Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Carter says Florida Voting Still Not Fair

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the anybody-wanna-peanut? dept.

Politics 191

linuxwrangler writes "Ex president Jimmy Carter is claiming that Florida has still not created conditions for a fair election. The Carter Center has monitored over 50 elections worldwide for fairness and says that the absence of uniformity in voting procedures and the lack of a non-partisan election commission sets the stage for a repeat of the 2000 election. That election, overseen by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (aka co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee), was officially decided by a margin of 537 votes. According to Carter, Florida governor Jeb Bush (aka brother of George W. Bush) has done little to correct the problems found in the 2000 election. In addition, Harris' successor Glenda Hood, (aka an elector for George W. Bush in 2000) recently attempted to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons."

cancel ×

191 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course! (2, Insightful)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366643)

How could we ever think there can be a fair election if Nader is on the ballot!

Dear CmdrTaco (4, Funny)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367100)


Could you please rename this section to flamebait.slashdot.org?

Thanks.

Re:Dear CmdrTaco (1)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367527)

From Carter's Op-Ed:
The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore.

So that is one of his complaints- that Nader is on the ballot. I was not trying to flamebait. That comes directly from Carter.

2000 Election (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10368572)

Many pundits expressed the opinion that votes for Ralph Nader resulted in Al Gore losing the election. To test this theory, we gave all of Nader's votes to Gore and all of Buchanan's votes to Bush ("two-way"). This resulted in Gore taking Florida and New Hampshire from Bush, giving Gore victory with a total of 296 electoral votes.
A few pundits expressed the opinion that Pat Buchanan harmed George W. Bush's election chances. To test this theory, we gave all of Buchanan's votes to Bush but let Nader keep his votes ("three-way"). This resulted in Bush taking Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin from Gore, giving Bush a total of 301 electoral votes.

from here [verizon.net]

so basically.... (-1, Offtopic)

spider queen (624256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366650)

All they want is a FIRST POST.

And they never even check Oregon (2, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366653)

Where it is forbidden (by State Law!) for elections officials to ask about the *citizenship of the voters* beyond the standard form. Residency questions are OK, citizenship questions are not.

Re:And they never even check Oregon (1)

nullportal (811666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366804)

Perhaps under one state's law, but not all. States have the power to inquire into US citizenship when filling various jobs, appointing people to juries, registering them to vote, etc. If Oregon chooses not to, that's Oregon's business.

Re:And they never even check Oregon (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366910)

Oregon chooses not to- because we've got a blanket law in support of our nursery industry which depends on underpaid illegals for it's very existance.

My point was- Florida's not the only one with problems on who to allow to vote.

Carter's comments are totally partisan! (-1, Troll)

stevew (4845) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366668)

For my first point, it isn't Jeb Bush's job to fix issues with Florida's voting mechanisms. It is the legislature that controls all of this.

Second - and more to the point - President Carter is a totally partisan observer here, and I discount ANYTHING he says on the subject due to that fact.

Lastly, this report asserts through inuendo that Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush committed some underhanded nonsense during the election. From my point of view - Mrs. Harris followed the letter of the law. It was the State Supreme court that kept on making it up as it went along!

Re:Carter's comments are totally partisan! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10366735)

Similarly GWB is totally partisan wrt Iraq and so I discount EVERYTHING he says on the subject due to that fact.

The issue isn't whether Glenda Hood is going to fix the result but that someone so partisan is in that position in the first place.

If Iraq had had an election in which Tariq Aziz was in charge of the election and Saddam Hussein had been elected would anyone believe it had been a fair election? Same thing applies here, the process should be seen to impartial and it isn't.

Re:Carter's comments are totally partisan! (1)

aminorex (141494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367804)

Interestingly, Saddam Hussein has announced his intention to run for the Presidency of Iraq in the next election. Votes will be counted by the interim government. He's widely expected to win a plurality.

Re:Carter's comments are totally partisan! (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367879)

If Iraq had had an election in which Tariq Aziz was in charge of the election and Saddam Hussein had been elected would anyone believe it had been a fair election? Same thing applies here, the process should be seen to impartial and it isn't.

Um, Iraq had SEVERAL elections in which Saddam was elected president. No one else in the world cared if it was legit or not.

LK

Re:Carter's comments are totally partisan! (1, Insightful)

G. W. Bush Junior (606245) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367058)

How come this post is modded insightful?
The only claim is that Carter is being partisan?
That isn't insightful, that's ridiculous.

Attack his claims first, if you can convince me that he's not telling the truth or doesn't understand how democracies work - *then* I'll beleive you when you say he's partisan.

Re:Carter's comments are totally partisan! (2, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367240)

How is this? See my other posts in this discussion for the URL.

But the database of felons supplied by FDLE does not list Hispanic as an ethnic group ''believe it or not,'' said Nicole DeLara, spokeswoman for the secretary of state. ``We have not been able to determine why this wasn't caught. The potential felon database is now retroactively void.''

Re:Carter's comments are totally partisan! (4, Insightful)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367468)

From my point of view - Mrs. Harris followed the letter of the law. It was the State Supreme court that kept on making it up as it went along!

