Millions (blacks) blocked from upcoming election.

[Lurch]

So will Bush be allowed to vote? IIRC, DUI is a criminal offence.

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 24 2004, 11:56 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?

The US is still very segregated, especially in the South. I would guess there are many voting stations that are 95%+ one race or the other around here.

On another note, it seems that it requires a fair amount of effort to vote in the US. Unlike Canada, where they come to your door to sign you up, you have to make a concerted effort to go somewhere and stand in line to get registered here.

[nfotiu]

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]
Says you. I'm sure everyone has an idea of who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the republican party could one day institue a zero tolerance policy on posession. I also believe that some black people have been convicted of felonies for crimes that white, rich college kids would walk on.

Pot is just one example to show that a felony is not always an absolutely evil thing. Letting the lawmakers make those decisions is a conflict of interest. They make the laws that could disenfranchise people. It is a system that opens itself to abuse.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 27 2004, 02:41 PM
So will Bush be allowed to vote? IIRC, DUI is a criminal offence.

DUI isn't a felony.

Why are people stating that it is an issue of racism? There is nothing that would point towards that as being an issue. The law states that people who have felony offences on their record are not allowed to vote. A law that many people in fact agree with. Now due to the fact that there are more african-americans in prison (a disproportionate number) and conversely a disproportianate number of african-americans with felony records, there is a huge outcry and in fact there are unimformed people who consider Bush a biggot or a racist. This isn't about peoples votes being rejected at the booths, this is about people not being allowed to register as it is against the law for them to vote. It seems to me as though this issue is much ado about nothing.

You might be able to argue systematic racism which has resulted in socio-economic conditions whereby african-americans are put at a disadvantage and ultimently have higher incarceration rates. You could also make a fairly succesful arguement that there are some racist police officers nad the justice system as a whole who have wrongfully incarcerated individuals based on their skin colour.

But the one arguement that does not hold up is the white kids walking. Felony offences are very serious offences. These offences are not ones such as smoking dope for instance. Plus if I steal an automobile and don't get arrested for it, does that mean that everyone else should be allowed to steal an automobile.

Also does anyone have a list of states that this law exists in. I know Florida and I think 13 other states but I don't want to look through all my school notes in an attempt to find this info out.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Sep 27 2004, 03:01 PM

Says you. I'm sure everyone has an idea of who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the republican party could one day institue a zero tolerance policy on posession. I also believe that some black people have been convicted of felonies for crimes that white, rich college kids would walk on.

Pot is just one example to show that a felony is not always an absolutely evil thing. Letting the lawmakers make those decisions is a conflict of interest. They make the laws that could disenfranchise people. It is a system that opens itself to abuse.

Your stating that the lawmakers are creating laws that only black people would be charged with? I don't get it, how are the law makers of today causing more african-americans to have their votes blocked. Other than your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that is.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Daradon+Sep 27 2004, 11:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Sep 27 2004, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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.

Or perhaps by complaints of people having ther ballots rejected? [/b][/quote]
A person marks their X (or dimples their chad, as the case may be) and drops it into a box. It is highly unlikely that the returning officer would have the opportunity to reject a ballot in the person's presence.

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+Sep 27 2004, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ Sep 27 2004, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nfotiu@Sep 27 2004, 03:01 PM

Says you. I'm sure everyone has an idea of who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the republican party could one day institue a zero tolerance policy on posession. I also believe that some black people have been convicted of felonies for crimes that white, rich college kids would walk on.

Pot is just one example to show that a felony is not always an absolutely evil thing. Letting the lawmakers make those decisions is a conflict of interest. They make the laws that could disenfranchise people. It is a system that opens itself to abuse.

Your stating that the lawmakers are creating laws that only black people would be charged with? I don't get it, how are the law makers of today causing more african-americans to have their votes blocked. Other than your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that is. [/b][/quote]
I'm not saying this is what has happened. Just saying that this system allows for this to happen, and that is not a good thing. Why have a system that allows for abuses? Felonies are what the government decides are serious crimes. The fact of the matter is that there are many states that are 50/50 rep/demo where 90% of the blacks for Democratic and 90% of the whites vote republican. I know my state(Virginia) is like that. If you allow a system that can take 15% of the vote from one of those groups, you guarantee yourself a victory.

[Agamemnon]

Maybe the votes from a certain district are discounted or 'lost'... and that district happens to be 90% black... I think then you could probably start asserting that more blacks lost their vote in that case because you know that they comprise the majority of that district, therefore the majority of the discounted or 'lost' votes would be black.

