Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 6, 2004.
Hopefully, they've learned to do it by name and Social Security Number this time.
i'm not so sure i'd want that, since the name matching was so sloppy last time, maybe they'll purge SS# that are "close".
I started voting in the days when you went to the County Clerk's office in the Courthouse, every second year. I stood in line. I paid my Poll Tax, then $1.75 in Texas. Voting was that important to me, that I went through the hassle.
Purging the voter registration lists of the dead, the gone-away and the newly "felonized" is a good thing, IMO. Those folks aren't supposed to vote in that jurisdiction--particularly the dead.
Is it not correct that it is not unusual for there to be more than one person with the same front pair of names? In the south, from newspaper records, I see that "Willie Lee" seems to be a favorite among the so-very large Washington family.
Is it not correct that many people move without leaving a forwarding address? Or that they not be listed in a phone book?
Is it not reasonably well publicized that record-keeping in such matters as criminality is woefully behind?
Add these factors and be glad that there are almost five full months in which one can rectify any problem.
It is your right to vote. It is your responsibility to maintain your voting status.
can someone please tell me why felons should not have the right to vote
your feelings make sense in a scenario where the state is really trying to get the rolls correct. but as has been shown in FL, the 2000 purge was an effort to disenfranchise black voters. after promises were made to rectify the situation, there they are doing another purge. should we trust that jeb bush, after making this move...
...has removed all politicking from the purge?
if i show up to the polls to find out i've been purged, what is my recourse? what would yours be?
So you are saying that it doesn't bother you that of the 100,000 people that were purged from the record before the 2000 election, a significant percentage of them should not have been purged? We are talking around a quarter of them, from estimates I've seen.
Do the people who were purged erroneously know they were purged? Did they vote thinking that their vote would be counted?
Do you see a problem with handing that process over to a private corporation with little oversight?
Do you see a problem with the fact that the majority of those effected were likely black?
I agree that it is important to keep your voting status current, but from what I've heard of this problem, it had nothing to do with that. Votes simply weren't counted. To me, this kind of behavior from the government will just lead to greater voter disillusionment, especially among black voters.
Why even show up if your vote won't be counted?
Again, I'm seeing this "what can you do?" attitude from you. It seems like there was gross negligence in the way this was handled before the last couple of elections. Something should be one to correct this problem. Do you agree?
What happened in 2000 here seemed to affect only those who were of a minority group and/or voted as a Democrat. The purging of names, the misdirection/re-direction of voters at the last minute, and the tampering with absentee ballots are all examples of things that affected the 2000 election.
Sure, it's up to the voter, within reason, to make certain that he/she can vote. It is not up to the voter to constantly police the government's handling of information.
It is also a good thing to purge people who are unable to vote, so that they can deal with those who are efficiently. However, this state's government (esp. the current administration) has shown itself on a multitude of occasions to be completely inept and uncaring when it comes to the population of Floriduh.
Using a private company with government oversight to purge the lists would not help. In every instance I've seen, the government contracts to have something done and pays for it, then goes about doing it another way, simply wasting extra money.
I don't object at all to cleaning up corruption. I do sometimes object to what seems to be a kneejerk "It's corruption!" when some political event is said to have been aimed at some group, when that's not necessarily a fact.
I do not at all offer any "What can you do?" What I suggest, overall, in my post is that one has a responsibility to ensure that one's records are correct. Do you never check your own credit rating, for instance? Do you always take it for granted that your voter registration is up to date? As to "What can I do?" The answer is, "Nothing." I don't live nor vote in Florida. Once I've agreed that proven corruption is bad, I'm totally out of the picture...
"Do the people who were purged erroneously know they were purged?"
Neither you nor I can answer that, although the probability is "No."
"Did they vote thinking that their vote would be counted?"
In my precinct, if you've been purged, you're not on the voting list that you sign as an indicator of having voted. If you have a current voter registration card, you vote and your vote is counted--whether or not you're on that registration list. If I don't get my automatically-renewed voter-registration card in the mail by around January, I either use my telephone or drop by the courthouse to ascertain my status.
