1
   

My little politics blog

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 09:36 am
Voting fraud.

I personally am against unenforceable rules, but there are probably times when it can be enforced.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 10:05 am
spendius wrote:
Hardly.

You said earlier that 16,000 Republicans had committed a felony carrying a $2,500 fine in Cuyahoga County.

I was wondering what was going on. Electoral fraud is considered serious here.

Fining them all would bring in $40 million and not fining them opens up the possibility that not all felonies are prosecuted.

Why is it a felony? Would the primaries not work if it isn't? Can you choose which laws to disobey?

It's me who is confused.


1. I didn't say anything. I posted an article.
2. The article did not say that all 16,000 had committed a felony. That was the number of people who crossed parties to vote. Within that number, the article cited some examples of suspicious activity and quoted someone saying there should be an investigation.



Quote:
At least one member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections wants to investigate some Republicans who may have crossed party lines only to influence which Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John McCain in November.

Those who crossed lines were supposed to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party.

In Cuyahoga County, dozens and dozens of Republicans scribbled addendums onto their pledges as new Democrats:

"For one day only."

"I don't believe in abortion."

A Plain Dealer review of thousands of records showed few of those who switched were challenged by poll workers.

Sandy McNair, a Democratic member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, said Friday that the manipulation of the system was troublesome.

"It's something that concerns me, that I think needs to be looked at further," McNair said. "This is not a structural thing by the Republican Party. If it's a problem at all, it's on an individual level."

Lying on the pledge is a felony, punishable by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.



More details on what is raising concerns here:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/10/7591/
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 10:28 am
Thanks for the link bfn.

One of the comments is-

Quote:
There's evidence that the same thing happened in parts of Texas. So Hillary may not have legitimately won either Ohio or Texas. I wonder what'll happen now in Pennsylvania. The super delegates need to be kept aware of this. Write lots of letters!

It's hard to believe how screwed up our electoral system is.


Maybe European observers are required like in the Pakistan election.

It looks crazy from here.

Our media present it as cut and dried simple but scratch the surface and it looks like a right can of worms.

Who exactly is allowed to vote in primaries? And what % of the electorate are they?
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 10:56 am
spendius wrote:
Thanks for the link bfn.

One of the comments is-

Quote:
There's evidence that the same thing happened in parts of Texas. So Hillary may not have legitimately won either Ohio or Texas. I wonder what'll happen now in Pennsylvania. The super delegates need to be kept aware of this. Write lots of letters!

It's hard to believe how screwed up our electoral system is.


Maybe European observers are required like in the Pakistan election.

It looks crazy from here.

Our media present it as cut and dried simple but scratch the surface and it looks like a right can of worms.

Who exactly is allowed to vote in primaries? And what % of the electorate are they?


I don't believe Texas has the same requirement as Ohio (the pledge signing) so the results there really can't be challenged. Any registered voter is 'allowed' to vote in their state's primary, although the rules vary from state to state on open or closed primaries. So, what's perfectly legal in one state may be considered a felony in another.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 11:01 am
spendius wrote:
Maybe European observers are required like in the Pakistan election.

It looks crazy from here.

Our media present it as cut and dried simple but scratch the surface and it looks like a right can of worms.


It's completely insane. Usually a front-runner emerges early and then the rest is a formality and we don't have to examine this stuff up close. This year is different. I'm certainly learning all kinds of minutiae I was never aware of before...

spendius wrote:
Who exactly is allowed to vote in primaries? And what % of the electorate are they?


Varies from state to state. Some are closed -- you must be a Democrat (or a Republican) to vote in that party's primary, and must have registered as such by a certain date (Pennsylvania's cut-off is March 24th). Some are open -- anyone can vote for anyone from any party. Independents can be more complicated, I can't tell you that part off the top of my head.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 11:18 am
Another aspect that varies from state to state is that some states allow voters to register/switch parties on election day while others require all registrations/party switches to occur a specific number of days before election day (varies from 15 to 30 in some states).

So, now there is also a third category of primary state, a "modified open" primary. Anyone can register/switch parties but it must be done a number of days before election day.

The sates where it is an open primary and they allow same day registration/party switching on election day is where we are seeing the problems.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 11:22 am
It's not a problem if it's not illegal. Well, maybe to the Democrats it's a problem (Butrflynet and 'crew').
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 11:37 am
So, if a voter registration card has a pledge a person atests to in regard to their alliegence to a party before signing and that person modifies that pledge with phrases such as "only for one day" is that illegal?

If, according to the election board's rules, a poll worker is supposed to challenge such evident modified phrases to the pledge and did not do so, is that illegal?


Wasn't a college professor recently in the news because she was fired for modifying a pledge of nationalism on an application by editing the part about defending the constitution so it was in accordance with her religion's non-violent beliefs?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 11:43 am
The whole pledge thing sounds pretty silly. Either have your primaries only open for Democrats, or open them up, for Independents or for Indies and Republicans alike. All of those are options state parties have. Inserting a pledge thing on top of that just seems like a useless - and lets be honest, meaningless - complication to throw in the mix, that'll only lead to arguments and shitstirring.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 11:45 am
Agreed.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 02:24 pm
It's another irreducible complexity. There were very few of them when I was a kid. A pheasant laying fourteen eggs baffled me though.

