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!

Disenfranchised In Nevada

timothy posted about 10 years ago | from the suffrage-subtraction dept.

United States 250

An anonymous reader writes "If you are a Democrat and you decided to register to vote in Nevada through non-official channels, you may have gotten disenfranchised by a private voter registration company. In this news article, it appears that employees of 'Voters Outreach of America' have been busy tearing up registration forms, specifically those from Democrats. The article indicates that hundreds to thousands of voter registrations may have been trashed. Unfortunately, the deadline to register to vote in Nevada has already passed."

cancel ×

250 comments

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

Let me just say... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515042)

ROFL!

!FP? (4, Interesting)

temojen (678985) | about 10 years ago | (#10515050)

Why is this not on the Front Page?

Re:!FP? (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | about 10 years ago | (#10515219)

Because this old news. Stuff like this has been happening ever since you had to mark an affiliation on the voter registration form. Because it is so easy to detect, this kind of crime is not common. But if you think it's only supporters of Bush that are doing this, you are naive.

Putting this story on the front page would be like posting "mafia caught runnning prostitution ring". Yawn.

Re:!FP? (4, Insightful)

temojen (678985) | about 10 years ago | (#10515267)

Sorry, I'm from Canada, where we have sane election laws.

You have to mark your affiliation on your registration??? WTF?!

Who thought that was a good idea???

Re:!FP? (-1, Flamebait)

HebrewToYou (644998) | about 10 years ago | (#10515350)

Have you heard of primary elections?

In California, for instance, Republicans can only nominate a republican to be their presidential candidate. Democrats can only nominate a democrat. Independants cannot nominate anybody as I recall, but I wouldn't know since I've declared my party affiliation.

This is a very sensible decision to make since it would be in the Democrats best interest to nominate the most unelectable Republican and vice versa.
But since you're Canadian you wouldn't know much about common sense, eh?
How aboot them Apples? ;)

Ummm... (2, Insightful)

temojen (678985) | about 10 years ago | (#10515794)

Why should the state be involved in a party's internal nomination? Isn't that what party conventions are for?

Re:!FP? (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 10 years ago | (#10516312)

You can always do a system like Illinois- you choose which party to vote for in the primary on that day. Despite being fairly left, I voted republican in 2000 because I liked McCain.

Re:!FP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516513)

Texas uses that system too. When you get your voter registration certificate, there's a line that says "Voted in the __________ Party Primary", which gets stamped when you take your primary ballot.

But I think that the fact that we have primary elections at all is an indication that our election system is severely flawed. If we used an election method that wasn't vulnerable to vote-splitting, then McCain and Bush could both run, and you could vote for McCain without worrying that this would help Kerry get elected,

Re:!FP? (4, Informative)

Colazar (707548) | about 10 years ago | (#10516543)

This only became the case recently in CA, which had had a "blanket primary" (no political party declared, you can vote for anyone you want in the primaries, and the top vote-getter of each party advanced to the final election) until the Democratic and Republican parties took it to the Supreme Court and had it declared unConstitutional on the grounds that it violated their rights to freedom of assembly.

WA state had also had a blanket primary for a lot longer (70 years) and that just got invalidated in the last year.

Personally, I can agree with the reasoning of the court (only members of a group should be allowed to pick that groups representatives), but I think that it caused a bad policy decision. The advantage of a blanket primary is that it keeps you enfranchised on both the state and local level if you live in a Republican region of an overwhelmingly Democratic state (or vice versa). If the local Republicans always win, and the statewide Democrats always win, then having to pick a ballot by party automatically cuts you out of having a say in one set of those races.

Also, the studies that I saw that looked at "malicious cross-over voting" (Democrats voting for the kookiest Republican, so that the Republican would be sure to lose in the general election) concluded that when that happened, it was far out-weighed by voters crossing over to vote for what they thought was the opposite, the more centrist, least-objectionable candidate. (Which I think was the real problem that the national parties had with the blanket primaries--it tended to produce candidates who were less beholden to the party, and less partisan.)

BTW, I think anyone who crosses over to get the opposite party to nominate a crackpot, in order to help out their "real" party is playing with fire, anyway. Once someone makes it to the general election, anything can happen.

Here in WA, everyone was so disgusted with having to only take primary ballots from one party that there is an initiative to change the system to the Louisiana-style primary system, where everyone running for an office is on the same primary ballot, and the top two votegetters advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. From what I can tell, it stands a very good chance of passing. (Personally, I think it would work better than the "declaring your party" primary we have now, and not as well as the blanket primary. But we shall see.)

Re:!FP? (1)

Krow10 (228527) | about 10 years ago | (#10515371)

You have to mark your affiliation on your registration??? WTF?!

Who thought that was a good idea???

