Millions (blacks) blocked from upcoming election.

[Daradon]

A report has uncovered that millions of voters, the largest group being African Americans, will be banned from voting because of an obscure 19th century rule.

A independant commission also found that black voters were 10 times more likely to have their ballots rejected in the 2000 election in the state of Florida.

The African American vote is known to be overwhelmingly Democratic.

'The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting.

But millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.'

Stacking the cards

EDIT: spelling

[Cowperson]

'The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting.

Obvioiusly that has nothing to do with GW Bush. Its probably pretty popular as a law as well.

But millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors

Inexcusable but the blame lies more on the bureacracy than anything else.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

In a mayoral election in Philadelphia last year, people pretending to be plainclothes police officers stood outside some polling stations asking people to identify themselves. There have also been reports of mysterious people videotaping people waiting in line to vote in black neighborhoods.

Inexcusable. However, in counter to your argument, I will point out the Democrats were in power in Georgia at the time of elections in 2002 and a Democrat was Mayor in Baltimore in 2002 for that election. In the 2002 Philadelphia election, the Mayor incumbant was a Democrat.

The commission, in a report earlier this year, said that in Florida, where President Bush won a bitterly disputed election in 2000 by 537 votes, black voters had been 10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected and were often prevented from voting because their names were erroneously purged from registration lists.

I agree a statistic like that bears investigation.

In the Federal election before the last one, at a small rural polling station largely deserted, I was standing in front of two poll booth workers who were happily chatting away about how wonderful the Reform candidate was and how "the right guy was going to win" when who walks into the polling station but the candidate himself!!! Handing out chocolates!!!

"Don't worry folks. I looked it up. Perfectly legal!! Gotta take care of the election workers!!"

Unbelievable.

It's the only time in my life I've managed to puff out my chest and whistle up an effective withering glare and chase someone out of room without saying a word, holding up the line and refusing to budge until he'd left.

Unfortunately, stuff like that can happen anywhere.

Cowperson

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Hmmm, some of this sounds a little sketchy.

Just to clarify before I make my post, I don't doubt that many people don't want black people voting. It's a good source too, which makes me wonder even more about it.

But:
1) even if thousands of black people's names were left off the voting list, do they not have a system like here in Canada where you can sign up and get your name put on the list when you show up to vote?

2) How the hell do they know that votes cast by black voters were 10 times more likely to be rejected? Isn't it supposed to be a secret ballot?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Excellent point BBS...there is no biographical information on a ballott whatsoever. When analyzing ballotts it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell whether the voter was black, white, male, female etc. How did they come up with the statistic?

I heard yesterday that military families deployed outside of the US are starting to complain that they haven't received their absentee ballotts yet. Equally disturbing.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

How is this an issue that Bush could be blamed on did his government enact an "obscure 19th century rule". I am going to hesitate a guess and say no bush didn't enact this law so how could one really say this was Bush at his best.

Also it isn't just Blacks that are being turned away, it is whites and every other racial group you could think. If one wants to argue about systematic discrimination that is fine but right now it would be ignorant to the fullest degree to think that Bush should be blamed for this law.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I have no problem with convicted fellons not being able to vote. Do the crime you forfeit your rights to vote. No problem what so ever. And I don't care if they would help get Bush out of office or not, they don't deserve the right to vote.

As for the absentee ballots for the military, there is probably a good reason why those aren't delivered. I'm not sure they would help the Bush cause!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 23 2004, 02:49 PM
My wife hasn't gotten her absentee ballot yet. Forgive me for being stupid but when is the election?

First Tuesday in November. I think it's the 3rd.

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 23 2004, 02:48 PM
I have no problem with convicted fellons not being able to vote. Do the crime you forfeit your rights to vote. No problem what so ever. And I don't care if they would help get Bush out of office or not, they don't deserve the right to vote.

As for the absentee ballots for the military, there is probably a good reason why those aren't delivered. I'm not sure they would help the Bush cause!

Ok, sure take away the right to vote from all murderers. But what happens when you are convicted of a suspect felony like marijuano posession? You have a law that makes it a felony to do what probably the majority of people have done. This law is enforced much more strictly on a certain group of the population than others. Now everyone who has been persecuted by the law has no recourse to change it. These are substantial numbers of people now. It seems like a pretty good way to stay in power, convict all your opposers of felonies by making laws that you can enfrorce on them. It leads down a bad road, if you ask me.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Okay nfotiu, I'm pretty sure there aren't many people on this board who are guilty of Felony Marijuana posetion. Minor posetion sure, but I don't think too many people are going to federal prisons for holding a couple J's.

I'm pretty sure anything that's considered a fellony is a pretty serious crime, and hence something I think most people would rather not have people who think it's okay to do these things vote.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Yup it would have to be drug trafficing I would think for the people to be convicted of a felony offence. It isn't like they bust down some college kids and throw them in the clink for 10 years over a joint. they would do that to the guy who is dealing the drugs though and I don't care whether they vote or not.

[jonesy]

What an inflamatory title you put on this thread. You are trying to paint Bush as a bigot. The law prevents former felons from voting. Talk about a smear attempt.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Sep 23 2004, 03:24 PM
Ok, sure take away the right to vote from all murderers. But what happens when you are convicted of a suspect felony like marijuano posession? You have a law that makes it a felony to do what probably the majority of people have done. This law is enforced much more strictly on a certain group of the population than others. Now everyone who has been persecuted by the law has no recourse to change it. These are substantial numbers of people now. It seems like a pretty good way to stay in power, convict all your opposers of felonies by making laws that you can enfrorce on them. It leads down a bad road, if you ask me.