Yeah, well... are you partisan?

Obviously, Jimmy Carter is a Democrat. If being a Democrat entails being so partisan that his comments should be ignored... then you should ignore my comment too. And probably yours as well.

Otherwise, Carter has proven himself to be one of the most honorable and honest people to have ever entered public service. No, I don't think he was necesarily a great president. But he was certainly honest. His credibility is impeccable.

Right?

Re:Carter's comments are totally partisan! (2, Insightful)

esme (17526) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367682)

Second - and more to the point - President Carter is a totally partisan observer here, and I discount ANYTHING he says on the subject due to that fact.

I can't believe this crap is modded Insightful.

Are you even vaguely aware of what Carter has done since he was president? That he's a widely-respected elections monitor? And that he recently won the Nobel Peace Prize for this? We're not talking about some partisan hack like James Carville, here.

And the thing about Katherine Harris (and the FL Supreme Court, too, btw), is that the law wasn't particularly clear or helpful. So human decisions had to be made. And those decisions never went against the partisan interests involved. Never. Call me cynical, but that looks dirty to me.

-Esme

Re:Carter's comments are totally partisan! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10368121)

Call me cynical... but why would I believe that the Nobel Peace Prize committee is non-partizan in the first place?

Hello? Yasser Arafat won it!

They don't want to know the gov. is corrupt. (1, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10368133)


See this book on page 405 for the beginning of a description of the conflicts of interest and government corruption of Jeb Bush, governor of Florida: The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty [amazon.com] .

For the corruption caused by the Bush family in general, see the many descriptions starting on page 397 and continuing throughout chapter 20 to page 428. "A glimpse into the business dealings of the Bush family shows that they acquired their wealth through the intermingling of public policy and private interests." This is Ms. Kelley's overly polite way of saying the Bush family sells the U.S. government to whoever will pay the most.

It's crazy to say the honest President Carter is partisan. It's really, really crazy to defend Jeb Bush.

I knew already, from reading about it for many years, that the Bush family was heavily involved with the Saudi Arabians most disliked by Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden says the Bush family's (now former) business associates are preventing needed changes in Saudi Arabia. I knew George W. Bush's father attended a meeting with a brother of Osama bin Laden on the day before 9/11. I don't accept Osama bin Laden's violence; I think his ideas for the future of Saudi Arabia are not sensible and not achievable. However, his ideas and the ideas of many Arabs that the U.S. government is supporting corruption in Saudi Arabia seem correct. This corruption has been encouraged by George W. Bush's father.

What I didn't remember was that Neil Bush was involved in business with Scott Hinckley, the brother of John Hinckley, Jr., who almost killed President Reagan. Had Reagan died, George H.W. Bush would have become president. Scott Hinckley had "given a lot of money to the Bush family". (See page 384.)

Also, I didn't realize that the Air National Guard began drug testing for cocaine on the same month that George W. Bush dropped out of the Guard. (Page 301.) Alcoholics use cocaine because it helps them drink more, I'm told by an alcoholic friend.

Aside the from the known corruption, there are literally hundreds of coincidences and associations like this where there was a Bush family involvement, and then something bad happened to the United States. For other short descriptions of the widespread corruption, see the reviews of 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the book linked above.

Many Americans, like the person who posted the parent comment, have a hard time accepting that their government has become, in some ways, corrupt. There is so much corruption that one Slashdot comment cannot even begin to describe it.

Bush and Cheney are the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:

George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest [futurepower.org]

George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest [futurepower.org]

George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also.

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest [futurepower.org]

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest [futurepower.org]

The corruption is exactly what you would expect with dry drunks [counterpunch.org] in charge. (It is more polite to call them "non-drinking alcholics".)

Other Bush family members have been arrested also. How does your family compare to the Bush family?

--
Bush: Borrowing money [brillig.com] to try to make his administration look good.

Forgot the link: (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10368213)


In the parent comment, I forgot the link to reviews of the 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the Kelley book linked above: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org] .

--
24 wars [hevanet.com] since WW2: Creating fear so rich [hevanet.com] people [hevanet.com] can profit.

LeftDot (1, Insightful)

thefatz (97467) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366687)

When do we see the "I hate the dems" part of slashdot?

Typical of slashdot editors. "Were in our world, as far left as we want to be." Slashdot bashs and bash, either microsoft, or sun, or republicians or whomever...Yet there never is a real solution in sight.

S/N ratio....

Re:LeftDot (1)

nullportal (811666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366913)

Except for the one embarassing run in with the cult of Scientology when Slashdot was confronted with force majeur, I've never seen Slashdot try to censor anything its readers deem worthy of saying to others. Get up on your hind legs and bray if you've got something to say. Don't trash Slashdot.

Re:LeftDot (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366982)

Then explain why so many pro dem/ pro kerry stories are posted.

Hint, it isn't because they are not being submitted.

Re:LeftDot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10366926)

and when's the last time YOU submitted a pro-right/anti-left story? Never? ok then...