The major parties. But this is done on a state-by-state basis. I currently live in Virginia and we are not required to give a party affiliation on our registration. I voted in 2000s Republican primary (I was required to sign a pledge not to vote in the Democratic Primary, which I honored) and 2004s Democratic (I was not required to sign anything,) without changing my state registration. When I lived in Pennsylvania, where you are required to give affiliation, I registered as independant and did not participate in any party primary.

Cheers,
Craig

Re:!FP? (3, Informative)

kalidasa (577403) | about 10 years ago | (#10515384)

You have to mark your affiliation on your registration??? WTF?! Who thought that was a good idea???

Historically, it was necessary to determine which primaries you were eligible to vote in: Democrats voted in Democratic primaries, Republicans in Republican primaries. A lot of states (like my own) have since gone to a system where you can register as "unenrolled," then select any (in theory; in practice, either) primary ballot at the primary. Taking a primary ballot effectively registers you in that party. What you then must do is re-register as "unenrolled" to retain your ability to select either primary ballot; but conveniently, there are registration cards at the polling places (only during primaries, and only for those who are already registered and want to change their enrollment). Nevertheless, a lot of people do still put their affiliations on their registrations, and it is possible that many states still require you to list an affiliation on your registration in order to vote in a primary.

Re:!FP? (3, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | about 10 years ago | (#10515370)

What a strawman argument.

This isn't just a normal filler news report, it contains information that people may be able to take action on and should do so if possible. The deadline to register may have passed in Nevada, but the group has also been active in Oregon and who knows where else, and in some of those locations people still may have time to correct the problem.

Every year they run short on flu shots and every year there are news stories about where you can go to still get shots. Every year there are new outbreaks of west nile virus and every year there are news stories about what signs to watch for and who you should call if you see dead birds lying about. Every few months or years some area has accidental contamination of their water supply and the news runs stories on what areas are affected and for how long.

It doesn't matter how often or regularly such events happen, if there is a specific case going on at the moment the news has a responsibility to try and inform those people who might be affected so they can take appropriate action.

Re:!FP? (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 years ago | (#10515317)

Because it is entirely unsubstantiated.

All we know is two guys claimed it happened. If it is reasonable to think this group might have been destroying voter registrations, why is it not reasonable to think these two guys were themselves taking those registrations and shredding them to frame this group? It's not like that sort of thing would be unprecedented, in this history of political dirty tricks.

Re:!FP? (4, Insightful)

jamie (78724) | about 10 years ago | (#10515372)

Because it is entirely unsubstantiated. All we know is two guys claimed it happened.

That is incorrect. As the article makes clear, the physical evidence that the "two guys" provided backs up their story.

You may not be convinced, but don't overstate your case. The article may not be proven yet, but it is clearly substantiated.

Re:!FP? (1, Insightful)

Spamsonite (154239) | about 10 years ago | (#10516702)

Until the remnants of the registration forms are tested for fingerprint patterns that correspond with ripping up the sheets of paper, and those fingerprints traced back to someone other than the workers who are making the report, it is incorrect to blindly assume that the campaign workers are telling the truth. The alarming claim that those two workers are making is one that understandably gets front-page national media coverage, but weeks from now if the company is cleared and the workers discredited, the story will be buried someplace back in page 16. Because of how the media and the collective memory of most Americans work, the "victims" (in this case, Democrats) stand to gain a lot - even if the charges are eventually disproven. If the allegations are true, then of course the company officials must answer for them.

It certainly warrants the immediate attention of law enforcement and whichever election commissions have jurisdiction there, but until some prints consistent with document destruction are found, and traced to the managers, no one's story should be believed. It's too easy to fake.

Dislexics of the World, Untie!

Re:!FP? (1)

Sevn (12012) | about 10 years ago | (#10516249)

pay no attention to the man behind the curtains! [portland.or.us]

It's starting to pick up steam. For everyone's sake, I hope this is all piss and wind but it's starting to look pretty legitimate.

Standards? (4, Insightful)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10515056)

There has got to be a way to standardize the election process in this country to help prevent this kind of fraud, or all the nonsense coming from the various kinds of voting machines.

How hard can it be to come up with a simple, standard solution. Why does every jurisdiction have to do things in so many different ways. We have California, who has done everything they can but offer free beer to get illegal immigrants to vote. We have Florida that uses all those weird voting machines (which ironically don't see to be a problem in other states). We have millions being spent on electronic voting that's about as secure as Al Sharpton at a KKK meeting.

I have no doubt that these things are largely caused by crooked individuals and not some vast conspiracy on the part of the political parties involved (regardless of the shameless fear-mongering to the contrary).

I would think the richest and most powerful country in the world could do better.

Re:Standards? (1)

Krow10 (228527) | about 10 years ago | (#10515263)

There has got to be a way to standardize the election process in this country to help prevent this kind of fraud, or all the nonsense coming from the various kinds of voting machines.
It would require a Constitutional Amendment to do this nationally; or a ruling similar to Bush v Gore (without the "don't use this ruling to decide anything else" clause,) but don't expect that. Currently, each state is in charge of its own election process. IIANM, the only federal oversight of a state's election process (not the campaigning process) has come via the 14th Amendment requiring that each state treat its citizens equally. I certainly think your idea is a good one.

