1
   

SUSPECTED FELONS?????

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 10:17 am
Step two in the death of democracy...everything going according to plan....of course these purged voters represent what bushinc feels is the dems voter base and shows their real feelings about minorities...I'm betting not many white "suspected" felons make the purge list.....

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-felection08jun08,0,2424064.story?coll=sfla-news-florida
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 948 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 10:31 am
Re: SUSPECTED FELONS?????
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Step two in the death of democracy...everything going according to plan....of course these purged voters represent what bushinc feels is the dems voter base and shows their real feelings about minorities...I'm betting not many white "suspected" felons make the purge list.....

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-felection08jun08,0,2424064.story?coll=sfla-news-florida


You are absolutely right. Secret republican police officers go door to door investigating each of the felons on the purge list. If they are white, their names are erased and they are allowed to vote. If black, they get purged and it is too bad for them.

Florida law says felons don't get to vote. I am all for purging anyone from the voting roles if by law they are not eligible to vote. Black or white. Will the majority be black and democratic? I don't know. You seem to think so. Guess that means you are showing you real beliefs when it comes to minorities.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 10:40 am
Re: SUSPECTED FELONS?????
CoastalRat wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Step two in the death of democracy...everything going according to plan....of course these purged voters represent what bushinc feels is the dems voter base and shows their real feelings about minorities...I'm betting not many white "suspected" felons make the purge list.....

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-felection08jun08,0,2424064.story?coll=sfla-news-florida


You are absolutely right. Secret republican police officers go door to door investigating each of the felons on the purge list. If they are white, their names are erased and they are allowed to vote. If black, they get purged and it is too bad for them.

Florida law says felons don't get to vote. I am all for purging anyone from the voting roles if by law they are not eligible to vote. Black or white. Will the majority be black and democratic? I don't know. You seem to think so. Guess that means you are showing you real beliefs when it comes to minorities.


nice attempt at spin. but MISERABLY failed effort. You have also forgotten the key word...straight from the story... SUSPECTED......
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 10:45 am
Agreed.

ANYONE can be a 'suspected' felon. If the problem is matching the two lists together (felon lists vs. voting lists) then it shouldn't be too much of a problem... but the problem seems to be a little deeper than that, as if Florida doesn't know who belongs on the list and who doesn't.

I wonder if diebold voting machines are being used there again this year?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 10:58 am
I agree with the point you take that they are "suspected" felons. Now I am making an assumption, maybe prematurely, that they have a procedure for determining whether the person on their voting roll is a felon and needs to be removed or whether they are not a felon and should stay. Nowhere in the story does it hint that all the "suspected" felons will be removed without some type of verification that they are felons.

If all are to be removed without verification (which I think would be wrong to do), then isn't it just as likely that they are removing voters who may be Bush supporters? At least in the same % as the general voting population in a particular area? This would not harm or help either candidate. But you make an assumption that they will pick and choose who to remove not based on proof of their eligibility, but based on how they will vote. So how do Florida officials know how someone will vote in order to remove him from the voter rolls? I guess we are back to the secret republican police force.

And Cy, last I heard they are using the dreaded diebold voting machines again (I could be wrong). I do think this is a mistake based on the problems these machines have had and based on the lack of any paper trail to back up the votes recorded. The machines are too wide open to fraud from both repubs and dems.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 11:09 am
Forget about the 'secret republican police force.' Though I could discuss that with you at length, I think that there is more there than you think.

Let us look to base motivations. I don't think anyone believes this guy quit for 'personal reasons' any more than Tenet did. There is something seriously wrong with the situation. This guy didn't want any part of it. What could these possible wrongs be?

Quote:
Ed had made a number of comments that the nature and timing of this felons list was not something he was responsible for. I think he felt in good conscience he could no longer be involved in the operations.


I wonder who is putting the pressure on here? The article states that Nelson, Dem. from Florida, sponsored a bill to force the issue...

I don't want to go all conspiracy-theorist on this one but the guy quit for SOME reason.... the question is, is he a) hiding something, or b) avoiding a sh*t-storm this Nov.?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 11:25 am
I vote for avoidance.

I believe pressure was being put on him to complete the purge prior to November. Now it could be he wanted to make sure that the names purged should be purged and that higher ups just wanted it done regardless.

Again, I don't know the procedures for determining who on the "suspected" list should be purged. But I would think it is not a quick and easy thing to do. So I will assume he was getting pressure to get it done, in which case I think his superiors are wrong to press to finish something quickly as opposed to getting it right.

But let us say that is the case and the entire list gets purged. Why do you or anyone else assume the percentage of dems purged is any different than the percentage of the general voting population? The only way this purge would harm Kerry is if the % of dems purged was greater than in the general population.

Example:

City A has a population of 1000 voters of which 55% will vote Kerry, 45% Bush. But, in that population, there are 100 names on the suspected felon list. If they all get purged, who is to say that the % of those purged is not roughly 55-45? If so, it does not change the outcome or the % margin of victory for Kerry. In fact, statistics would say that the % would be roughly the same.

Now, if you are making the claim as BPB hinted at that only minority voters will be purged since they are historically more likely to vote for Kerry, then I would hope you have evidence to back it up. At least more evidence than this article even hints at.

Give me such evidence and I will be right there yelling with you. But there is none. So then we come right back to the odds that you have the same % of dems being dropped as in the general population, thus no harm to the eventual outcome. (Other than of course possibly not allowing a voter to vote who should not have been purged)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 11:31 am
I'm not trying to assign any sort of party responsibility to this one, rather, I wonder if the beauracratic process in Fl. is somewhat whacked right now what with all the upheaval in that state.

It could be that the big boys in the state don't want to see a repeat of last time, and are putting unrealistic expectations upon the civil servants. Who knows.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 05:27 pm
I agree Cy. I really think that is basically what is going on. And can you blame them? All they need is another contested vote. You'll have the loser yelling about felons voting (or not voting as the case may be). I don't think I would want any part of that if I were this guy. I think I would resign first chance I got also. Move to some normal state.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 05:33 pm
Does anybody think a lot of felons bother to vote?
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 05:45 pm
Quote:
Thomas Alvin Cooper, twenty-eight, was flagged because of a crime for which he was convicted in the year 2007. Apparently this time traveler will cover his tracks by moving to Ohio, shedding his middle name, and changing his race. At least 300 "felons" on these lists were convicted in the future, a fact that did not escape state elections workers, who, in June 2000 e-mails headed "Future Conviction Dates," termed the discovery "bad news." Rather than release such perplexing data to the counties, Janet Modrow, the state's liaison to DBT, suggested that "blanks would be preferable in these cases." (The future felonies I found on these lists may simply be those the state neglected to erase; 4,918 other names have blank conviction dates.) The one county that checked each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only thirty-four as former felons. Some counties defied Harris's directive: Madison County elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it.


What a farce! At least in some countries they're a bit more upfront about electoral fraud and just shoot the 'uncommitted' voter.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 05:56 pm
In your quote is a perfect example of both extremes, each equally bad in my opinion. Errors that are covered up by blanking out info on the purge lists is certainly wrong and quite frankly no name should be purged if not checked, as apparently one county did in verifying only 34 of 694 names. I assume those 34 were purged and the rest were not, although the article quoted does not say.

On the other extreme is a county refusing to obey the law by not even putting forth an effort to verify the purge list and purge those voters who should be purged that are verifiable simply because the election supervisor found her name on the list, hopefully in error Smile .

A voter should be purged if found to be a felon under Florida law. But without some kind of verification, I think it is better to err on the side of caution until a name is verified.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » SUSPECTED FELONS?????
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 02:33:51
▲ ▼