheless, Florida chose to contract out this service.

Palast's book is an interesting read, and he takes the Clinton administration to task, too, for its shortcomings, too, lest you think he is fixated on only one party's dirty laundry. His exposure of influence peddling in Tony Blair's government got him a lot of heat - I respect someone who goes in to ugly places and shines lights where the roaches crawl.

Re:Please... (1)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639033)

Palast is an *investigative reporter*. He finds out about bad stuff, then comes up with the evidence, carefully researched and coherently presented.

No, no, no. Palast is a rabid Republican hater (or maybe just a Bush hater), and he searches for information to justify that preconceived opinion while ignoring anything that doesn't support it. His claims regarding the 2000 election in Florida have been thoroughly and completely debunked.

Re:Please... (2, Informative)

Disevidence (576586) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639391)

Well then, since there are mountains of evidence the he's ignored that challenge his claims, where are they?

Its one thing to say something. Its another to produce evidence and logical reasonings, to back up said comments. Palast, apparently, does both.

Also, because someone is a "hater", does this mean that he's immediately barred from saying anything? Are the only people that are legitimate to expose scandals and cover-ups the ones that love the people their exposing?

If someone finds out all the bad stuff about the republicans, and someone finds out all the bad stuff about the democrats, isn't that GOOD?

Re:Please... (1)

Mr. Ghost (674666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640894)

This article from the Washington Times covers some of what prior poster was talking about Democrats file 9 suits in Florida [washtimes.com] especially near the end of the article when it talks about the 2000 election.

Re:Please... (1)

Phleg (523632) | more than 9 years ago | (#10641149)

He finds out about bad stuff, then comes up with the evidence, carefully researched and coherently presented.

I must agree. A list of people's names is damning evidence if I've ever seen it. Hell, marketing companies keep lists of people's names and we all know that they're up to no good. My eyes have been opened!

Re:Please... (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639112)

Please consider that source. Visit his website and ask yourself if he is capable of unbiased critical thought or is this another hatchet-job.

A biased opinion can still be valid. Why don't you address the substance of what he says instead of issuing a lazy ad hominem?

Does everything and everyone always have to be "fair to both sides"? What if one side is just wrong? Or lying?

Does the concept that one side might be wrong even occur to you?

People recently seem to have had this notion of "balance" and "bias" beaten into their heads. And no wonder- this "balanced" crap gives an enormous tactical advantage to liars, so no wonder you people have all been brainwashed into thinking this way.

How to get off their "Caging List" (1)

Radical Rad (138892) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638085)

What would really be funny is if all 1,886 of those black voters switched their affiliation to the Republican party to get "the man" off their backs, voted for complete idiots at the primaries, and then still voted Democrat on election day.

What a sad state of affairs (5, Insightful)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638088)

The idea behind voter challenges is that anyone can challenge the legitimacy and eligibility of a voter. This is especially important in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California where there are large numbers of illegal immigrants who may be influenced to illegally vote. This is also a problem because there are even American citizens who are not eligible to vote such as felons.

Unfortunately, this law is also a door to abuse. Indiscriminate use of the challenge procedure is akin to Scientology's use of lawsuits to silence the opposition. It produces a chilling effect and keeps people away from the polls.

However, despite this list being available, the article (neither of them) does not delve deeply into the names nor the reasoning behind them, only going so far as to say that it could possibly be a Republican plot. However, if the names all belong to felons who are not eligible to vote in the first place, such a list is absolutely necessary.

This is a story looking for more research, not more explosives. Unfortunately, most people would rather toss bombs than to do the hard work of finding out what is really going on.

Re:What a sad state of affairs (3, Insightful)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638212)

Unfortunately, most people would rather toss bombs than to do the hard work of finding out what is really going on.

Check back Nov. 3rd, when we know how the lists were used.

I agree with everything you said, but isn't this one of those situations where, according to prevalent thinking, you have to act preemptively, otherwise it'll be too late to avert whatever's about to happen?

Re:What a sad state of affairs (1)

Phleg (523632) | more than 9 years ago | (#10641194)

The problem is, this isn't even rational. It's a list of people's names; this an election for Christ's sake! How many lists of names do you think both sides are using for entirely legitimate purposes? Without any sort of context, this is insane.

I know airline security is bad now, but when was the last time you were stopped before getting on a plane because you were carrying baggage, of all things! And of course, the security guard was quoted as saying, "The only possible use of luggage is as a vessel for terrorist weapons."