Do you know how much marijuana you have to have in your possession to get charged with felony marijuna possession? Its not like you're using it for recreational purposes at that point. You are traffiking. I think that if you traffik you are not contributing to society and are actually working toward its downfall. To me, you forfeit your vote. Simple solution, don't traffik.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 23 2004, 05:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 23 2004, 05:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nfotiu@Sep 23 2004, 03:24 PM
Ok, sure take away the right to vote from all murderers. But what happens when you are convicted of a suspect felony like marijuano posession? You have a law that makes it a felony to do what probably the majority of people have done. This law is enforced much more strictly on a certain group of the population than others. Now everyone who has been persecuted by the law has no recourse to change it. These are substantial numbers of people now. It seems like a pretty good way to stay in power, convict all your opposers of felonies by making laws that you can enfrorce on them. It leads down a bad road, if you ask me.

Do you know how much marijuana you have to have in your possession to get charged with felony marijuna possession? Its not like you're using it for recreational purposes at that point. You are traffiking. I think that if you traffik you are not contributing to society and are actually working toward its downfall. To me, you forfeit your vote. Simple solution, don't traffik. [/b][/quote]
blurb

An interesting fact sheet on the work to reduce prison populations by making it harder to get charged for a felony under possession

I believe that to get a felony you need to be carrying a pound of the stuff on you, and even then they probably don't want to see you in federal court.

Unless your in the three strikes program

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

You need to have two serious offences in the three strikes system, and many states are changing it so that the third strike also has to be quite a serious offense also, and in that case they already are ex-felons who have given up their right to vote. But come on a pound of dope. It is obvious (or at least it should be) that they are trafficing the drug.

[Daradon]

'Excellent point BBS...there is no biographical information on a ballott whatsoever. When analyzing ballotts it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell whether the voter was black, white, male, female etc. How did they come up with the statistic?'

Uhhh DFF, all the voter informaiton is right there, that's how they get their ballots in the first place... registration. They might not be able to tell WHO you voted for, but they can definitely tell who CAN and CAN'T vote.

As far as jonesy saying I'm smearing, well in reading the article it was my understanding that this rule wasn't USED in the last election. That it was the current administration supporting it. Are you telling me different? A challenge yes, but I'll back down from it if I was wrong.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'm not sure I follow you, Daradon, but here's what I'm thinking you are saying....

The voter logs, which lists all registered voters for each precinct, are present at the polling locations and each voter is checked off as they vote. However, there is no information about race on those logs. It lists your name, address, possibly sex (not sure about that one) and party affilliation if any (for primary purposes). There is nothing indicating who is what race.

Are you suggesting that people are following voters into the booth to examine the ballots and label it as a black or white ballot?

[dangler22]

Type in "Black voter disenfranchisement" in any search engine and there are a million examples of how black people get screwed come election time.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 24 2004, 08:00 AM
'Excellent point BBS...there is no biographical information on a ballott whatsoever. When analyzing ballotts it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell whether the voter was black, white, male, female etc. How did they come up with the statistic?'

Uhhh DFF, all the voter informaiton is right there, that's how they get their ballots in the first place... registration. They might not be able to tell WHO you voted for, but they can definitely tell who CAN and CAN'T vote.

As far as jonesy saying I'm smearing, well in reading the article it was my understanding that this rule wasn't USED in the last election. That it was the current administration supporting it. Are you telling me different? A challenge yes, but I'll back down from it if I was wrong.

The comment wasnt that blacks are ten times more likely to be left off the voter list, it is that they are ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected. The only way this can be proven is if a supposedly secret ballot is being marked or sorted by race.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 24 2004, 05:56 PM
I'm not sure I follow you, Daradon, but here's what I'm thinking you are saying....

The voter logs, which lists all registered voters for each precinct, are present at the polling locations and each voter is checked off as they vote. However, there is no information about race on those logs. It lists your name, address, possibly sex (not sure about that one) and party affilliation if any (for primary purposes). There is nothing indicating who is what race.

Are you suggesting that people are following voters into the booth to examine the ballots and label it as a black or white ballot?

When you go to pick up your ballot they they can tell which race you are. Perhaps the numbers on the refused ballots are estimated, but that's why they want an overseeing force on the voter stations. A UN sanctioned overseeing body that has visual confimation. I doubt (even if they are exaggerated) that these statistics come from nowhere. If you saw people geting rejected at your polling station, you'd take notice and remember race wouldn't you? Even if race doesn't register in your mind, you'd be able to tell the difference between black and white if asked to recall.

Besides, all those details are waiting somewhere in the databases to be cross referenced. Are you telling me that you don't think people can go through the registration of who voted and who didn't and find out race? How long ago was it that you had to declare race on income tax? (Or maybe you still do?) Irregradless, it's on any government sanctioned ID which is easily pulled up.

I'm not suggesting anyone is following anyone. I'm suggesting that it's easy to follow who weren't able to get their ballots, espeically if they are going to complain about it.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Sep 25 2004, 12:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Sep 25 2004, 12:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Sep 24 2004, 08:00 AM
'Excellent point BBS...there is no biographical information on a ballott whatsoever. When analyzing ballotts it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell whether the voter was black, white, male, female etc. How did they come up with the statistic?'

Uhhh DFF, all the voter informaiton is right there, that's how they get their ballots in the first place... registration. They might not be able to tell WHO you voted for, but they can definitely tell who CAN and CAN'T vote.

As far as jonesy saying I'm smearing, well in reading the article it was my understanding that this rule wasn't USED in the last election. That it was the current administration supporting it. Are you telling me different? A challenge yes, but I'll back down from it if I was wrong.

The comment wasnt that blacks are ten times more likely to be left off the voter list, it is that they are ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected. The only way this can be proven is if a supposedly secret ballot is being marked or sorted by race. [/b][/quote]
Or perhaps by complaints of people having ther ballots rejected?