I think all those straight-line state boundaries are a big problem. Our electoral map looks like a ball of wool a kitten has been playing with for half an hour. And they change it all the time, not without some heated discussions I might add, to preserve balance I suppose. They don't get tired like the kittens do.

My love of cats led me to back the Champion Hurdle winner today at 10- to 1. I wonder if I'm the only A2Ker to have done that today.

It got me thinking though. Are their any building restrictions near those lines? Some of the lines here go straight through some folks's houses.

We occasionally get one of those "make the time more easy passing" programmes where the piss-pot has one foot in one county and one in another while he rabbits on about something pointless and the camera crew show off their latest kit. The zoom lens say.

I've heard of the Boundary Club. It's a version of the 8 Mile High Club.

They might be myths though.

I can see you might have something like our Boundaries Commission within your states. But those state lines are set in stone. Here Lancashire County Cricket Club plays on a ground that hasn't been within Lancashire for donkey's years. And nobody care two hoots.

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall" Robert Frost.

Look at me quoting American poets to Americans.

Forgive me--we are feeling a little expansive tonight. We are all cat lovers.
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 02:37 pm
spendius, There are several towns that exist on state lines, half in one state half in another. I think there is one city government but taxes are paid to the state in which your house is located. As far as voting districts is concerned, and for that matter congressional districts, they change all the time here, too. The process is called Gerrymandering for congressional redistricting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 03:23 pm
Swimpy wrote-

Quote:
Gerrymandering for congressional redistricting.


What a great title. Americans are great with names.

Who does it?

Are you related to that guy who got down in the tunnels with all those intensly Green girls to protest a new runway at Manchester Airport. They were down there a good long time.

But thanks anyway.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 04:05 pm
"Gerrymander" has something to do with the salamander shape of a weird new district and "Gerry" -- the politician who made that new district? I forget. We learn these things in elementary school though.

Yep, Gov. Elbridge Gerry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Meanwhile, came here to plonk this:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/superdelegates/index.html?

Looks cool -- lists of superdelegates, with quotes.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 04:14 pm
Gerrymandering soz is rigging the boundaries to make sure nothing untoward happens. They probably didn't tell you that in school so you could retain your respect for adults a little longer.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2008 04:25 pm
BTW-

As a result of this thread I'm now the expert in the pub about American elections. I'm the expert on a few other things as well but that's by-the-bye. They don't know anything about them so it's easy. I can make stuff up and they wouldn't know. "What's a caucus?" they would say. I said it was like the Eton Wall Game with the candidates as the ball done with taste and decorum by right thinking hard working families up and down the land and from sea to shining sea and NAFTA being a long way off and "what about these ears eh?"
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 08:13 am
I'm happy for you, spendius:

Sinbad pokes more holes in Hillary's claims of foreign policy experience -- yes, THAT Sinbad:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

Excerpt:

Quote:
Finally, the Barack Obama campaign has found a big gun to help shoot down Hillary Rodham Clinton's self-proclaimed foreign policy experience. And he may be the wackiest gun of all: Sinbad, the actor, who has come out from under a rock to defend Obama in the war over foreign policy credentials.

Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she's taking much grief on the campaign trail.

Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.

In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 03:16 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20080310/cm_ucgg/leadershipisobamasbestquality

Quote:
As for Hillary's other big foreign policy question -- should an American president speak to undesirable foreign leaders? -- that one, too, is grossly unfair to Obama. He has said that, yes, he would personally negotiate, but so did Richard Nixon (and that Metternich of Metternichs, Henry Kissinger) with China, with extraordinary success.

The question in foreign policy is not to have a president who sets rigid parameters, but one who is a "universalist," who understands the mentalities at work in the peoples and leaders of the world, realistically, and who thus knows what will work and what will not. Obama has that crucial capacity, one that escaped even the great FDR and Churchill in World War II: Their problems with Joseph Stalin began, historians have told me, when they misdiagnosed him as a malleable interlocutor instead of a vicious paranoid, when they began to call him "Uncle Joe."

As the man I would choose as having these capacities above all others, former Secretary of State James Baker III, said, "There's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek, he went on, "is leadership."

That is a quality that Obama has, and one that he embellishes with his sometimes aloof style, but also with his refusal to get down and dirty with some of his less discerning opponents. Leadership is not fighting whatever gets in your precious way at any moment. It is exemplifying and embodying an entire set of profound American principles and beliefs and giving such expression to them on the international stage that other peoples will want to be more, and not less, like us.

0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 03:59 pm
sozobe wrote:
I'm happy for you, spendius:

Sinbad pokes more holes in Hillary's claims of foreign policy experience -- yes, THAT Sinbad:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

Excerpt:

Quote:
Finally, the Barack Obama campaign has found a big gun to help shoot down Hillary Rodham Clinton's self-proclaimed foreign policy experience. And he may be the wackiest gun of all: Sinbad, the actor, who has come out from under a rock to defend Obama in the war over foreign policy credentials.

Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she's taking much grief on the campaign trail.

Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.

In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'

How on earth does Clinton think claiming a USO tour as foreign policy experience will help win the nomination or in November? McCain will crush her with this stuff. Obama might not come out and call her a liar to her face in a debate, but McCain will (and should).
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:12 am
engineer wrote:
McCain will crush her with this stuff.


I agree.


Good article on "The Primary vs. General Election Fallacy":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23591347/

Excerpt:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 07:06:25