Re:What a sad state of affairs (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638239)

This is a story looking for more research, not more explosives. Unfortunately, most people would rather toss bombs than to do the hard work of finding out what is really going on.

That would include most reporters, no?

Re:What a sad state of affairs (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638396)

Anyone doing this to disenfranchise people should be thrown in jail - as should anyone attempting to vote illegally.

I have no problem if it were required to present ID in order to vote. In our precinct, it appears that we have a representative from both of the major parties there - have them both verify the ID and allow the voter to cast his or her ballot.

Re:What a sad state of affairs (1)

Intocabile (532593) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638423)

I've seen the list and there are next to no latin american names. Plenty of Williams, Jacksons, Robertsons, Jones, Johnsons etc. This was back on August 26, the list has no doubt grown, from the date of the emails the list grew by 60 in a day.

Re:What a sad state of affairs (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639254)

This is especially important in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California where there are large numbers of illegal immigrants who may be influenced to illegally vote.

You misspelled "where there are large numbers of frightened redneck assholes who may be influenced to illegally intimidate anyone foreign-looking away from voting."

Real journalism (0)

csguy314 (559705) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638118)

Greg Palast is a fantastic journalist. If you read his book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy [amazon.com] you'll see what I mean. He seems to have a knack for getting incriminating information and confidential documents. He's certainly not the only one that can do this, but most others are be dismissed as crackpots, while Palast appears in mainstream (all be it non-American) media (BBC and he writes for a UK paper as well).
And does anyone really doubt that Dubya would try to pull anything he can to stay president? He didn't have the popular vote last time, he may or may not have it this time. While he's leading in the polls, the modern republican party doesn't seem like the kind of group that likes to leave things to chance...

Greg Palast (0, Troll)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638126)

He did uncover some interesting shenanigans last time

Greg Palast claims [bbc.co.uk] that in the last election, the GOP's efforts to *gasp* enforce the law and prevent felons from voting cost the democrats 22,000 votes. While I think that any vote denied is a tragedy and don't want to trivialize it, lets look at this 22,000 figure and some of the other "disenfranchisement" claims.

I will use this [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia entry as my source. Let go through the various "disenfranchisement" claims.

From the article, 57,700 "felons" were struck from the voter list. These people were all contacted (although I assume it is reasonable that many of these people were not reached), of which 4,874 appealed. Of the 4,874 appeals, 2,430 were re-instated. Now, lacking an additional info, I assume that someone compared these two numbers, and figured that 50% of the listed names were incorrect, where in reality, it is only 50% of those on the list who came forward to dispute the error. Granted, anyone being denied a vote is tragic, but 2,430 (all of whom were reinstated) is a far cry from 22,000. Why didn't the other 53,000 people on the list appeal? More likely, most didn't appeal because outside of the 2,430, nearly all were convicted felons. Which brings us to ...List Demographics:

Voter demographics authority David Bositis, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, DC, reviewed The Nation's findings and concluded that the purge-and-block program was "a patently obvious technique to discriminate against black voters." He noted that based on nationwide conviction rates, African-Americans would account for 46% of the ex-felon group wrongly disfranchised.

Breakdown of the distribution for 3 major counties:

  • Miami-Dade, 20% voters are Black, 66% names on list were Black (3,794)
  • Leon County, 29% voters are Black, 55% names on list were Black
  • None of the names on the list were Hispanic.

First off, David Bositis is expecting a 46% rate of black names on the ex-felon group list. What is his criteria? national averages. African Americans comprise 12.6% of the US population, but make up 46% of the ex-felon group (according to Bositis). Florida has slightly more aftican-americans than the national average at 14.6% [census.gov] . Lets look at Miami-Dade and Leon counties that the Bositis cites: Both counties have significantly higher (about double) the national average of African-Americans. Wouldn't it make some sense that the they would appear on the felon list with greater frequency than the national African-American breakdown of ex-felons? (46%)

Now lets go after that last bullet: None of the names on the list were Hispanic. Greg Palast has this screenshot [gregpalast.com] on his website of a segment of the list. (Ignore for the moment that he apparently uses Windows, AOL, and has 16 non-standard icons in his system tray.) While I don't dispute that ChoicePoint used poor methods to determine matches, what else can we glean from the spreadsheet? For one thing, there are no "Hispanics" in the race column, despite there being two names that appear to be hispanic in origin. One is listed as unknown, and one as white. So, the argument that "hispanics have been removed because they tend to vote Republican" is probably bunk. Much more likely, ChoicePoint correctly identified Hispanics as an "ethinic group" and not a race. This would very reasonably explain why there are no "hispanics" on the list.