Re:LeftDot (3, Insightful)

PurpleFloyd (149812) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367214)

Oh, you have a problem with the site's leanings? Sorry about that. I guess the editors just forgot to put up the latest motto, "News for thefatz, Stuff that caters to thefatz's worldview." If you don't like the political leanings here, then there are plenty [newsmax.com] of places [freerepublic.com] you can go to get your political news and discussion fix. Face it, you came here. If you don't like it, you can leave.

The editors aren't required to cater to anyone's views, yours included. If you don't like it, leave and send Taco or somebody else important an email explaining why you left. If enough people do this, then advertising numbers will go down, and the site will eventually shrivel and die. However, judging by the number of people who hang around here complaining and never leave, that day will probably be far in the future.

Re:LeftDot (1)

MasterDater (810357) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367516)

Alternatively he could make his voice heard and if enough people do this perhaps leftdot will remove its bias. You do not run the web, so you shouldn't tell other people to leave when they have other options, you come off like a real fascist jackass trying to act like you are just pointing out the obvious when in fact you are pushing an agenda (trying to get non-kerry lovers off the site).

Re:LeftDot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10368214)

The editors aren't required to cater to anyone's views, yours included.

No, they don't, but at least they could drop this charade.

We'll do our best to be fair with story selection. We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies. [slashdot.org]

This politics section hardly looks like it's being fair. It's as much an Anti-Bush/Pro-Kerry site more than anything else.

And in Venezuela there were fair elections??? (0, Troll)

gtwreck (74885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366688)

This is coming from the man who never met a dictator he didn't like. :)

He just recently sanctioned the obviously fraudulent elections in Venezuela as fair and we're supposed to believe what he's saying about Flordia?

GTWreck

Re:And in Venezuela there were fair elections??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10366952)

shut the fuck up troll

Re:And in Venezuela there were fair elections??? (2, Informative)

sybert (192766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367116)

Chavez rigged the election in Venezuela by rigging the random number generator [opinionjournal.com] used to randomly select which machines to audit.
In choosing which polling stations would be audited, the CNE (Venezuelan electoral council) refused to use the random number generator recommended by the Carter Center. Instead, the CNE insisted on its own program, run on its own computer.
This allowed Chavez to rig many electronic voting machines knowing that they would not be audited.

Re:And in Venezuela there were fair elections??? (0)

Procrastin8er (791570) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367609)

Carter is a doddering old fool, looking to salvage some of his reputation as a failed president. He did Great Job in Venezuela, real boost for democracy there. He the perfect person to have "review" the election situation, by that I mean he is a partisan joke. Actually, it is not that funny, this old fool is just lining up the ducks for the lawsuits that the Dems are going to file when Kerry loses.

waahhhh (0, Troll)

syrinx (106469) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366696)

the felons can't vote, cry me a river. maybe they should have thought of that before committing a felony?

Re:waahhhh (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366776)

the felons can't vote, cry me a river. maybe they should have thought of that before committing a felony?

Not necessarily. In many states, felons can petition to have their voting rights restored.

LK

Re:waahhhh (1)

aminorex (141494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367876)

In many states felons have the right to vote, period. I don't know of any states which place polling stations inside penitentiaries, however.

Re:waahhhh (1)

jaredmauch (633928) | more than 9 years ago | (#10368252)

You can fill out a request for absentee ballot. At least here in Michigan [michigan.org] , I can fill out my local ballot request form [scio.mi.us] online. If you take a quick gander at it, one of the checkboxes is "I cannot attend the polls because I am confined to jail awaiting arraignment or trial." Some of the other boxes might apply as well, including: "I am pyhsically unable to attend the polls without the assistance of another" (eg: I need someone to testify to get me out of jail) or "I expect to be absent from the community in which I am registered for the entire day ...".. serving 10-20 in the county lock-up just might cause you to be absent.

Re:waahhhh (4, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366788)

It's unAmerican. When someone has done their time, their debt to society is repaid, and they should have all their rights back, including the right to vote. If they don't get their right to vote back, then that's effectively an additional punishment. It's the punishment of being a second-class citizen in this country. One thing that justice strives for is a punishment measured to the crime. Removing voting rights permanently is a punishment that is not just, because it is not measured to fit the crime.

It also hurts the rest of us, because we live in a society where some people are not considered full-class citizens, and justice is not served. Unless we constantly strive to make our country MORE equal and MORE just, we will not have been the best country that we can be.

Your tough-guy talk is all very impressive to some people, but we're all better served by some rational arguments here.

Re:waahhhh (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366849)

It's unAmerican. When someone has done their time, their debt to society is repaid, and they should have all their rights back, including the right to vote. If they don't get their right to vote back, then that's effectively an additional punishment.

Since when has punishment for a crime been limited to "time"? We've got sex offernder registries, GPS anklets, conviction databases, felony disclosure laws for job applicants... (Personally, I don't nescicarily agree with these things, but they exist)

Essentially, their debt to society hasn't been repaid... At least not officially, since they have been sentenced to whatever time they did in addition to all this other stuff.

Re:waahhhh (4, Interesting)

Oliver Wendell Jones (158103) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366937)

A convicted felon is banned from owning a handgun for life in this country. That's a second ammendment right.

