Jimmy Carter still seeking fair Florida vote

Go Jimmy.

Yes, the political urban legend that black voters in Florida were harassed and intimidated on Election Day four years ago is making a comeback. Only yesterday Jimmy Carter, fresh from blessing Hugo Chavez's dubious victory in Venezuela, moaned that in 2000 "several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities" in Florida, and that this year more black than (Republican) Hispanic felons are being disqualified to vote--as if all felons weren't supposed to be barred, regardless of race.
--------------------

Which leaves the "stolen election" crowd with these inconvenient facts: In 24 of the 25 Florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a Democrat. In the 25th county, the supervisor was an Independent. And as for the "felon purge list," the Miami Herald found that whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly placed on the list as blacks.

The real spectacle here is that some Democrats are only too willing to exploit the painful history of black voter disenfranchisement for some short-term partisan advantage. And it just might backfire. Democrats played up the Florida fiasco in the 2002 midterm elections, repeatedly telling blacks that their votes hadn't been counted in 2000. Rather than being riled up, many black voters believed what they were told and stayed home.

More at: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005682

Larry, do you see anything wrong with having a highly partisan election commission?

I am not aware of the political affilitations of the FEC. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that.

http://www.fec.gov/members.htm

We're talking state of Florida...

... is what I was referring to. Maybe I should have said 'election officials'.

There's more here....

http://www.fec.gov/pages/tech3.htm#FLORIDA

How quickly they forget. Four years ago the Dems were promising (yes, promising) that Janet Reno would kick Jeb Bush's tush in the governor's race. I guess they didn't count too much on the fact that the voters could eventually figure out the butterfly ballot.

Carter has no right to tell anyone whether or not they can run. If he's such an advocate of civil rights, why does he think, then, that Nader should have none?

He needs to zip it up, lest even more of us figure out his very strange code of ethics.

JW, are you talking about the same article we're talking about?

I think Carter has some valid points about the need for transparency and nonpartisanship in elections.

Freeduck - if the article contains the following passage, then yes.



It was obvious the Court would allow Nader to be on the ballot because he has that right as much as anyone. Contrary to most Dems who believe voters are stupid, voters in Florida know precisely what a vote for Nader means and it's their right to cast that vote!

Carter has an agenda and it isn't that hard to figure out:

.

PS I tried to reply earlier but A2K still seems to be off and on. If I were the paranoid type, I'd think I'd been disenfranchised...LOL.

Jimmy Carter? Sounds like a big improvement over the last time. Seems they sent Richard Daly to insure an accurate count.

JW, that passage was in the article, but I didn't make the connection that Jimmy Carter wanted Nader off the ballot. Rather, it seemed to indicate that the official was biased. The article was mostly about deficiencies in the election process in Florida.

You may be right that Carter has an agenda (who doesn't) but I still believe he makes valid points about the election process. And I think they can be addressed without whining about Democrats crying disenfranchisement.

I also tried to get in earlier so sorry if this is a late reply.

Interesting that the partisan affiliation of these state election officials is considered highly relevant --enough so that Carter (and many Dem critics before him) seem to see no need to (f)actually demonstrate any impropriety in their actions, much less that their official actions led to anyone's being disenfranchised. (Note that the only partisan "impropriety" Carter's editorial alleges is based on the fact that allowing Nader on the ballot might help Bush, NOT that the action is actually illegal or unjust.)

Yet, at the same time, it is completely ignored that in EVERY area in which alleged disenfranchisement took place in 2000 the local election boards--which have the real, direct control over balloting procedures-- were controlled by DEMOCRATS (except for one, and that was headed by an independent).

Let me look over your shoulder at that list of tyrants McG

Can tyrants be elected?

Only benevolent tyrants