Bottom line, while I don't doubt that some African-American voters were disenfranchised, maybe even enough to change the outcome, I seriously doubt it was 22,000. While this is horrible, the point of this rant is that Greg Palast pulls numbers out of his ass.

Sorry for copy-and-pasting material from previous posts but I thought it was appropriate here.

Re:Greg Palast (2, Informative)

GOD_ALMIGHTY (17678) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638578)

Did you pull this completely out of your ass?

First of all, Florida Hispanics tend to register white. The list was 95% false positives, heavily leaning black and Democrat.
Secondly, Choicepoint warned the Secratary of State, in writing, that there would be a large number of false positives. The Govenor's office wrote back with instructions to proceed saying they wanted it to be broad.

The requirements for matching was last name and first four letters of the first name and a date range on the birthdate of a year. They ignored suffixes, middle names, middle initials, gender, etc. They told felons who had their rights restored in other states that they had to plead for clemency from the Govenor's office, in violation of Florida state law. A 2002 law required election supervisors to use this list. This year they wouldn't let anyone see the list and when the media sued for access and won, they dropped it. This year's list had another high percentage of false positives, was largely black and had no hispanics.

The 2000 election was stolen. Greg Palast's evidence has been corraborated by two investigations. People should have gone to jail over the 2000 election, but with the GOP in control of the state executives office and the state legislature, as well as the Federal legislative and executive branches, I don't expect anything to happen.

Re:Greg Palast (1)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639004)

The list was 95% false positives, heavily leaning black and Democrat.

Untrue. According to the USCCR [usccr.gov] , there were ~4000 incorrect names on the list of 57,770 felons, or less than 7%. Whats more, the error rate of white people on the list was double the error rate of black people on the list.

Secondly, Choicepoint warned the Secratary of State, in writing, that there would be a large number of false positives. The Govenor's office wrote back with instructions to proceed saying they wanted it to be broad.

Right. That was the whole point of the 1998 law that commissioned the felon list (which was passed before Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush were in office, btw). The list was intended to "cast a wide net" and give the list of names to the individual county election supervisors. The county election supervisors were required to verify the names before they took any action. 22 counties didn't even use the list at all, which led the Miami Herald to conclude that the biggest problem with the list was that it ended up allowing 6,500 felons to vote.

The 2000 election was stolen. Greg Palast's evidence has been corraborated by two investigations.

No it hasn't. In fact, the USCCR didn't even hear from a single witness that was disenfranchised because they were incorrectly put on the felons list. Palast's writings most resemble the rantings of a blind partisan, not an "investigative reporter".

People should have gone to jail over the 2000 election

Why? For enforcing the law? Good luck with that.

Re:Greg Palast (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639276)

Your link is not to the USCCR's conclusion but to the dissenting opinion. You're (again) misrepresenting the conclusions of the USCCR, which were similar to Palast's conclusions. Also, Palast's conclusions have been backed up by other investigations.

Re:Greg Palast (1)

GOD_ALMIGHTY (17678) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640723)

Yes-True. You pointed to a dissenting opinion, not the commission's report. The report backs up the facts that I've cited and the facts that Greg Palast has cited. Your numbers are completely off.

I noted that the law forcing the supervisor's to use the list was passed in 2002. Many supervisor's still used the list and people were disenfranchised. The USCCR has a couple of pages of people they interviewed on their reports. Maybe you should read the report instead of the dissenting opinion. Not to mention the fact that the documentary Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election [unprecedented.org] has interviews of people who were wrongly matched and taken off the rolls.

Palast has become a bit more rabid since 2000. I would to, if I was reporting on the debacle that was Florida 2000 was my primary job. The crap that went down in Florida was unbelievable. At the very least officials violated their oaths of office, at the worst they violated the civil rights of citizens. Those are pretty serious offences, yet there are still people like you sitting around denying it ever happened. Quite frankly, it's starting to drive me a little nuts. I guess what they say about conservatives these days and cognitive dissonance is true.

Re:Greg Palast (1)

SupraTT GOP (825665) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638682)

One of the problems with the sunset mindset of the liberal, which sticks out like a sore thumb, is the propensity for zeroing in on negatives at the expense of being able to see the big picture at all.