Cheers,
Craig

Re:Standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515403)

The downside of voting standards is that now things can get fucked up in a very centralized way. It wouldn't be any better, because instead of having a ton of little battles at the state level, you would have big major battles at the federal level.

I'm not saying that I like the current system, I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that standards would really solve the underlying problems.

Re:Standards? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10515912)

It would in the case of places like Florida, which clearly didn't think through the rules they passed in 2000, and were totally screwed when those rules turned out to be grossly ineffective to deal with the problems that showed up. Whether or not changing bad or incomplete rules in the middle of the election was what the whole issue of the 2000 election in Florida was about. Hopefully those issues have now been addressed by the legislature after seeing what a mess they made.

I guess what I'm saying is that there should be a rule that election processes shouldn't be stupid, but that's just not possible. The states have no monopoly on stupid rules.

Re:Standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515977)

If everyone used the same standard, then everyone would complain when it is messed up and it would get fixed. If it works fine, then everyone benefits, and nobody will want to change it.

Re:Standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516422)

That is assuming that everybody will agree when the system is bad and also when the system is good.

Often, the problems are not obvious to the general population until after the fact, and also even if some people like a method, others will not. The result could be years of wrangling out the politics of how to run politics...

Re:Standards? (4, Insightful)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | about 10 years ago | (#10515532)

Of course there is. Just haul your lazy ass down to the county courthouse, ask for the elections department and register there.

So would you fill out a credit card application that someone on the street shoved in your face? I'm thinking that it's just silliness that people trusted someone to do the right thing here...

Re:Standards? (1)

jkujawa (56195) | about 10 years ago | (#10516768)

So would you fill out a credit card application that someone on the street shoved in your face?

Like on hundreds of college campuses around the nation?
Now, I agree -- trusting credit card companies is dumb.
But it happens a lot.

Re:Standards? (5, Insightful)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 10 years ago | (#10516330)

I have no doubt that these things are largely caused by crooked individuals and not some vast conspiracy on the part of the political parties involved

seeing as how the guy who runs the company behind these shenanigans is funded by the RNC (and is the ex-head of a state republican committee), i'd look at the situation a little deeper.

Re:Standards? (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 10 years ago | (#10516547)

How hard can it be to come up with a simple, standard solution?

Well, it depends on whether you want that simple, single, standard solution to be right!

How do we know that if we standardized that it would be correct?

Diversity is both a strength and a weakness. The right methods will, over time, prevail. The wrong methods won't. If we have 50 different methods then we increase the chance that one of those 50 methods will be right; and over time it means we speed up the process of finding the right answer.

If we only had one process then we'd need to take much more time and many more iterations to find the right process.

List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTERS! (0)

DAldredge (2353) | about 10 years ago | (#10515084)

http://www.americavotes.org/ [americavotes.org]

ACORN
AFL-CIO
AFSCME
America Coming Together (ACT)
American Federation of Teachers
Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United With the Million Mom March
Clean Water Action
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund
Democracy for America
EMILY's List
Environment2004
The Human Rights Campaign
League of Conservation Voters
The Media Fund
MoveOn.org Voter Fund
Moving America Forward
Music for America
NAACP National Voter Fund
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Education Association
National Jewish Democratic Council
National Treasury Employees Union
Partnership for America's Families
People for the American Way
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
SEIU
Sierra Club
USAction
Voices for Working Families
Young Voter Alliance
21st Century Democrats

--00--0-

Yea, those look like MAJOR GOP supporters. They real question is why this is being done by a group with major support from DEM leaning groups.

those arent 'backers' (1)

putch (469506) | about 10 years ago | (#10515132)

those are coalition partners. big difference.

Re:those arent 'backers' (0, Flamebait)

DAldredge (2353) | about 10 years ago | (#10515153)

No, they are member groups. You would know this if you had read more than 50 words of their site.

http://www.americavotes.org/what_we_do.cfm [americavotes.org]

Re:those arent 'backers' (1)

putch (469506) | about 10 years ago | (#10515490)

backers are still different--i'm looking to see who pays the bills. those are members of the coalition. all they've done, i expect, is say 'yes, voter registration is good'

but i do concede, look to my other post, that this certainly does NOT look like a gop front group.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (0, Flamebait)

b-baggins (610215) | about 10 years ago | (#10515174)

Maybe they're afraid of getting caught like the people in Illinois, New Mexico, Colorado and Iowa where massive registration fraud is being uncovered. And it ain't Republican registration fraud. You can tell because the party affiliation isn't being reported.

well it doesn't look like a GOP outfit (1)

putch (469506) | about 10 years ago | (#10515269)

did some googling. and checked out the whois [dnsstuff.com] for americavotes.org. it's registered to a "Carol Trevelyan Strategy Group". googled that and it seems to only do business with progressives.

those local affiliates can have some weird news sources.

