|
SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/9/2012 9:38:47 AM)
|
quote:
Interestingly enough, the new rules were put in place early in 2008. Prior to that, you couldn't register within 30 days of the election (to give time for validation), and couldn't vote until your registration was validated. R's screamed foul when the law was passed. D's were working to to not "disenfranchise voters" and Brunner refused to check all the registrations, allowing votes to count without validated registrations.
But, hey. Whatever, right? And, I'm not saying that what happened in Ohio is what is happening everywhere, or anywhere, else.
Interestingly enough as you put it... I have never seen any statistically backed statement that there were any illegitimate votes counted in the 2008 elections. And if you harken back to the earlier two Presidential elections, you'll of course remember how there were ridiculous lines at precincts in ohio because they had the same screaming Rs you refer to slowing down the process of legit voters clearing the check in. That was a matter of national headlines.
But if you can show me some documented statistic stating that there was voter fraud on ANY scale that effected the election, I will be happy to have a look and tell you what I think.
I STILL say that what Brown is pulling in Massachusetts is an ACTUAL affront to voter's rights and if a person REALLY cared about the issue beyond paying it lip service, they'd be a lot more outraged about that practice. And get this... I just heard Sean Bielat, P.O.S. THREE TIME LOSER in Barney Frank's district (which was one of the first Gerrymandered districts to handicap this asshole with a town that has small city that has a significant concentration of repulicans) is now considering the same tactic because, AND GET THIS ... CAUSE IT"S FUCKING HYSTERICAL TO ANY HOMO SAPIEN with a full set of neurons firing ... He says "I find it hard to believe it took me six months to get enough signatures to get on the ballot . And my opponent only announced a few weeks ago and already has enough signatures to be on the ballot". He's told at least one reporter that (a guy I went to college with), who laughingly told him about how he'd covered two of his opponent's fundraising events attended by a couple of huge crowds. And went on to say he didn't feel there was an issue and to call him back if his 'research'.... I am sure there are other reporters this guy has lobbed calls to. But nothing published. And here's why. He's the youngest Kennedy to enter the race in his family's back yard... HELLO... His district includes Cape Cod and all of Southeastern Mass. In my home town in RI, nobody even seriously ran against Patches Kennedy. What's funny is that Joe Kennedy III's people didn't really rub the snot's nose in it by reporting how long it took to get the 10k signatures they needed (it was actually something like a week, I think).
But regardless, the kid is more qualified and has it in the bag.
Seriously though... you should consider the language in that article you provided. They reach the foregone that there is fraud that has occurred yet at the same time they are saying the SOC hadn't checked the ballots. Could it be that they just alleged ALL the registrations taken that year were illegitimate? I mean 700k is A LOT of votes. I'd be willing to bet that's the total number of registrations taken that year. In each reference to the number there's no actual cite that indicates there's REALLY any problem. And it gets no closer than this
"Earlier this month, Brunner told The Plain Dealer that a cursory review by her staff had found about 200,000 discrepancies in the newly filed or revised registrations since Jan. 1. That does not mean each was a case of fraud, but could mean someone incorrectly jotted down a driver's license or Social Security digit on the applications. "
Do your homework... in an election year in a populous state, that's fairly normal. And what's also pretty normal is for 99% of those discrepancies to be exactly what's put forth in the article ... MERE TYPOS.
Dude, no offense but I have lived here in my city for nearing 20 years and I have up until this year been a volunteer poll worker and have attended all the meetings and educational opportunities that go along with the role.
Tell me this what has the follow-up data (elections subsequent to 2008) shown? Meaning did 700k voters just disappear? Or hasn't there been that kind of effort on the part of these concerned republicans?
|
|
|
|