Why should voting be treated differently?

Re:waahhhh (1)

stevew (4845) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367180)

As others have said - it depends on the state.

But then, losing the right to vote is suspension of rights as well.

As far as I'm concerned it makes perfect sense to dis-allow convicted felons the vote. They commited crimes against law-abiding citizens and there ARE consequences.

So Carter is belly-aching about the felons not being able to vote. What about the soldiers that were cheated of their vote in 2000? It cuts both ways!

Re:waahhhh (4, Insightful)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367395)

No, Carter is belly-aching about the non-felons that were not being able to vote, because the Florida Secretary of State decided that they might be fellons or worse - vote Democrat.

Re:waahhhh (1)

aminorex (141494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367849)

> committed crimes against law-abiding citizens

Aren't most felons unlicensed drug salesmen?
Wouldn't that mean that they commited crimes *for the sake of* law-abiding citizens, rather than against them?

Re:waahhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10367211)

I've never heard of anyone being mugged by a vote-wielding assailant, have you?

Re:waahhhh (2, Funny)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367295)

I've never heard of anyone being mugged by a vote-wielding assailant, have you?

cf. Florida, 2000: Mugging of an entire country by 5 (of 9) vote-wielding assailants known as the "Supremes".

Re:waahhhh (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367305)

Because you can't rob a store with a vote?

Re:waahhhh (2, Insightful)

I(rispee_I(reme (310391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367486)

Because it allows for the following exploit (which has been seen in the wild, btw)

1) Create law that states a formerly innocuous act is now a crime.

2) Lock up people who commit that act and deny them the ability to change the law by virtue of their guilt.

3) Profit!

Bottom line, if the point of having prisons is to rehabilitate people, then any punishments administered by those prisons should end at some point. And really, don't you know about the electoral college? The presidential vote doesn't count anyway. Who cares if felons can do it or not? Let them have their fun!

Re:waahhhh (1)

lynx_user_abroad (323975) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367817)

A convicted felon is banned from owning a handgun for life in this country. That's a second ammendment right.

Where does the 2nd say anything about handguns?

Re:waahhhh (1)

pyro101 (564166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367169)

Remember though that in Florida that the felon list are those on probation or parol. So they technically are still serving out their sentance.

Re:waahhhh (3, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367688)

Nice troll.

"It's the punishment of being a second-class citizen in this country."

It's the punishment of being a felon convicted by a jury of his or her peers.

"One thing that justice strives for is a punishment measured to the crime."

The comission of a felony shows a gross indifference to the rights of others (at best), and as such those others (namely the population at large) has the right to take steps to make sure that they can't continue to abuse the rights of others in the voting booth.

"It also hurts the rest of us, because we live in a society where some people are not considered full-class citizens, and justice is not served."

It has, by definition, been served. If you're in jail you may still be able to vote; if you've never been convicted of anything worse than a misdemeanor you can still vote. Only upon conviction by a court of law of a felony are voting privileges revoked.

"It's unAmerican."

No, it's "being held accountable for your own actions."

Re:waahhhh (3, Insightful)

aminorex (141494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367861)

> The comission of a felony shows a gross indifference to the rights of others

Nonsense. Prisons are full to overflowing with people who went there in order to support the rights of others to control their own thoughts through the use of the chemical supplements of their choice.

Re:waahhhh (1)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 9 years ago | (#10368036)

Prisons are full to overflowing with people who went there in order to support the rights of others to control their own thoughts through the use of the chemical supplements of their choice.

That's a FELONOUS act?

-Brent

Re:waahhhh (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 9 years ago | (#10368455)

"Prisons are full to overflowing"

Not everybody in prison is a convicted felon. Some are awaiting the completion of their trial, others were convicted of misdemeanors.

Re:waahhhh (1)

Procrastin8er (791570) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367698)

Sorry, we are already way too soft on crime in this country. As far as their debt to society being paid when they get out, perhaps for some felons. But for others, they get off pretty easy. I have a friend who was raped as a child, and the scumbag did 10 years and was released (This was many years ago). I do not call that "paid". He had 10 years of discomfort against her lifetime of pain. Sorry voting rights for sleaze like that, no way!

Some Facts (1)

emaveneau (552950) | more than 9 years ago | (#10368238)

"In Alabama and Florida, 31 per cent of black men are permanently barred from voting."
Page 170 of "50 Facts That Should Change The World", Jessica Williams, 2004, Penguin. ISBN: 1-84046-547-6

The endnote for the quote refers to "Human Rights Watch/The Sentencing Project, 'Losing the Vote', 1998." Part of which is available online [hrw.org] But the partial online version does not identify the states; the third paragraph says

"In two states, our data show that almost one in three black men is disenfranchised."

Re:waahhhh (0, Flamebait)

sadomikeyism (677964) | more than 9 years ago | (#10368542)

Typical ignorance of a whiner. You CAN vote as a felon as soon as you leave the pen in all but 14 states. THOSE 14 states reqire the following:

a) that you finish your parole/probation, pay any fines (that is part of your punishment too, not just your incarceration),

and

b) petition the court for relief of civil disability. The court will review your behavior in the pen and on probation/parole and decide whether you deserve to receive your right to vote back or whether you have some additional re-civilizing to do.