Do so many of you not realize that every illegal vote that is counted is the disenfranchisement of one legal voter? Can so many of you really not see from this perspective? This blindness is amazing.

If it is bad to disenfranchise 22,000 or even just 2,444 voters, how much more terrible is it to let 55,270 to 57,700 fellons vote, no questions asked? These lists are important, not for purposes of discrimination, but simply to help ensure a more-fair election. Why is this so hard to understand? You people are so emotional you can't see straight.

"Liberalism... where there are absolutely NO absolutes!"

Re:Greg Palast (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639034)

As the summer has drug on, I have become more convinced that there is a major problem in this country. Conservative people tend to live in the center of the nation, while liberal people live on the coasts. As a result many, many conservative people have a single liberal friend (or possibly none) and vis-a-versa. As a result most folk' spectrum runs from left to center or right to center and they really don't have any idea where the other side is coming from. Also, anyone of differing beliefs in an area leaves pretty quickly and looks back on their time in the opposite territory as simply awful.
I think 90%+ of Americans are very willing to pay for good education, security, and more or less agree (enoght to come to consensus) on social issues that should be handled by the government. Unfortunatly we're split pretty evenly on how to accomplish these issues). I've seen an increasing number of calls from both sides of the spectrum to work together a bit more rather than constant attacks that have ruled the day since Clinton took office. While Carter and Reagan both had very strident opposition, I think the opposition knew that each really desired to better the country (even if the methods differed), I'm not so sure that the opposition to Clinton and the second Bush, will even give that credit. Since we have had a President from each side, hopefully everyone can see the difference between prior opposition and latter oppositon.
So why doesn't everyone try to seek out and understand the motivations of someone who is diametricly opposed to your political philosophy. I know I've enjoyed discussions (even if we never reach an agreement or consensus) with those I've opposed than with those I agree with.

Re:Greg Palast (1)

scotch (102596) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639184)

Do so many of you not realize that every illegal vote that is counted is the disenfranchisement of one legal voter? Can so many of you really not see from this perspective? This blindness is amazing.

Not allowing a voter the right to vote results in the disenfranchisement of exactly one voter. An illegal vote (assuming it is not found), given a random probability of that invalid vote, has a net expected disenfranchisement of zero. The problem is of course when the disenfranchisement and extra votes are not the result of systemmatic, random errors, but are the result of willful or unwillful bias in process. These errors are what people are concerned about in this case. Your math doesn't add up.

If it is bad to disenfranchise 22,000 or even just 2,444 voters, how much more terrible is it to let 55,270 to 57,700 fellons vote, no questions asked?

You reasoning seems analagous to "if it is bad to imprison 22000 innocent people, how much more terrible is it to let 55,270 guilty people free"? The analogy is probably thin, but you seem to want to err in the opposite way that our government traditionally does to guaruntee civil liberties and due process. Also, I'm not sure you'll find universal agreement that allowing felons to vote is terrible. I believe ex-cons should be able to vote, and they can in many states. Please don't tell me what the law is in florida, I know the law and I think it should be upheld (or repealed) there. I'm addressing your statement that allowing felons to vote is "terrible".

Regardng your sig, death and taxes, ha ha. You may be interested to know that many of the interesting ideas that have gone into the formation of the US have been liberal ideas. You may be interested to know that real people have a mixture of conservative and liberal ideas and values. What color is the sky in your reality?

Re:Greg Palast (1)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 9 years ago | (#10641172)

My opinion is, if you don't want felons to vote, you shouldn't put voting booths inside the prisons.

Once someone leaves prison, their debt to society should be considered paid. The point of taking someone out of prison is to move them back into society, and make them participants.

But, accepting the fact that Florida doesn't allow ex-convicts to vote, the question that remains is whether the list was drawn up in a fair manner, or whether it was done in order to rig the election. If the latter--and I'm not convinced one way or the other--then telling Democrats to stop focusing on the negative is nothing more than covering for your party.

"Can so many of you really not see from this perspective? This blindness is amazing [...] Why is this so hard to understand? You people are so emotional you can't see straight."
Indeed, someone does sound too emotional.

Learn some math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10639413)

Both counties have significantly higher (about double) the national average of African-Americans. Wouldn't it make some sense that the they would appear on the felon list with greater frequency than the national African-American breakdown of ex-felons? (46%)

Answer: NO it would not make sense. You dont know if they already accounted for this in the statement.