More than one America votes? (2, Informative)

georgewad (154339) | about 10 years ago | (#10515380)

There's a comment on this blog that suggests that there are more than one, I'm guessing the one you cite isn't the one in Nevada).
Portland Communique [portland.or.us] also mentions that they're seeing something similar in Portland.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (5, Informative)

rev_sanchez (691443) | about 10 years ago | (#10515606)

A GOP funded organization stole the name from the real America Votes to help perpetuate this fraud. Aside from disenfranchising dozens? hundreds? thousands? of Democrats I think one of the biggest tragedies is that the real, non-partisan America Votes will be hurt by this. I don't blame you for being confused, that was the point.

link 1 [klas-tv.com]

link 2 [mailtribune.com]

Text:
(Oct. 12) -- Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.

Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.

The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at Democrats. The focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.

"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assisatnt to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.

Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms, all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law.

So the people on those forms who think they will be able to vote on Election Day are sadly mistaken. We attempted to speak to Voters Outreach but found that its office has been rented out to someone else.

The landlord says Voters Outreach was evicted for non-payment of rent. Another source said the company has now moved on to Oregon where it is once again registering voters. It's unknown how many registrations may have been tossed out, but another ex-employee told Eyewitness News she had the same suspicions when she worked there.

It's going to take a while to sort all of this out, but the immediate concern for voters is to make sure you really are registered.

Call the Clark County Election Department at 455-VOTE orclick here to see if you are registered.

The company has been largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National Committee. Similar complaints have been received in Reno where the registrar has asked the FBI to investigate.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (4, Informative)

jamie (78724) | about 10 years ago | (#10515615)

No, that's "America Votes." The Republican-headed effort to register Republicans and disenfranchise Democrats is called Project America Votes [libertypost.org] . The linked news story was confused, and you are confused, because the GOP-headed organization was misrepresenting itself as a nationally-known, reputable voter registration organization. Needless to say, the organization in question is not too happy about it, and is "in the process of pursuing all of [its] legal options."

Just when you thought the story couldn't get any scummier...

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (0)

DAldredge (2353) | about 10 years ago | (#10516143)

Then I was mistaken, I thought this was just another /. hit piece on the GOP.

And do not say that /. isn't biased as you run stories about 75% that are pro DEM.

The only explaination: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516554)

The facts must be baised.

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (3, Informative)

spacecowboy420 (450426) | about 10 years ago | (#10515904)

You are 100% correct. These are all liberal supporters of http://www.americavotes.org/

The devil is in the details. This is an ENTIRELY different organization, "Voters Outreach of America" has been misrepresenting itself as "America Votes" to accomplish it's goals. The article doesn't point out this fact, but others do, here's ONE:
Portland Communique [tinyurl.com]

Re:List of this groups backers. MAJOR GOP SUPPORTE (1)

emilymildew (646109) | about 10 years ago | (#10516743)

It isn't. Sproul & Associates are lying about who they are. They are saying they are America Votes but they aren't.

Non-party affiliated registration (5, Insightful)

chitownIrish (769695) | about 10 years ago | (#10515086)

... is the answer. The requirement that you declare a party affiliation seems only to be a way of locking in the two-party system.

Re:Non-party affiliated registration (1)

Pluvius (734915) | about 10 years ago | (#10515202)

You don't have to declare a party affiliation (at least not where I come from), but only registered members of a party can vote in that party's primary, AFAIK.

Rob

Re:Non-party affiliated registration (2, Insightful)

dman123 (115218) | about 10 years ago | (#10515294)

Your post proves my point.

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12552 0&cid=10515199 [slashdot.org]

It's nothing personal. I just don't know why politicians or legislatures can ethically keep these restrictions.

Re:Non-party affiliated registration (1)

putch (469506) | about 10 years ago | (#10515881)

there is a logic to keeping party primaries closed to only those who have enrolled in the party. people from other parties could vote in your primarty to influence who the candidate is.

but, perhaps voter enrollment and registration should be a process that is seperated.

i think you should be able to register to vote up until and including election day.

parties can set their own criteria for running their business/primaries.

Re:Non-party affiliated registration (1)

dman123 (115218) | about 10 years ago | (#10516596)

there is a logic to keeping party primaries closed to only those who have enrolled in the party. people from other parties could vote in your primarty to influence who the candidate is.

...

parties can set their own criteria for running their business/primaries.

I agree that this is the case in some states. I do not understand how the people that make the decisions to exclude non-party members from their primaries can consider themselves doing what is the "right thing." I realize that some voters may cross party lines to try to get a wacko endorsed in the enemy party. But if this is such a concern for the party, it should simply endorse someone without voting if it is going to try to stifle the voting rights of anyone it considers as "undesirable."