Re:waahhhh (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10366939)

the felons can't vote, cry me a river.
Perhaps you've forgotten that in 2000, thousands of people who were not felons, but whose names were similar to those of convicted felons, were rejected from the polls. The database is horribly mismanaged, with negligence as the best case scenario, and intentional tampering quite possible.

Re:waahhhh (5, Insightful)

PurpleFloyd (149812) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367065)

The problem isn't that felons can or can't vote. It's that people who are likely to vote for Democrats are getting their voting rights taken away, and that people who are likely to vote for Republicans aren't. If the standard is fairly applied, there's no problem. However, if it's used to disenfranchise only one group, that goes against everything that America is supposed to stand for.

Another problem is that felons aren't the only ones being excluded. In the 2000 elections, there were people turned away from the polls because their name was the same as or similar to a convicted felon's, or even because of bad data entry which was never corrected. It's one thing that felons can't vote. It's quite another that law-abiding citizens can't vote because they're black, or their name is similar to someone who has commited a crime. That's just plain wrong.

Re:waahhhh (1)

Procrastin8er (791570) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367752)

likely to vote for Democrats Can you really be sure that they are likely to vote Dem? Is the Democratic party the party of choice for convicted felons? If Florida law states (I do not know if it really does) that convicted felons cannot vote, then why is this an issue. If it is a law and you want the law changed then get bill through the Florida state legislature. Isn't that the way the system works?

Re:waahhhh (1)

KingAdrock (115014) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367895)

I can't believe I'm saying it, but RTFA. Black felons are being singled out, where as hispanic felons (more like to vote Republican) are being given a free pass.

Re:waahhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10367651)

The problem isn't that felons can't vote it's that only black and white felons can't vote. The Hispanic felons can, because of a probably deliberate database problem.

Carter should go back to Habitat for Humanity (1, Insightful)

Mycroft_514 (701676) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366703)

At least there he is wanted. I, for one, already voted (got my Absentee ballot Friday) and while Nader was on the ballot, he didn't get my vote.

AKA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10366725)

Enough with the Moore-ish implied-conspircacy nudge-nidge wink-wink -ing. If you have evidence, slap it on the barrelhead. If not, do feel free to STFU. It's too easy a game to play to be of any substance otherwise. For example, why beleive Jimmy Carter (AKA, killer-rabbit victim, UFO-report filer, and the foreign-policy softie who voluntarily divested us of the Panama Canal)?

Carter? (-1, Flamebait)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366761)

Maybe if Carter would stop praising every two-bit dictator in the world, I would care what he says about democratic elections.

Bullshit! (-1, Troll)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366813)

Glenda Hood, (aka an elector for George W. Bush in 2000) recently attempted to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.

The Democrats are taking part in the same type of racial stereotyping that they accuse Republicans of. They are assuming that these black people are likely Democrats and that the latino people are likely Republicans soley because of the color of their skin.

Did they take the time to look at the voter registrations?

LK

Re:Bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10366905)

Who's guilty of stereotyping here?

Obviously, with numbers like that, there's a systematic bias. But the Democrats aren't the ones that are disqualifying those felons, it's the people that run the elections in Florida.

(Hint: It rhymes with "Schmepublicans.")

U R DUMB. (1, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366955)

https://registration.miami.com/reg/login.do?url=ht tp%3A%2F%2Fwww.miami.com%2Fmld%2Fmiamiherald%2F912 6001.htm [miami.com]

The method of determining how convicted felons would be identified was laid out in a 2002 settlement agreement between the state and several civil rights groups. The method uses race as one of several factors to determine whether a felon has registered to vote. The others are first name, last name and date of birth. If one of those fails to match up, the name is not added to the list for potential purging.

But the database of felons supplied by FDLE does not list Hispanic as an ethnic group ''believe it or not,'' said Nicole DeLara, spokeswoman for the secretary of state. ``We have not been able to determine why this wasn't caught. The potential felon database is now retroactively void.''

What they don't say... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366831)

What they do not say is that there isn't a place on those froms to mark hispanic. Most Hispanics would have been marked down as white...

But they don't tell you that. Hell, this is the same guy that said the elections in Ven. where 100% on the up and up.

Something bothers me.. (5, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366875)

Should the people who help run an election campaign also be in charge of vote counting or collection?

Isn't there some conflict of interest there?

Re:Something bothers me.. (1)

pyro101 (564166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367131)

Actually the Harris didn't count a single vote her job is to make sure that the counties certify the results and then add their totals together. Don't think she handled more than one ballot (her own). The bigger question is who is there when the ballot goes into the box or when boxes are combined or actually put through the machines to be counted? none of these people were brought up last year and typically in Democrat districts (the ones that were complaining) they were typically manned by Democrats.

Re:Something bothers me.. (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367453)

But that's not the point, should somebody who's job was to get more votes for one guy have ANYTHING to do with the process of voting?

I'm not saying they did anything last time, but why are family members and people whos jobs revolve around getting more votes for candidate X even considered for these important voting-related positions?

