good question.

[fox]

my brother says: "I can't help wondering how it feels to be in a party whose ground operation is centered on keeping people from voting. Wouldn't that feel wrong, somehow?"

what he's talking about:

all newly-registered voters in lake county, ohio received a letter not from the board of elections saying, substantially, that a large number of people had been invalidly registered by the kerry campaign, or by moveon.org, or by americans coming together, and that anyone registered wrong who attempts to vote will be breaking the law. good language to use to scare off poorer or minority-group or inner-city voters.

the rule in ohio had been that each party could register one challenger per polling place. the democrats did this; the republicans, in many districts, registered one challenger per precinct, i.e. several challengers per polling place. the deadline having passed, the (republican) secretary of state decided the one-per-precinct limit would stand -- but of course it was too late for the democrats to register more challengers. a judge told blackwell this was "unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable, and unconscionable", and ordered him to revert to the previous rule or be held in contempt of court (for all the good that would do).

it seems that the rule has been set back to one challenger per polling place; but if nine republican challengers arrive at a polling place with nine precincts in it, who will send eight of them away? election officials will have the first go at this, but if the challengers won't leave, the police will be called. a clever little plan: send along multiple challengers who happen to be minorities. that way, voters who are already in doubt as to the validity of their registration may arrive to see minorities being hauled away by the cops. niiice.

to say nothing of the "ballot security" people planning to harass voters on their way in to the polling place, posing as election workers (without actually identifying themselves as such, so no, they're not actively impersonating anyone) and telling people they may not be registered, may be breaking the law, etc., and past whom voters will have to be led, as if they were scared young women on their way into an abortion clinic, with assurances that they don't have to listen to them if they don't want.

this is not to suggest that there is one side that's squeaky-clean and one that's up to its ears in filth. no matter who wins, the losing side is going to be utterly convinced it's because the winners cheated. that's not the issue here. the issue is, the republicans are actively trying to prevent citizens from voting.

in what way is this okay?!

republican readers are invited to respond.

[eta: responses so far:

(1) the letter is valid (i don't agree, but there's not going to be a lot of mind-changing on that one);
(2) source it (which i have done);
(3) that's conjecture (it's apparently among the plans, in the toledo area);
(4) scare tactics! bah!
with a running motif of well, there have been cases of early republican voters being intimidated, too, so it's coming from both sides.

none of which actually answers the question: in what way is this okay? i say it's not okay coming from either side, but that it's coming faster and harder from the right than from the left. is the other position that it is okay as long as everybody's doing it?]

Comments

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

>>In what way is this okay?<<

In no way, of course. What you describe, if true (and a lot of it appears to be speculation), is unconscionable.

Now let me ask: In what way is it okay to paint a whole party as lying, cheating bastards because of the actions of a pathetic few? Or are 50% of the American people really out to rig elections?

As you point out, one can come up with stories about egregious abuse on both sides of every contest, going all the way back to the beginnings of time. People are very often stupid, venal, wrongheaded, misguided, and lacking in decency or common sense.

However, it is interesting you choose to supply us with only one side of the story in your post.

No party has a monopoly on morality. No party has a monopoly on brains, good ideas, hard workers, sincere people who love America, etc. To imply otherwise by asking a rhetorical question such as the one above is bordering on asshattery.

Yes, by all means, such things should be exposed and dealt with. But spare us the righteous indignation. It's disengenuous.

P.S. Putting on my elistist hat for a moment, may I point out that if people are so stupid and/or ill-informed as to fall for such tactics, perhaps they are too stupid and/or ill-informed to be voting anyway. I've no wish to live in a democracy ruled by the whims of illiterate ignoramuses who get their news from the Enquirer or Comedy Central. (In fact, I would love to see some sort of test administered to voters to ascertain if they have even a basic understanding of our system of government before allowing them to vote, but of course that would never fly.) And I am not necessarily talking about minorities or poor people -- although your post seems to imply that these groups are more likely to be fooled by such obvious scare tactics, which doesn't seem to say a lot for your opinion of them.

[darthfox.livejournal.com]

it's actually just one state's worth of the party that i'm talking about, and if someone wants to tell me what they've heard from nonpartisan observers about the democrats' plans for tuesday, i'll be happy to ask how those plans are okay as indignantly as you'd like.

no party has a monopoly on any of those things, no. but it's hard for me not to conclude that a policy of Win By Stopping People From Voting (For Them) is a lot shittier than a policy of Win By Getting More People To Vote (For Us). and i've been hearing a lot more about republicans' intentions to challenge voters' eligibility than the other way around.

P.S. there are no doubt an awful lot of people who are too stupid and/or ill-informed to vote. fortunately or unfortunately, this is not a criterion in eligibility to vote. if it were, as we've seen in the past month or so, regular viewers of The Daily Show would be way ahead of regular viewers of Fox "News" Channel.

there is indeed an alarming correlation between poverty and/or minority status on the one hand and ease of intimidation by underhanded scare tactics on the other. which is why it's especially wrong to plan to employ those tactics in inner cities, where the population is disproportionately poor and/or minority.

i have heard no reports of the ohio democratic party making parallel efforts to delude mostly-white rural voters, no matter how successful such efforts might be.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

>>it's actually just one state's worth of the party that i'm talking about, and if someone wants to tell me what they've heard from nonpartisan observers about the democrats' plans for tuesday, i'll be happy to ask how those plans are okay as indignantly as you'd like.<<

I guess I just found the question offensive. NOT that I don't think such things are shameful. I believe you know that I am in agreement with you on that. But I was insulted that you would indignantly ask your "republican readers" to respond as if any of us had anything to do with it or would condone it. When you ask, "How is this okay?" implying your conservative friends should have an insight into these cretins' minds and provide you a justification for the unjustifyable, you should not be surprised to find that you've provoked a fight.

[orange852.livejournal.com]

Now let me ask: In what way is it okay to paint a whole party as lying, cheating bastards because of the actions of a pathetic few? Or are 50% of the American people really out to rig elections?

So, if only the handful necessary to stop an election and turn it over to the Bush-appointed courts are lying, cheating bastards, no one should be complaining?

I don't see Fox and her brother tarring all Republicans with the same brush; just the people engaging in intimidation tactics.

I'm tarring every Republican who doesn't question this rigorously with the stinkiest brush I can find. Frankly, you're the first to say so much as "it's not me doing it." Every other self-identified Republican I've spoken with flatly denies anyone is doing anything hinky or did anything hinky in 2000.

In fact, I would love to see some sort of test administered to voters to ascertain if they have even a basic understanding of our system of government before allowing them to vote, but of course that would never fly.

It most certainly flew long enough to become part of the Jim Crow laws struck down by Civil Rights legislation. Poll taxes, literacy tests and any number of "legal" barriers were tried in the post-bellum South.

Didn't work then, won't work now. That hat you're wearing is a little out of fashion.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

>>Didn't work then, won't work now. That hat you're wearing is a little out of fashion. <<

Yeah, I kind of know that. :-)

Doesn't mean I'm not right.

And by the way, while I'm reforming the election process, let's get rid of the electoral college. It disenfranchises everyone except the people in the swing states.