If we cannot come up with a better solution, then it's time to ban political parties. Let the endorsements of other groups be the guide to the candidate's politics. If that fails, one could always, oh, I don't know, maybe, learn more about the candidates themselves and become informed rather than vote for the party. A radical idea indeed!

Re:Non-party affiliated registration (1)

Anonymous Cow herd (2036) | about 10 years ago | (#10516411)

You're confusing primary elections with general elections. These restrictions just prevent non-party members from choosing who the party is going to put forward as presidential candidate... this *should* be a decision for party members, not outsiders. Or should the Republicans have a share in deciding who the Democrats are going to put forward to challenge Dubya?

Re:Non-party affiliated registration (1)

dman123 (115218) | about 10 years ago | (#10516765)

I understand the situation perfectly. The Republicans *should* have a share in deciding who the Democrats are going to run against Dubya.

I assume by "Republicans" and "Democrats" you mean "eligible voters that can vote only once per race" ;-)

Although I live in a state with an open primary, a voter cannot cross parties on the same ballot. Although I do not like this restriction, it is better than the alternative of a closed primary.

As squiggleslash said http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12552 0&cid=10516109 [slashdot.org] the parties can do what they want, but keep it out of the state's hands if they expect to keep it "members only."

Re:Non-party affiliated registration (3, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 10 years ago | (#10516109)

Perhaps it's time the parties started organizing their own elections, rather than requiring the states (and presumably taxpayers) to do so on their behalf.

As a side effect, this would mean they could do so by their own rules rather than having the states impose their own (Democrats allowed to vote in Republican primaries and vice-versa, etc)

Same old dirty tricks (1)

ElForesto (763160) | about 10 years ago | (#10515102)

I got wind of this watching Channel 8, and I'm not too surprised. It's never a matter of who cheated to win an election, but rather who cheated best. I'm wondering if 3rd-party registrations were also targetted: my party, the IAP, has grown 52% from Jan to Aug, and we nibble away at the Republican's ultra-conservative base.

Different America Votes (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515164)

The http://www.americavotes.org group is NOT the same organization as is referred to in the story. i've done some digging with whois and google and this much is very clear. The organization in the story is probably just using their name.

Thankfully not here... (4, Informative)

dman123 (115218) | about 10 years ago | (#10515199)

I live in a state where there we do not register for a party affiliation, have open primaries, and can register the same day at the voting site. It is still amazing to me that consituents of states that do not have these three rights (yes, I said rights, not privledges) do not rise up and demand for it to be this way. The only reason I can imagine is that voters in Nevada and others have not had the experience of how easy it is to vote with these artificial burdens removed.

Re:Thankfully not here... (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | about 10 years ago | (#10515547)

Which state is that?

Re:Thankfully not here... (1)

Bastian (66383) | about 10 years ago | (#10515989)

I can't speak for all states, but I know that Wisconsin does.

Heck, I just found out at the last minute that I'm going to be shipped far far away for election day by my employer. And it's too late to order an absentee ballot. No worries, I can just go down to the courthouse and fill out an absentee ballot in person, right there.

Re:Thankfully not here... (1)

dman123 (115218) | about 10 years ago | (#10516225)

It's Minnesota I was referring to, but as my cheesehead neighbor Bastian pointed out, it's in Wisconsin too.

How do you guys still have open primaries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516356)

We lost our blanket primary in washington because of a recent court decision. Stupid judges and republicans, not that the democrats weren't giggling about it. Appearently, me voting for who I wanted to elect interfered with their freedom of assembly, and prevented them from running ultra-conservative losers with no chance of winning.

Re:Thankfully not here... (1)

zxnos (813588) | about 10 years ago | (#10515922)

what is to stop someone from registering at 10 locations and voting at all of them?

Re:Thankfully not here... (1)

dman123 (115218) | about 10 years ago | (#10516276)

what is to stop someone from registering at 10 locations and voting at all of them?

Well, nothing aside from your own morals would stop you on election day. However, to do so you'd have make fradulent documents to prove residency in each location. Then, you'd have the law show up at your door eventually when they figured it out. It would be much easier (theoretically - don't do this!!) to pretend to be someone else who is legally registered.

Re:Thankfully not here... (1)

Anonymous Cow herd (2036) | about 10 years ago | (#10516478)

You can register at 10 locations and vote at all of them... however, until your declared residency in that voting district has been confirmed, your vote is a 'provisional vote'. If you're found to not be a resident in that voting district, your vote from that district is then voided/discarded. Hope this helps...

actions have consequences (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515227)

Well it's pretty clear that if you choose the wrong party, you might not get to vote. We have a lot of rules in this country, and it's nobody's fault but your own if you break them.

If you're a convicted felon, you don't get to vote.