"Do you see a problem with handing that process over to a private corporation with little oversight?"
Stipulating competency, no, not really. "little" is not synonymous with "inadequate".
"Do you see a problem with the fact that the majority of those effected were likely black?"
Possibly, but not necessarily. Adding to my earlier comments, it's quite possible that demographics have a role in the numbers of felons in Florida who are black--but I don't know the specifc numbers.
zim, I just drew a blank on the Texas SecState office. I think the SS is an appointee. (Comptroller, Land Commissioner and AgriCommish are elected, but I don't think so about the SecState.) At any rate, we've not had a notable amount of serious party-oriented gripes there, beyond a "usual" amount of the sort of grumbling that will always occur. Since a cabinet officer is a governor's appointee, I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the SecState of Fla is cabinet-level or not.
no, because i'm never turned down (so i guess i'm checking it indirectly).
i update it whenever i move, but i never call in periodically to see if they still have it. is that what you're suggesting?
Because they gave up their right to participate in the social contract when they decided to violate it. Because, by choosing to commit a felony, they've already proven they lack an appropriate sense of civic responsibility.
I really don't see why this purge should be a bad thing. Any time you have a changing list of people, it's going to need to be purged regularly. If they were doing the purge in October, when there won't be time to raise a fuss about problems, then I'd complain. As for J. Bush... no, I don't trust him. But if they gave it to a private company with lots of oversight, we'd say the government was trying to exert influence over the results. If the government did it themselves, we'd say they were manipulating the results directly. Only thing to do is get it done, then jump on the results and evaluate them. Once the public has had a chance to evaluate them, if the results are screwy, then start yelling.
it was a private company in 2000 that performed the overzealous purge for FL. as for, "I really don't see why this purge should be a bad thing," are you arguing for purging in general, or saying that 2004 FL will not be a repeat of 2000 FL?
but that already happened in 2000, and what has changed? i'll answer that for you -- the bushes pushing for touch-screen voting that has no paper trail, so that the results cannot later be challenged. i'd say they learned their lesson.
Only thing to do is get it done, then jump on the results and evaluate them. Once the public has had a chance to evaluate them, if the results are screwy, then start yelling.
but that already happened in 2000, and what has changed? i'll answer that for you -- the bushes pushing for touch-screen voting that has no paper trail, so that the results cannot later be challenged. i'd say they learned their lesson."
zim, you're really taking a preconceived-notion giant leap with that slur on "the bushies".
From your comment, you imply that either they are the only ones who favor it; or, that everybody who does favor touch-screen voting is crooked.
That's really a notable "Duh?"
to be fair, i _did_ leave out the 'i'
didn't mean to imply either. more a pointed comment about statements made by the owner of diebold about "doing whatever he can to help bush win," about bev harris' et. al. research demonstrating some oddly pro-GOP results in touch screen counties, and the bushes' penchant for secrecy nicely aligning w/ the above and the lack of a paper trail in the new systems.
in short: are we trusting that jeb's FL will now have free, fair and verifiable elections this fall?
I'm arguing for purging in general, and much more than that, I'm arguing that we need to be careful about what we cry wolf about. If the purges are a necessary thing (and I think any database or mailing list manager would understand that general purges are, if not felon purges in particular), and if they are legally required, then I don't see any value in condemning them as corrupt before they're proven to be so. This isn't 2000, and while history should inform our expectations, it doesn't guarantee any given result now. When we yell about the things they haven't done yet, it makes it that much harder to get anyone to listen when we yell about the things they are doing now.
Personally, no, I don't really expect them to do much with manipulating the purges this year. Why should they? They can hold up an unbiased purge as "proof" that they're honest, and still trust Diebold to give them the election. And if that doesn't work, hey, there's always martial law come next winter. And yes, unfortunately, that _is_ what I actually believe is going to happen. I hope I'm wrong, but...