Just a thought on how the race/vote thing might happen, interesting debate.

[dangler22]

There are numerous examples of discrimination I have read. This happens to be one of them and there was another I read that was pretty much the same:

A black person went to vote and she was told that she was not on the list and that a phone call must be made to confirm whether or not she was eligible to vote. Meanwhile a white person in line behind her had the same problem, but only had to show his drivers license and he was allowed to cast his vote. The black woman waiting for the phone call confirmation never had a chance to vote because the line was busy for hours. I did not make this up. Hundreds of accounts similar to this one are all over the place on the net if you do a search. All I had to do was type in Black Voter Disenfranchisement.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 27 2004, 06:31 PM
Maybe the votes from a certain district are discounted or 'lost'... and that district happens to be 90% black... I think then you could probably start asserting that more blacks lost their vote in that case because you know that they comprise the majority of that district, therefore the majority of the discounted or 'lost' votes would be black.

Just a thought on how the race/vote thing might happen, interesting debate.

That would be my thought too. It might be that communities that are predominantly black are seeing ten times the normal rate of rejections - however that is a long, long way from stating that "Blacks are ten times more likely to have their ballot's rejected."

Still a cause for concern and investigation, but not nearly what it is twisted into.

Of course, that is only just speculation as well.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Sep 27 2004, 09:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Sep 27 2004, 09:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Or perhaps by complaints of people having ther ballots rejected?

A person marks their X (or dimples their chad, as the case may be) and drops it into a box. It is highly unlikely that the returning officer would have the opportunity to reject a ballot in the person's presence. [/b][/quote]
It dawned on my, shortly after I turned my comp off and when to bed last time I posted that we were talking about two slightly different things. People here were talking about ballots being rejected POST vote procedure, I was also looking at people being rejected when they came to vote or as their name was being pulled from the list. So that's might be where some of the confusion is coming from.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Daradon+Sep 27 2004, 11:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Sep 27 2004, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
You're missing the point.

Someone would have to follow you into the booth and watch your ballott from the time you left until the time it was rejected to know those details in relation to the BALLOT...which is what is in question here.

I have no doubt that with my SS# or name they can find out all the info they want about me and every member of my family. That does not mean that they know which ballot is mine after I've voted. In fact, that is impossible without extremely illegal action.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by dangler22@Sep 27 2004, 08:36 PM
There are numerous examples of discrimination I have read. This happens to be one of them and there was another I read that was pretty much the same:

A black person went to vote and she was told that she was not on the list and that a phone call must be made to confirm whether or not she was eligible to vote. Meanwhile a white person in line behind her had the same problem, but only had to show his drivers license and he was allowed to cast his vote. The black woman waiting for the phone call confirmation never had a chance to vote because the line was busy for hours. I did not make this up. Hundreds of accounts similar to this one are all over the place on the net if you do a search. All I had to do was type in Black Voter Disenfranchisement.

Hundreds eh? Are they credible accounts??

I can find anything I want on the internet, that doesn't make it true.

I find it VERY difficult to believe that there is a formal and concentrated effort to disenfranchise the black community.

[Five-hole]

I find it VERY difficult to believe that there is a formal and concentrated effort to disenfranchise the black community.

May I ask why, DFF?

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 28 2004, 11:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 28 2004, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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.

You're missing the point.

Someone would have to follow you into the booth and watch your ballott from the time you left until the time it was rejected to know those details in relation to the BALLOT...which is what is in question here.

I have no doubt that with my SS# or name they can find out all the info they want about me and every member of my family. That does not mean that they know which ballot is mine after I've voted. In fact, that is impossible without extremely illegal action. [/b][/quote]
No I think you're missing the point...

I'm talking about cases where they were banned FROM voting. Before they cast ballots. There have been more than a few reorts about this. When I was talking before I realise I hadn't made THAT distinction. But in the post you quoted me just above I DID say...

''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.

Weren't getting their ballots would probably suggest that they had NEVER gone to the booth...

[Savvy27]

Am I the only one who thinks that if you've served your time then you should be allowed to vote?

If an ex-con is allowed to walk the streets then I don't see why he should be kept from having input.

[Daradon]

I think it also depends on what you were in for. If your in jail for a non violent or even drug related crime (as a vast majority of inmates in the U.S. are, even on simple possession charges) you should still get to vote. Definitely if you are already out, though I might add, some of the people that are out maybe shouldn't be.