If you're not an american citizen, you shouldn't get to vote.

If you show up to the polling place naked and spinning in circles, you don't get to vote except maybe in california.

And of course if you register for the wrong freakin' party, you won't get to vote! Come on people!!

Republicans comdemn this (-1, Flamebait)

bmetzler (12546) | about 10 years ago | (#10515275)

But why don't Democrats condemn Democratic registration fraud? Why do they only "condemn" this republican fraud? It's time for Democrats to stop being hypocrites.

Also where's the slashdot story on Democrat registration fraud? Why is Republican fraud the only news? What about all these stories [billhobbs.com] . Doesn't it matter if it is Democrat voter fraud?

-Brent

Re:Republicans comdemn this (3, Insightful)

escher (3402) | about 10 years ago | (#10515357)

I condemn all voter fraud and I think all of it should make the news, front page, big fucking headline. Daily.

Maybe that will pound reality just a tad more into the skulls of idiot populace of this nation.

Irony (2, Insightful)

chitownIrish (769695) | about 10 years ago | (#10515374)

Dude, your website [bmetzler.org] says:

"Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc"

Oh, the irony.

Re:Irony (0, Offtopic)

bmetzler (12546) | about 10 years ago | (#10515528)

Dude, your website says: "Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc" Oh, the irony.

I'm sorry, I fail to see the irony. The scroller is property of the Bush campaign. It's not a confidential scroller so it can be on a public website. I put it on mine, because I am interested in the facts. It happens to be the only thing I have on my homepage ATM. So, where is the irony?

-Brent

Re:Irony (1)

chitownIrish (769695) | about 10 years ago | (#10515835)

The irony lies in the fact that I went to your website expecting to see something about YOU, and the first thing I see is "Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc"

Re:Irony (1)

bmetzler (12546) | about 10 years ago | (#10516077)

The irony lies in the fact that I went to your website expecting to see something about YOU, and the first thing I see is "Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc"

You're right. I still have a link to my domain which only has a scroller for the georgewbush.com debate fact checker. However, no rule says that I must have information about ME on a domain just because I own it. Again, I fail to see the irony just because I have a domain that I still had a link to here, but have only used for personal stuff for months now.

However, just to make you feel better, I will change the link.

-Brent

Re:Irony (1)

chitownIrish (769695) | about 10 years ago | (#10516498)

However, just to make you feel better, I will change the link.

You truly are a compassionate conservative.

Re:Republicans comdemn this (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515398)

This is an outrage, regardless of the party responsible, but the fact is that Republicans have been far more active in voter suppression.

I'm reminded of a recent New York Times article that examined the lies of both campaigns. Both Kerry and Bush are guilty of lying, but Bush's lies were more frequent, and therefore took more space in the article, leaving Republicans pissed and accusing the article of having a left leaning.

Re:Republicans comdemn this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515427)

I'll condemn any voter fraud that is reported by a reliable news source. Is Billhobbs.come a reliable news source? Well, what do you think of this (from the very page you've linked)?

Iraq's chances of thriving are much better than most of the media would have us believe. The New Iraqi Dinar is unbelievably affordable. The same amount that was once equal to over $82,000 can now be purchased for around $40. But, what happens when the oil really starts to flow?

That's incredible economic illiteracy. If 1 dinar used to be $50, and now it's 5c, what do you call it? Hyperinflation.

Re:Republicans comdemn this (1, Interesting)

bmetzler (12546) | about 10 years ago | (#10515917)

Is Billhobbs.come a reliable news source?

If you would look at the link, billhobbs.com isn't creating the news stories, only archiving them. The sources that you claim aren't reliable include:

The Denver Post [denverpost.com]

The Palm Beach Post [palmbeachpost.com]

The Jacksonville Sun [jacksonville.com]

The Mercury [pottstownmercury.com]

Denver's 9 News [9news.com]

Still think that voter registration fraud is only limited to a couple of republicans tearing up voter registration cards?

-Brent

Republicans PAID FOR IT (1)

Jammer@CMH (117977) | about 10 years ago | (#10515830)

The organization that was conducting the fraud was largely paid for by the GOP. This was in no way 'independent'.

Re:Republicans PAID FOR IT (1)

bmetzler (12546) | about 10 years ago | (#10516002)

This was in no way 'independent'.

I didn't say that it was 'independent. I just said that Democrats should start condemning fraud when it benefits them, just like Republicans condemn a group that tries to commit fraud to help their party.

-Brent

Re:Republicans comdemn this (2, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 10 years ago | (#10515847)

If you can find a case of such egregious registration fraud being committed by Democrats, let us know, okay?

treason (4, Insightful)

girth (40643) | about 10 years ago | (#10515348)

I don't care which side is involved, this is one of the most unamerican things you can do. This should be treated as treason.