Re:Something bothers me.. (1)

pyro101 (564166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367528)

Because people who don't care about the politics don't care, they don't want to count they don't want run for office (those positions are elected, or nominated) or work with people who do. Yeah our system isn't perfect but whats the alternative Die-bold? I prefer lots of eyes watching over backroom deals or computer control, and BTW right now lots of eyes watching is just what we got.

Re:Something bothers me.. (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367792)

What about lots of eyes that have no direct ties to the people running for office?

Re:Something bothers me.. (0, Troll)

bergeron76 (176351) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367896)

Agreed. Judges, attorneys, and other lawmakers have to recuse themselves when faced with a topic that could be construed as conflict of interest. This essentially means that they admit that they can't make a fair decision based on a potential bias that may exist within them.

I too find it highly disturbing that the people that are going to ultimately decide whom will become the "most powerful man in the world" don't have to obide by similar rules.

I have a feeling that this is a last ditch effort by the right-wing Christians that are starting to realize that there is no god, and science just can't be refuted any longer. They are doing everything in their power to hold on the "Christian Power Base" that has existed for thousands of years; but that is quickly being discovered as fraud.

Any political party that is primarily driven by Religion and the money of the sheep it can fool; does not deserve to control the most powerful country in the free world - particularly a country that founded itself on the separation between Church and State.

I remember America as a great melting-pot of ALL religions, races, and cultures - all equally respected. Since the Christian Right Wing Republicans have been in power trying to push religious bias on the rest of the world, bad things have happened.

Re:Something bothers me.. (2, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367937)

I was reading your comment and was nodding my head in agreement.. until you went off the edge of the map with that right wing thing.. Where the hell did that come from?

Do you have your tin foil hat on too tightly?

what about this? (3, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366880)

Posted on 08/25/2004 6:20:16 AM PDT by moonman

ABC News (radio) announced that over 46,000 New York City residents were registered to vote in both their home district and also in the state of Florida. The anouncement mentioned that two-thirds (2/3) are registered Democrats.

009090-89890-
NEW YORK, (UPI) -- Allegations first made by the New York Daily News that residents of New York state may have voted illegally in Florida elections has produced calls for a formal investigation by Florida officials.

A study of computer records in New York and Florida conducted by the Daily News found 46,000 New York residents illegally registered to vote in both states.

The paper's investigation also uncovered the fact that as few as 400 and as many as 1,000 of those illegally registered voted twice in at least one election.

In some cases, people were found to have violated the law by voting twice in as many as seven elections.

"We expect that people will follow the law," said Florida Department of State spokeswoman Alia Faraj. "If there is an indication that people haven't, then the appropriate agencies must look into this matter." -30-

909089-89089080-

Re:what about this? (1)

NJVil (154697) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367805)

What about it?

They violated the law and should be prosecuted. What's the problem? Nobody except a blind partisan is going to think that this is a good thing for a democracy.

So your point is what? Hmm?

Oh, I see... it's tit for tat... some Democrats break the law, so it's alright that Republicans do comparable misdeeds, if not worse because they're actually sanctioned by the Republican party and its agents.

So do everyone a favor and stop with the childish finger-pointing. Everyone here knows there is corruption on both sides, so your foolish comment does nothing to solve the problems.

Why don't I ever seem to have moderator points when I need them??

Idiot.

Re:what about this? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367972)

Think about what you are saying.

When the Dems point the finger, it's OK! (I don't see the media covering the Dems 'issues' nearly as much as they cover the GOPers)

When the GOPer point the finger, it's WRONG.

NO, its wrong NO MATTER WHAT SIDE DOES IT.

Re:what about this? (1)

xeaxes (554292) | more than 9 years ago | (#10368310)

Honestly, if you have a home there or live there for some part of the year, you should be allowed to vote in the elections there.



My reasoning is that you do pay taxes there, and the representative's decisions there will effect your life.



If you get the opportunity to vote twice in an election, so be it. Each state conducts their own voting and has their own policies for the federal elections. Essentially it is like 50 smaller elections, but they get tallied to one big election in the end. So, congrats, you have a life in both states, you can try to effect it.

Not to mention.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10366908)

the devistation that four hurricanes have just brought down upon Florida. We've only got 5 weeks or so until the election, there will still be many thousands of people whose homes are not rebuilt, whose infrastructure is broken, who may not have power, etc. Even if the political problems in Florida disappeared, could they still have a fair and valid election in just over a month's time?

Re:Not to mention.. (2, Interesting)

nullportal (811666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366974)

In the US electoral theory, a fair and valid election is one in which a sufficiently large number of competent people's opinions or estimates of what the public welfare is and requires are collected, so as to counteract the shortsightedness and biases of mere mortals who, being fewer in number, have less chance of accurately perceiving this. Lately an idea has sprung up that every breathing person of age should vote to make an election valid, but this ideal is not well linked to the idea that a large enough body of people have a better chance of correctly determining the public welfare. It is a very poorly thought through political ideal.