Watch The Report (2, Informative)

Aztech (240868) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638195)

The article is somewhat brief, especially compared to the original story, you can watch the TV report [bbc.co.uk] on the Newsnight [bbc.co.uk] pages.

"Freedom is on the march!" (in Florida) (1, Funny)

Cryofan (194126) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638315)

And pretty soon the Republican brand of freedom will no doubt be on the march all over the world.

GOP uber alles!

Sent to the wrong address (4, Informative)

ewithrow (409712) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638360)

What's interesting about this story is the way the it was uncovered. The "secret" email was only revealed because of the stupidity of the sender. Instead of sending it to an email address at the real bush campaign website, it was sent to georgewbush.org, an anti-bush website. georgewbush.org decided to post all email in their catch-all to in what they call the "dead letter office."

http://www.georgewbush.org/deadletteroffice/ [georgewbush.org]

Look for an e-mail with the subject "caging"

Re:Sent to the wrong address (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10638608)

I think this e-mail from the deadletteroffice [georgewbush.org] is actually more interesting. Didn't the last POTUS get in trouble for selling access?

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen W Hammond [mailto:karen.hammond@juno.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:07 PM
To: kvetri@georgewbush.org
Cc: FHSuitter@suitter.com
Subject: Fw: RE:

David Plummer was unable to attend the Seattle or LA events. As you can see, they are still interested in finding one that will fit their schedules with POTUS. ($25,000) Do you have an updated schedule of events other than convention I can get to him? If I can get the money before convention, is there an event at Convention with POTUS where they can get their picture?

Frank....see below...David is still on board.

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Carol A. Shrives" [carol@classicstar.com]
To: "Karen W Hammond" [karen.hammond@juno.com]
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:56:27 -0600
Subject: RE:
Message-ID:
DCDD1F18594EDC4BA0031E104D69183B 03BC3A@stallion.cl assicstar.classicstar. com

Hi Karen,

David and Debby are still very much interested in attending a Victory Event and David asked me to contact you for a schedule of upcoming events and related information. Thank you and please contact me anytime for assistance.

Sincerely,

Carol A. Shrives
Assistant to the CEO
ClassicStar, LLC

Registration seems out of hand this election (4, Interesting)

edbarbar (234498) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638366)

Let's see. There is some reported voter registration fraud. Here is a case in Ohio were a registrar was paid with cocaine and registered "Dick Tracy" and "George Foreman":
http://www.cleveland.com/crime/plaindealer/index.s sf?/base/iscri/109818543096130.xml [cleveland.com]

along with non-anecdotal evidence of potential fraud (higher incidence of registrations from incorrect address).

There is record voter registration in important states:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ a/2004/10/17/MNGAB99QEA1.DTL [sfgate.com]

The democrats have supposedly hired many lawyers to monitor polls, etc.:

http://www.voanews.com/english/US-Democrats-Republ icans-Deploy-Lawyers-for-Possible-Election-Battles .cfm [voanews.com]

Al Gore is telling blacks to "vote early" so their vote will count, presumably not like the last time:

"Early voting is a good idea," he said. "You want to give them plenty of time to count all the votes."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/24/gore.ap/ [cnn.com]

In all, it seems like the making for a very big mess, and I think this election, with things so close, I for one would be suspicious and at least investigate.

One thing I find interesting about this story, is that there is no evidence of any actual wrongdoing, just innuendo, but perhaps this is just part of the democrat playbook, which is to allege claiming voter intimidation, whether it's true or not:

http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/12700. php [indymedia.org]

Re:Registration seems out of hand this election (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640526)

There is also a challenge by Dems in New Mexico to not require an ID to vote. Lets let illegal immigrants vote, that would be fair to citizens.

The Dems also have $70 million set aside for Nov. 3 lawsuits.

Not Surprising (1)

JimBean (610952) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638666)

The Republicans have used a number of tactics to dissuade voters, particularly African Americans and minorities, from going to the polls. Some examples include advertising the wrong date in flyers, posting election "monitors" outside polling stations, and offering various bribes. Just recently , the former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee (my home state) plead guilty to jamming the phones of a Democrat-run "Get out the vote" effort in the 2002 mid-term elections. http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl e?AID=/20040729/REPOSITORY/407290322/1043/NEWS01/ [concordmonitor.com] . He was also an active leader in Bush re-election campaign.