This is another area where there needs to be a paper trail. These companies should be bonded and some sort of receipt should be issued to the voter that would allow one to either vote or allow them to file a protest and cast a vote after the fact. Any company found in fraud (anything above a normal error level) would loose their bond plus face criminal charges.

Hey, it's the west... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516449)

get a rope. We can sort it out later.

If the right to have a say in ones government is worth shedding and spilling blood for, I think I see a few Republican volunteers for nourishing the tree of liberty.

It's what you get... (1)

Second_Infinity (810308) | about 10 years ago | (#10515415)

Anyone who registers to vote through "non-official channels" deserves to have something like this happen, no matter what party you're affiliated with.

For crying out loud people, do it the correct way, and none of this would ever happen.

Re:It's what you get... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515601)

There's nothing incorrect with registering this way.

Why is such identification given? (1)

spitzak (4019) | about 10 years ago | (#10515542)

Whether or not this is true, couldn't it be avoided by not identifying the party on the registration forms.

Without that, I recommend that Democrats who believe this is happening claim they are Republicans. Republicans who believe the opposite should claim they are Democrats. That will also completely mess up all the predictions and polls and maybe make the election more interesting, too!

Re:Why is such identification given? (1)

kmb (56194) | about 10 years ago | (#10515639)

This is necessary for about six billion reasons. Ok, I can think of 2 off the top of my head.

1. Some states allow voters in primaries to vote only within their party.
2. The number of voters registered for a party can determine the amount of government funding their candidates can reason, whether they appear on the official ballots, etc.

Re:Why is such identification given? (1)

putch (469506) | about 10 years ago | (#10515669)

you have a good point. party is declared on voter reg forms so that the voter registration and party enrollment process is streamlined. (you don't have to enroll in any party)

perhaps party enrollment should be done seperately from voter registration.

or we could just scrap voter reg deadlines and allow for election day registration.

How about.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516507)

we just brutally kill the people who do this kind of thing? Republican, Democrat, whatever, anyone who'd do this is an ass-clown and should get kicked off the planet, painfully. Maybe gut shot with a musket and left to die in a field? It'd be sort of appropriate.

election day voter registration (5, Insightful)

putch (469506) | about 10 years ago | (#10515623)

this wouldn't be an issue (or much less of one) if we'd scrap all of the hoops you need to jump through to vote. the time for election day voter registration is here. it's the fucking 21st century already. i can have pretty much any consumer item in the world (except duk nukem forever) shipped to me tommorrow, over the internet, but i have to mail in my form 25 days before the election? and 60! before a primary?

HAVA is going to require every state to maintain a centralized voter reg database. with such a system on-demand voting could mean:

1) no more voter reg deadlines. show up give them your name and you vote
2) vote from any poll site. can't make it back to your home before 9? just vote at the most convenient site. a voting kiosk will display the proper ballot for your election district
3) no over-voting. everyone gets one vote, no voting in two districts. in ny it is possible, though illegal, to register in many different counties, since they all keep their own records and dont share (at least not well enough).

Re:election day voter registration (1)

bmetzler (12546) | about 10 years ago | (#10515963)

a voting kiosk will display the proper ballot for your election district

I thought only /. we all disapproved of electronic voting. Or was that only on Tuesdays?

-Brent

Re:election day voter registration (1)

putch (469506) | about 10 years ago | (#10516285)

e-voting is fine, by me at least, given a voter-verified paper trail.

See a pattern? (4, Insightful)

rritterson (588983) | about 10 years ago | (#10515729)

(Disclaimer: I lean left)

-Democratic forms get tossed in the trash, but not Republican forms...
-It's Texas Republicans who are Gerrymandering in their redistricting efforts...
-Sinclair wishes to put an obviously anti Kerry Docuganda on TV...
-Flordia 2000 -- Black voters are disenfranchised by the thousands. Guess which way they lean?

Try as I might, I can only think of one example of such behavior from Democrats: Micheal Moore. However, Sinclair's decision eclipses Fahrenheit because Sony didn't tell all of it's theaters to pre-empt I,Robot to show Fahrenheit.

Now, I'm willing to concede I'm biased and that I just don't notice the deciept and trickery the left puts on. Can anyone reply to my post with a corresponding list of things Dems have done?

(No, rhetoric doesn't count- *every* candidate is full of hyperbolic BS)

Re:See a pattern? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515864)

Here are some [billhobbs.com] .
Here are others [billhobbs.com] .

Re:See a pattern? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515894)

Re:See a pattern? (1)

putch (469506) | about 10 years ago | (#10515915)

yeah and here [satanforbush.com] is a site that says satan endorses bush.

do you believe everything you read on the web?

Re:See a pattern? (2, Insightful)

Sevn (12012) | about 10 years ago | (#10516045)

No offense, but that guy's site screams chickenhawk. Have an actual news source? I'm trying to find a link to the craziness in Pennsylvania with ACORN that's been going on but I'm having so many problems finding a legitimate news source that I'm starting to think it was made up.