Re:Not to mention.. (1)

rlwhite (219604) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367570)

When a disputed election involving millions of voters comes down to 500 votes (officially), we can hypothesize that either there wasn't a sufficiently large number of people to drown out shortsightedness and bias or that the candidates were so similar that they were equally reasonable choices. Now for the follow-up election we're talking about having the number of voters reduced. Does that really inspire hope of having a clear vote?

Carter Lies. (-1, Flamebait)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10366927)

https://registration.miami.com/reg/login.do?url=ht tp%3A%2F%2Fwww.miami.com%2Fmld%2Fmiamiherald%2F912 6001.htm [miami.com]

The method of determining how convicted felons would be identified was laid out in a 2002 settlement agreement between the state and several civil rights groups. The method uses race as one of several factors to determine whether a felon has registered to vote. The others are first name, last name and date of birth. If one of those fails to match up, the name is not added to the list for potential purging.

But the database of felons supplied by FDLE does not list Hispanic as an ethnic group ''believe it or not,'' said Nicole DeLara, spokeswoman for the secretary of state. ``We have not been able to determine why this wasn't caught. The potential felon database is now retroactively void.''

Re:Carter Lies. (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367424)

Did you read the linked article? Carter's statement is neither a lie, nor is it misleading. Perhaps you don't like the summary.

Re:Carter Lies. (2, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367508)

This is from the LA.

Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.

Perhaps YOU should read the fucking article before you tell others they haven't.

Re:Carter Lies. (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367633)

Right. And your "Carter Lies" post does not contradict that statement. When he says "fumbling attempt", my understanding would be that the attempt was not successful.

Perhaps YOU should read the fucking article before you tell others they haven't.

Fuck you.

When I said, "Did you read the linked article?" It was because I honestly couldn't tell. I was curious whether you got your take from the summary, or because we disagreed about what Carter had said.

Re:Carter Lies. (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367705)

The DB did not ID who was Hispanic. Since this info wasn't included in the DB anyone who says it was is lying. Or are you telling me that carter just made a 'mistake'?

Re:Carter Lies. (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367870)

Oh, then I think we disagree about what happened. My understanding was:

They took the list of felons and the list of reigstered voters. If someone was on both lists, they added them to the list for potential purging.
Matches were made by name and race (and other criterion as well). One source list did not give "hispanic" as an option for race, while the other one did (or vice versa).

There were hispanic people on both source lists, but due to the mismatch in listed race, only about 61 hispanic voters were actually added to the purge list.

Do I have that completely wrong? My interpretation fits both Carter's statement, and the quote that you provided. While I've read other articles on the issue, I didn't read the Miami Herald article that you linked.

Since this info wasn't included in the DB anyone who says it was is lying.

My understanding was that this figure was investigated outside of the DB, after the news became public.

Re:Carter Lies. (1)

pauldy (100083) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367594)

It is both regardless of your opinion. He makes a lot of false claims in the article one of which is used in the summary here. It is not Jeb Bush's job to oversee the elections it is the job of the secretary of state. At least view it for what it is a purely partisan move by a socialist who thinks ultimately the ignorant masses won't know the difference.

Carter? (3, Insightful)

medcalf (68293) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367090)

Let's see, after his interesting call on the Venezuelan elections (it is legit, said Carter before all of the votes were even certified, and well before all of the interesting information about electronic voting machines programmed by a company owned by Chavez's brother were out in the open), he now wants to call the Florida elections before they happen?

Not a word about the estimated 15000-20000 voters in the FL panhandle (generally a Republican area) who didn't vote after the networks called the election for Gore before the polls closed in the panhandle.

Not a word about the 4.4% error rate (mostly overvotes) in Palm Beach County (controlled by Democrat election officials) vice the 0.4% statewide error rate. Or about the interesting fact that Bush got fewer votes in Palm Beach County than all four Republican congressional candidates combined.

No word about the tens of thousands of New Yorkers (generally Democrat-leaning) also registered in Florida.

Not a word about motor voter issues, or the illegality of even asking for an ID at the polling place in most states.

Not a word about electronic voting machines that don't produce a paper record. Not a word about problems with absentee ballot fraud. Not a word about the interesting character of elections in Chicago.

I think that there are problems with the integrity of votes in the US. But I only see the Democrats getting exercised about it when the issue might play against them. Then, they are vitriolic. But never when the problems help them.

There is room for a dispassionate look at the issue. This is just partisan grandstanding.

Venezuelan elections & coups (2, Interesting)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367373)

Let's see, after his interesting call on the Venezuelan elections (it is legit, said Carter before all of the votes were even certified, and well before all of the interesting information about electronic voting machines programmed by a company owned by Chavez's brother were out in the open), he now wants to call the Florida elections before they happen?

If I were to focus on this paragraph, I'm sure I'd be modded "offtopic". Aw, what the heck:

I wouldn't be surprised if Chavez hired some monkeys [slashdot.org] to play with the votes. As I recall, though, Chavez was nearly ousted in a coup orchestrated by the oil companies not so long ago. The Bush administration was falling all over itself to recognize the coup plotters as the "new government"... only to be red-faced (if not red-handed) when Chavez returned to the scene.