Although I have bashed on the Republicans, the Democrats can be just as corrupt. They will undoubtedly have their own people at the polls to intimidate voters.

Soon, everyone will need a lawyer to exercise one's right to vote. Amen for American Democracy!

If you want to see the emails and the lists (0, Redundant)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 9 years ago | (#10638926)

go here. [georgewbush.org]
Seems like they accidentally sent a copy to someone at a georgewbush.org email address, instead of .com. .org is an anti-Bush site!
This site's been printing a lot of other interesting misdirected letters, also.

Bonus: way at the bottom of this page is a discussion between staffers at the .com website basically comparing attractiveness of the Bush daughters.

Why (1)

u-238 (515248) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639050)

Not bring up this tidbit:

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc66.htm

Re:Why (important) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10640630)

Mod parent up

Last Time... (1)

Schlaegel (28073) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639124)

During the last election, a group didn't like the results of the Florida election so they proceeded to litigate it and question it in the media.

After this, two government groups made up of both Democrats and Republicans found no evidence of wrongdoing. Separately, a group of major newspapers looking to expose the story did an investigation and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

In the end, the media hype caused the nation to get into an uproar that caused a shift from punch cards to electronic voting. This shift was from one of the most idiot-proof and fix-proof methods of voting, to to one of the most fix-able forms of voting.

Let us hope this does not happen again.

America sure is split (2, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10639595)

That has been the ultimate failure of Bush but also Clinton, the other bush, reagan ... (before is before my time so I couldn't say).

A good leader should be able once elected to then be a leader to the whole country. Not just those that voted for him. Simply put considering the recent american election results a democrat should be half repiblican and a republican half democrat BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC VOTED.

If you are reading about the current election you get the idea that 50% of america totally distrusts the other 50% of america. The democrats think the republicans will create a police state ruled by big business, the republicans think the democrats want to invite the UN as a police force to control their right to carry machine guns.

This article is about a list found. While there is some smoke here you can see the democrats leaping off to conclusions that just ain't supported by the findings but you also see the republicans leaping to defences that just ain't supported by history. It ain't that both are wrong, it is that both seem not to care about the truth instead twisting the few facts known to suit their mindset.

The "war on terror" has this as well. Republicans think that if only america hits hard enough the world will come to heel. Never realizing that perhaps the world is barking and biting precisly because america is hitting it.

The democrats seem to believe that its current enemies could have been apeaced if only it had done X or hadn't done Y. They never seem to capable of realizing that perhaps its current enemies hate america because it is there. That just being a democracy with freedom of religion is enough to be a bitter enemy.

The most amusing is the example of foreign support for the iraq war. Democrats seem to claim that it should have had support and that countries like france, germany and russia took the moral highroad by not giving support. Like hell. These countries had major money intrests in Iraq and didn't want to lose them. More recent evidence suggests that Iraq was even buying politicians in europe. Before people cry "Republican propaganda" think this. These are the same politicians who said they would vote against software patents and didn't. The same politicians who voted for DMCA style regulation desptite the publics opinion. If they are morally and ethically corrupt on one subject why should we trust them on others?

However republicans seem somehow to believe that foreign support is not needed and that america can stand alone to defend the entire world from evil. Worse that any who speak against them are part of the evil. That americans need not be held accountable for such silly little things as war crimes. There was even an attempt by republicans to pass allow allowing a friendly country (holland) to be invaded and its soldiers killed to "rescue" any american brought before the international court. A greater insult to the world could not have been delivered as america was at the same time busy to get other countries war criminals before those same courts. One law for the world, another for america. Talk about giving fuel to america haters.

But the most worrying thing is that these ideas seem to split america right down the middle. It doesn't matter who wins the election, the other side will spent the next four years bitterly opposing everything just because they didn't win.

Bush or Kerry has a far more important job to do then "the war on terror" or "domestic economy" or any of that crap. Their most important challenge is to turn their 50.0000000000001 election lead into something like 75% "well I don't agree with everything but overall he ain't a bad leader for america right now, next election he may be a goner but for now he is doing okay enough to not constantly be trying to get him out". Can either Bush or Kerry do that? I don't think so.

Note that this is not a typical american issue, other countries are having real problems with the nature of democracy right now. It is just that dutch internal politics have little effect on the rest of the world. But when america shivers the world trembles.