Re:See a pattern? (4, Insightful)

Sevn (12012) | about 10 years ago | (#10515906)

As a admitted capitalist, there is a MAJOR difference between F/911 and the other shamelessly political movies. F/911 made over 100 million dollars. It's a definite profit maker. There isn't anything that counters it that will generate even 10 percent of that massive haul. I think some people forget that. I know disney never will.

Re:See a pattern? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516628)

Eisner will. That guy has turned down more hits than most people in his industry have a chance to make. How he stays in his industry, let alone rises to the top, is anyones guess. The only thing I can come up with: He must give the world's most fantastic blowjobs.

Re:See a pattern? (0)

syrinx (106469) | about 10 years ago | (#10516446)

Well, everyone gerrymanders... hell, in Texas, the Dems did it a decade ago, and now that the Reps are in power they want to do it their way.

F9/11, of course.

How about the military absentee ballots also in Florida being discounted? Guess which way *they* lean?

The entire system is corrupt, not just one side.

Re:See a pattern? (1)

base3 (539820) | about 10 years ago | (#10516615)

How about the military absentee ballots also in Florida being discounted? Guess which way *they* lean?

Right now, I'd wager those lean more towards Kerry than some might think. I know how I'd be voting if I were over there after having my enlistment extended by a stop-loss order.

Re:See a pattern? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516738)

One, they were counted, despite being technically ineligible. As opposed to the voters that were technically eligible, but turned away.

Moore's stupid film was something the market wanted, not something that was crammed down it's throat. 100 megadollar payday.

And if you read into the redistricting in Texas, you'll find what the Republican's did is quite different from what the Democrats did.

Also, they're is Delay using the Federal government to hunt down democrats who'd left the state as a political manuver. Funny that. How one of the first things the new anti-terrorism powers were used for was to track down political opponants.

But that's republicans for you.

Re:See a pattern? (0, Flamebait)

Experiment 626 (698257) | about 10 years ago | (#10516466)

-It's Texas Republicans who are Gerrymandering in their redistricting efforts...

The Texas Democrats were also trying to Gerrymander, just as badly as the Republicans. They even resorted to tactics like leaving the state during sessions they were legally obligated to be at, to prevent a quorum from being present. This is hardly a case where one party wants to Gerrymander and the other doesn't, it's a case where the law says it is the Republicans turn to draw up the maps, and the Democrats threw a fit because they liked their Gerrymandering better than the Republicans'.

-Sinclair wishes to put an obviously anti Kerry Docuganda on TV...

And this is worse than anti-Bush / pro-Kerry documentaries being put on TV by PBS, CBS, Sundance, etc. how? And what is a Docuganda, a documentary produced in Uganda? When someone wants to bash Bush, the Democrats hail it as free speech, but when someone wants to bash Kerry, like this documentary or the swift boat book, they immediately call for censorship. The First Amendment is not just about the right to free speech as long as you have something liberal to say.

Re:See a pattern? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516514)

Lawsuits by the Gore campaign to prevent the inclusion of veteran ballots in 2000.

Gerrymandering happens almost everywhere; for every Texas, there is a California where the Democrats have done the same thing.

Re:See a pattern? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516676)

Veteran ballots? I think what you mean is lawsuits by the Gore campaign against the inclusion of absentee, military ballots that arrived long after polls closed. Except that didn't happen either.

Oh sure, the press speculated for weeks that Gore would. Arguments were "reported" between "Al" and "Joe" about whether to do so. But they didn't actually do so.

Re:See a pattern? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10516782)

What about the breakins at Bush Headquarters? This is a pattern- true- but it's a pattern that coveres both sides relatively equally.

The Banana Republic strikes again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10515888)

For a non-USian this looks really weird. Democrazy at its finest.

you have to register for a party? (2, Interesting)

dl248 (67452) | about 10 years ago | (#10515926)

As a Canadian, I am getting the impression that in Nevada when you register to vote, you have to declare a party affiliation. Is this true? If so, this is quite alien to me.

Furthermore the last time I voted (I did not pre-register), all I did was show up to the voting location in my area, provide several pieces of ID confirming my identity and my current address (driver's licence, pay stub, etc) and I get a ballot. I vote. End of story.

Nowhere, I mean NOWHERE, do I EVER have to declare any party affiliation that I may have. If my vote is supposedly anonymous and confidential, it strikes me as just plain crazy to have to give a party affiliation when you register to vote. Simply ludicrous if this is the case.

National ID-Card (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10516379)

In Germany we have national ID-cards. Yes, that means there are databases that can be combined and abused and whatnot. But that also means we don't have to register to be able to vote!

Every county sends out postcards with date and the only location where you can vote and we just show up on that day with our ID-card and this postcard.

It's that simple and a good reason for an ID-card.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?