Republican vote-cancelling efforts back-fire in Ohio?

[LinusKS]

As part of their effort to win Ohio, Republicans there are "challenging" tens of thousands of voters at the polls.

Under Ohio law, if you're challenged, you have to go to a hearing to prove that you're a legitimate voter.

So far they've "challenged" 35,000 voters, but had to withdraw about 5000 of those after they turned out to be bogus.

The Republicans are also mobilizing volunteers to directly challenge people's right to vote on election day.

The fewer people vote, the more likely the Republicans are to win on election day. The challenges may also allow the Republicans to keep Ohio's electoral vote tied up in court.

Are these kinds of tactics likely to backfire on the Republicans?

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
Republicans said they had enlisted 3,600 by the deadline, many in heavily Democratic urban neighborhoods of Cleveland, Dayton and other cities. Each recruit was to be paid $100.


[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently they're paying people to go to polling places in Democratic areas and disrupt the vote, and keep Democrats from voting.

Scary stuff.

[JimBob2232]

Okay...this would be a HUGE scandal. Certainally not something either party would do. In fact, its so bogus that either a)it a bunch of right wing nutjobs not affiliated with the RNC or b) its acutally democrats trying to make themselves look like republicans.
Nobody in their right mind would do this. I doubt this story highly. Link Please.

[Rick H]

Maybe I'm naive, but I find it hard to believe any Republican group would spend $360,000 on this to affect one small area. ($100 times 3,600 people) There are a whole lot more effective ways to spend that kind of jack.

[LinusKS]

Sorry, I forgot the links.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/10/25/politics1236EDT0551.DTL

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/politics/campaign/23vote.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/22/224022/56

Or check Google for "challenge Ohio voter." (Without the quotes). There's tons of stories about it.

[West]

The BBC story that I linked to in a below post suggested that a similar kind of thing would be going on in Florida.

[TomCollins]

Not like there has been any fraud in the area at all. Pay no attention to Mary Poppins voting.

[ohiou]

The fact is that there is widespread voter fraud and false registrations in Ohio. The 3 counties of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati all have more registered voters than the census indicates are eligible.

ACT, NAACP, and MoveOn are going door to door, holding registrations drives, and other activities meant to get more people registered.

That is all fine and good, but with such rampant voter fraud apparent, I think it is a good thing that someone is working to guarantee that only eligible voters vote, and only once.

[tolbiny]

It is also possible to set up a system that would allow you to check votes after they are cast instead of taking action that willslow the voting process down.

[West]

That probably makes too much sense for anyone to implement. Kind of like having paper trails for electronic voting machines.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
The fewer people vote, the more likely the Republicans are to win on election day.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen, especially on a site that has so much to do with probability. If you had a bag of blue and red marbles, and half were blue and half were red, and you randomly removed x number of marbles, you should still end up with about the same ratio when you are finished. Likewise, if you just randomly challenge x number of voters, the ratio of Kerry votes to Bush votes should stay about the same.

[LinusKS]

Do me a favor.

Read about it. Search the web. Learn about politics, and then come back and tell me who's saying stupid things, ok?

[PITTM]

wow, ive never seen someone more misinformed in my life. youre thinking about it wayyyy too strictly mathematically. you have to look at it this way: who would unregistered voters vote for? since i guarantee it would be at least 55/45 in favor of kerry, the republicans stand to gain a great deal by keeping people from registering to vote.

rj

[nicky g]

Furthermrore the allegations in many of these cases are that they are concentrating on poor and black districts, where people are more likely to vote Democrat.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Read about it. Search the web. Learn about politics, and then come back and tell me who's saying stupid things, ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

Study politics is just about all I do. I make part of my living writing about politics. The statement made was the more people who don't vote, the better Republicans do. It didn't say the more black people who don't vote, or the more poor people who don't vote, or the more too-damn-lazy-to-stop-watching-MTV people who don't vote. It said the more people who don't vote, and that's a stupid assumption to make.

[LinusKS]

If you've studied politics, you should know that low voter turnout favors the Republicans.

The Republicans know it.

That's why they work so hard to suppress the vote.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
That's why they work so hard to suppress the vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you truly believe that uninterested, lazy, or unmotivated voters are more likely to vote democratic, fine. If you believe efforts to purge voters in counties where more people registered than are eligable to register are bad, then you're advocating voter fraud...which must also benefit the democrats. That just makes the GOP look that much more appealing.

And thanks for the talking points. I haven't had a chance to read what's new at MoveOn.org today. I bet you also believe that the republicans have a secret plan to bring back the draft, end social security, steal oil from muslims, and take the prescription drugs right out of your grandmother's medicine cabinet. Please.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermrore the allegations in many of these cases are that they are concentrating on poor and black districts, where people are more likely to vote Democrat.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are people registered illegally what difference does it make and why is the Republicans responsibility to police all voting districts? Did you have a problem only re-counting the precincts in Florida that would help Gore in 2000? Of course the Republicans are going to concentrate on districts where they believe they're getting jobbed just as Gore would only recounts in Florida where the results would help him.

[nicky g]

Actually Gore suggested a statewide recount and Bush said no.

No party should be the police of any district. The system is ridiculous.

[adios]

You know that isn't what is original stance was. Gore would have been perfectly happy to have the votes in the precints that were recounted give him the election. He offered it as a compromise late in November of 2000 to Bush after after it appeared he had a good chance of getting no more recounts whatsoever ie he might lose in court.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Gore suggested a statewide recount and Bush said no.

No party should be the police of any district. The system is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem happy to ignore election law, as Gore was so willing to do. All the court actions came about because the repeated attempts at overriding the election laws. Gore gimmicked the system and the offer to recount statewide was just another gimmick.