I doubt we're aligned politically, but you seem to know a lot more about the situation than I do... care to expand on the Venezuelan vote, the attempted coup, and possibly how neither side seems be anywhere close to trustworthy?

Hmmm... that last bit sounds familiar. That's why I'm voting Green [votecobb.org] .

American Election Officials (1)

sasha328 (203458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10368489)

<disclaimer> I am not an American</disclaimer>
It really amazes me (an Australian) how convoluted your election system is. I do not claim that our system is the best, but at least it is simple.
When I change addresses, I have to notify the Electoral Comission [aec.gov.au] of my new address. Based on that, they tell me which electorate I can vote in for local, state and federal elections. All voting in Australia uses the same system. There are no varieties in the method.It is simple and proven. (Actually, they even sell their services to corporation that need to conduct internal voting, such as shareholder votes etc)
That is why there are extremely rare cases of voting irregularities here. From the outside, the American system is so confusing, irregular and disorganised that it actually is a pain just to keep track of what's going on. It is really amazing that in a federal election, voting is controlled on a county basis or even a state basis. But then again, like I said, I am not an American, so maybe, I'm missing something.

Score 0, Off-Topic (2, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367123)

I vote we discontinue the Politics category on Slashdot. The end result of this new category has been a venue for flames and nothing else. There are other forums for discussion on these issues; why clutter up a site dedicated to science and technology?

Re:Score 0, Off-Topic (3, Funny)

stevew (4845) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367215)

Wait a minute - that discribes ALL of Slashdot!!!

How is the Politics portion different?

Re:Score 0, Off-Topic (1)

presearch (214913) | more than 9 years ago | (#10368109)

Thank you for your submission!
We have tallied your vote as "YES" for continuing the Politics category on Slashdot.

Jeb

Katherine Harris (0, Redundant)

bwt (68845) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367534)

You are obviously a biased democrat. I see that you are maligning Katherine Harris, among others.

Katherine Harris's determinations during the 2000 election were the correct interpretation of the law. She did nothing other than apply the law exactly as it was written, saying that a vote is a legal vote only if it occurs via the procedure established by the legislature, to which the US Constitution grants the plenary power for determining the process for selecting the states electors, which need not even be a public vote.

If you recall, her views were upheld by the lower court's democratic judges, and were only overturned by the Florida Supreme Court (whose decisions were vacated by SCOTUS and exposed as nonsensical). When the issue went to the US Supreme Court, three of the justices above were prepared to overrule SCOFL on this point and reinstate her original position, but the per curium opinion resolved the case on the equal protection issue without addressing whether her interpretation of the statute was correct. It's kind of unfortunate that SCOFL tried to completely take over the electoral process with their stupid standardless statewide manual recount, because otherwise, Harris could have been proven correct in her application of the law.

I believe that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that Harris abused her discretion by following the law as written is one of the worst examples I have ever seen of judicial activism for partisan purposes. There was NO basis in law whatsoever for their actions and what SCOFL did was truly disgusting partisan legislating from the bench to try to steal an election.

Oh, and Bush wins even without Florida [electoral-vote.com] . Though I believe the electoral college futures market is the best predictor. They say Bush will win Florida [geekmedia.org] . While Rassmussen has it as a tossup [rasmussenreports.com] .

Re:Katherine Harris (1)

slughead (592713) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367691)

As a Democrat, I find it appalling you'd stick up for an election-rigger like Katherine Harris.

Using technicalities to change the results of an election? That's so wrong.

Now I'm off to petition for Nader to get off the ballot.

"Flamebait" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10368053)

Nice to see an informative, factual post get modded down by those open-minded moderators just because it disagreed with their worldview.

BTW, modding anything flamebait in the politics section is hilarious when it is the editors who are baiting people into flamewars.

What a bunch of crap (2, Insightful)

pauldy (100083) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367540)

From the anything to get bush out of office department:

Yet another case of the slashdot editorial bias. It isn't the governors job to take care of these issues. It may make for more sensational headlines to link them in this way but it is a lie and for gods sake the state has just been hit by three hurricanes in a row. Not to mention the articles lack of anything but subjective factoids that do nothing but stir emotion when invoked out of context.

Re:What a bunch of crap (1)

Quinn (4474) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367990)

The politics section has been mindless neohippy bullshit from the start. I am shocked and dismayed to find supporters of Bush more reasonable and consistent than the idiots in the ABB camp.

But he allows Machine Guns... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367750)


How about stationing machine gun toting troops at polling places like they did in Venezuela ?

How about the curious number of ballot boxes that had the same number of anti-Chavez votes ?

aka - a grammar nazi strikes (1)

real_smiff (611054) | more than 9 years ago | (#10367944)

ok i don't normally do grammar correction posts but this one is a pet peeve of mine, so please excuse:

That word, 'aka', does not mean what you think it means. aka is an abbreviation for "also known as". it is used for pseudonyms, aliases, nicknames, working names, legalized names, pen names, noms de plume, maiden names etc. In this case, Jeb Bush IS the brother of G.W. Bush, and so on. It's not a nick name or anything else.

thanks, and yes there are typos in this post!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>