Re:America sure is split (1)

Nacon74 (809996) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640189)

There was even an attempt by republicans to pass allow allowing a friendly country (holland) to be invaded and its soldiers killed to "rescue" any american brought before the international court. A greater insult to the world could not have been delivered as america was at the same time busy to get other countries war criminals before those same courts.
I`m not 100% sure, but I think the law actually passed in august of 2002 [wordiq.com] .

*Some* of this is scary stuff! (2, Interesting)

G. W. Bush Junior (606245) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640294)

Sounds alot like a conspiracy nut who got lucky in 2000, and is desperately trying to sell his next wacky theory.
granted he was right the first time, and it'll be easy to determine if he is right this time (you just have to ask the people on the list afterwards). If he is, I'll be glad to retract my statement about him being a conspiracy theorist.

This (from TFA) is pretty scary though:
In Jacksonville, to determine if Republicans were using the lists or other means of intimidating voters, we filmed a private detective filming every "early voter" - the majority of whom are black - from behind a vehicle with blacked-out windows.

The private detective claimed not to know who was paying for his all-day services.

On the scene, Democratic Congresswoman Corinne Brown said the surveillance operation was part of a campaign of intimidation tactics used by the Republican Party to intimate and scare off African American voters, almost all of whom are registered Democrats.

Hasn't florida got laws against stuff like this?
Isn't there federal laws against this?
I can't see how non-state or non-government entities can be allowed to register voters without their consent? The potential for abuse definitely outweighs the chances that it can be used for anything good.
It sounds like something that you would expect to see in a third world or ex-communist country.

Oh yeah, and before you start spewing liberal media conspiracy theories, this is a BBC article. It is not an american news source!

Eliminate conflicts of Interest (1)

justanyone (308934) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640483)

There should be some simple rules to reduce or eliminate conflicts of interest when it comes to voter registration and elimination:
  • the Secretary of State for a State should be required by law to publish the names of anyone convicted of a felony (this is public knowledge anyway) on a website and in a set of major newspapers, once per year only, in June before a November election.
  • The list should include their full name and voter registration number (on their voter registration card).
  • The voter registration numbers and social security numbers of the felons, as well as contact information, must be verified by two major accounting firms to be equal.
  • Any challenge to that list by the person on it should red-flag it
  • Any red-flagged entries must be proven to be correct to a judge using documentary evidence from the department of corrections.

That upstanding BBC (1)

Yeechang Lee (3429) | more than 9 years ago | (#10640878)

Ah yes, that upstanding BBC, with its long tradition of unbiased reporting [bbc.co.uk] .

Ion Sancho, a Democrat, noted that Florida law allows political party operatives inside polling stations to stop voters from obtaining a ballot.


They may then only vote "provisionally" after signing an affidavit attesting to their legal voting status.

Mass challenges have never occurred in Florida. Indeed, says Mr Sancho, not one challenge has been made to a voter "in the 16 years I've been supervisor of elections."

Disingenuous. Mass challenges have never occurred because there's never been a mechanism, or even motivation, to do so. But the Help America Vote Act of 2002 [fec.gov] supplied the motivation; it is the law that provides for the provisional ballots BBC's Palast mentions above.

In any case, as John Lott pointed out [nationalreview.com] in 2003:

* Black GOP voters in FL had their votes "not counted" (in the Democratic activists' definition of the term) much, much, much more frequently than their Democratic counterparts.
* Hispanics and whites showed up in error on the ineligible-to-vote felon list more frequently than blacks.

He also points out what is unquestionably the single most unambiguous (and, naturally, the least-reported) case of "voter suppression" in FL in the 2000 election:

Florida polls were open until 8 P.M. on election night. The problem was that Florida's ten heavily Republican western-panhandle counties are on Central, not Eastern, time. When polls closed at 8 P.M. EST in most of the state, the western-panhandle polling places were still open for another hour. Yet, at 8 Eastern, all the networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and NBC) incorrectly announced many times over the next hour that the polls were closed in the entire state. CBS national news made 18 direct statements that the polls had closed.


[...]

Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Mr. Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. Another survey of western-panhandle voters conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling company, immediately after the election estimated that the early call cost Bush approximately 10,000 votes.


Naturally, in Palast's 70 pages of the usual innuendo and bogus charges (coupled with the typical overseas cant of "U5 V0T3R5 AR3NT 5331NG TH3 TRUTH!!!1!11!!!"), the word "Panhandle" never appears.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>