Everyone who favors the paperless electronic voting systems currently being implemented is either crooked, Republican, uninformed, or naive, yes. I'm sorry to say that I supported them when asked a couple of years ago. But I would never have said yes if I'd been asked to support insecure, unverifiable electronic voting systems under blatant partisan control.
Is that your interpretation or is that actually the argument? Either way, it is not good reasoning if someones stupidity is a good reason to keep them from voting then there are a lot of others who should not be allowed to vote, either...
This may be a dumb question, or maybe I'm just missing something:
Where on a voter registration list does it show one's race? For sure, it's not on lists in Texas. I'd have thought that such a recording is in violation of some federal law...
Sure, you could spot a Latin or Asian name in Texas lists, but that's about it. "Robert Brown" is the pretty much a "Mr. Anybody".
i'll answer your implied question:
in FL, the purges were done in (at least) two ways. one was straight from the registration concentrated in black and pro-democratic party counties. the other was done from motor vehicle registration, where race is indicated.
"one was straight from the registration concentrated in black and pro-democratic party counties."
I haven't paid all that much attention to pro-dem counties of the 67 counties of Florida. But I've travelled enough in Florida (used to live there, long ago.) in recent years to know you'd find high percentages of blacks in counties which are solidly Repube.
I'm mostly, here, trying to figure out the mechanics. You have the registration lists. You have the Driver's License lists/records. You have the criminal records. The latter two show race. Florida is pretty well computerized, I understand, so cross-checking should be relatively simple. It strikes me as stupid to arbitrarily de-list a large number of blacks from pro-Dem counties, though. Here comes another election, and today's world generally doesn't allow secrets to remain secret.
Something I'd like to know: Of those incorrectly purged, how many were shown as "moved; no known address"? Might not be all that many, of course. Might be an appreciable percentage.
Ah, well. Just another advantage for me, living in a low-population county. The precinct folks and the county clerk's office work together to keep the rolls pretty well up to date.
i'll ask you this: if you believe what greg palast says happened in FL in 2000 (or heck, even a quarter of it), do you feel that jeb, kathryn (sp?) harris, james baker, et. al. "got away w/ it"?
In your photograph? Florida (I believe) doesn't or did not use to require the photograph on your DL.
zim, with that stipulation, yeah. But, that they got away with it, then, doesn't necessarily mean it won't hurt them come November.
I've always used the risk/reward analysis: "Is it worth it?" or is the potential gain worth the risk? Initially, I couldn't believe the Nixon/Watergate stuff, because the gain just didn't seem at all worth the risk. I really couldn't believe that people smart enough to get into high positions as advisors to presidents could be so incredibly stupid. Even so, I like to wait until I feel I'm more fully conversant with facts before geting on anybody's bandwagon.
neserk, I really doubt that the ancestors of "Pablo Escobar" or "Wen Ho Li" came from Munich or County Cork. And, what ethnicity would you expect of "Datrezz Taquann Harris" as taken from yesterday's Thomasville (GA) Times-Enterprise?
is it worth it? it's an easy argument to make that it got them the presidency.
tens of thousands allegedly disenfranchised, w/ a vote margin of less than 600.
"In the process, however, the list invariably targets a minority population in Florida, where 31 percent of all black men cannot vote because of a ban on felons."
"targets a minority"? Absolutely not, except as felons are--hope, hope--in the minority in Florida. Seems to me that there's no deliberate targeting of anybody but crooks, and I don't see any problem with that.
"In compiling a list by looking at felons from other states, Florida could, in the process, single out citizens who committed felons in other states but, after serving their time or successfully petitioning the courts, had their voting rights returned to them. According to Florida law, felons can vote once their voting rights have been reinstated."
How many felons go to the trouble to do this? Does anybody have any idea whatsoever as to percentages or gross numbers? My guess is that it's small; possibly statistically insignificant.
How many million black men in Florida? If danged near a third are felons (and some number of black women, as well), I can see how no-malintent errors can be made.
While we're at all this finger-pointing, what are the numbers for whites and latins?