(this next part is addressed to the earlier posters in the thread:)
Every phony vote cast in Ohio will cancel out a real vote from a legitimate Ohio voter. Anyone who doesn't care about phony votes (as so many liberals on this board obviously don't) clearly has no interest in a fair election. A fair election is a fundamental concept in a democracy - I am surprised some of you are so willing to cast it aside. NO PHONY VOTES in Ohio!

[nicky g]

A fair compromise. What a terrible thing to offer.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem happy to ignore election law, as Gore was so willing to do. All the court actions came about because the repeated attempts at overriding the election laws. Gore gimmicked the system and the offer to recount statewide was just another gimmick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Harris acted according to Florida law and the Florida Supreme Court tried to enact their own election laws. Gore's first response wasn't let's make sure this is right and recount the whole state, it was let's recount the votes in the precincts that will help me only. I actually don't expect anything different if it's within the rules. Apparently nicky wants to ignore what actually transpired in Florida and state that the Democrats took some sort of high ground and made a principled stance. That's total bullsh*t.

[adios]

It wasn't fair though. Let's recount the precincts that will help me the most with partisans that support me overseeing the "intent of voters" in examining hanging chad, pregnant chad and what have you. Well those recounts didn't give me the election let's see where I can mine for more votes. Gore only offered to meet Bush and work out a compromise so we actually don't know what Gore would have really offered. Bush's stance was that manually recounting the votes was more error prone than having machines count the votes. Hmm.... that might actually make sense.

[nicky g]

You remember more about it than I do. I'll take your word for it.

[texaspimp]

[ QUOTE ]
So far they've "challenged" 35,000 voters, but had to withdraw about 5000 of those after they turned out to be bogus.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am being to naive, or does this mean that there were 30,000 illegal registrations?

If there were 30,000 illegal registrations, would it be illogical to assume that there were or will be more?

Just curious?!?!

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Gore suggested a statewide recount and Bush said no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Gore wanted recounts limited to 4 heavily democratic counties--Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Volusia.

[LinusKS]

Wrong.

Gore never asked that the recount be limited in any way.

It was George Bush who stopped the counting (with some help, of course).

And he did that because he knew if the votes were fully and fairly counted, he'd lose.

[texaspimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong.

Gore never asked that the recount be limited in any way.

It was George Bush who stopped the counting (with some help, of course).

And he did that because he knew if the votes were fully and fairly counted, he'd lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there were at least two, maybe three, recounts by newspapers, and that Bush won all recounts (specific counties that Gore wanted and statewide).

I admit that I tried to forget much of that debacle, but I am 99% certain that various news organizations reviewed all of the votes.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's why they work so hard to suppress the vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you truly believe that uninterested, lazy, or unmotivated voters are more likely to vote democratic, fine. If you believe efforts to purge voters in counties where more people registered than are eligable to register are bad, then you're advocating voter fraud...which must also benefit the democrats. That just makes the GOP look that much more appealing.

And thanks for the talking points. I haven't had a chance to read what's new at MoveOn.org today. I bet you also believe that the republicans have a secret plan to bring back the draft, end social security, steal oil from muslims, and take the prescription drugs right out of your grandmother's medicine cabinet. Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good spin.

Well, the part about Democrats being lazy, anyway.

The rest of your post was just lame.

But to try to get back on topic for a moment, are you admitting you were wrong about high voter turnouts helping the Democrats, or not?

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong.

Gore never asked that the recount be limited in any way.

It was George Bush who stopped the counting (with some help, of course).

And he did that because he knew if the votes were fully and fairly counted, he'd lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there were at least two, maybe three, recounts by newspapers, and that Bush won all recounts (specific counties that Gore wanted and statewide).

I admit that I tried to forget much of that debacle, but I am 99% certain that various news organizations reviewed all of the votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the votes were eventually fully counted, but you're only half-right.

If the entire state had been fully and fairly counted, Gore would have - narrowly - won.

If only the votes from the handful of counties Gore originally challenged had been recounted, Bush would have won.

Kind of ironic, huh.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
But to try to get back on topic for a moment, are you admitting you were wrong about high voter turnouts helping the Democrats, or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I stand by my original statement that supressing the vote would equally affect democrats and republicans and essentially result in a wash. I believe there are just as many lazy, unmotivated, and uninformed republicans as there are democrats. If you wish to believe that democrats are the ones more likely to be lethargic about voting that's your prerogative.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermrore the allegations in many of these cases are that they are concentrating on poor and black districts, where people are more likely to vote Democrat.

[/ QUOTE ]

As they should, you think these people understand what is best for them? If they did they would be Rebublicans and not Democrats. They are being done a huge favor.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong.

Gore never asked that the recount be limited in any way.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your selective memory can be cured by searching the net.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I stand by my original statement...

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong. Big turn-outs help the Democrats. Small turn-outs help the Republicans.

Why do you think the they go to so much trouble to keep people from voting?

[lastchance]

And I thought a big conservative argument was that you can't take people's decisions (like being taxed or voting) away from them...

[lastchance]

Just because that we already know 5,000 of them are bogus doesn't mean that the other 30,000 complaints are all valid.

Obviously, at the end of the day, some of these complaints almost have to be valid, while others are quite easily thrown out. However, there are going to be some that slip through the net.

I think I am fairly safe when I say that both sides, combined, have registered at least 30,000 fake votes in Ohio.

[LinusKS]

You're wrong too.

Look. Every other word that comes out of Rush's mouth is a deception. (Not counting "the," "and," and "uh.") You can't trust him.

Check it out, and then get back to me.

[nicky g]

There are many reports that Gore at one point offered a full statewide recount and Bush said no. adios says that we can't know that for sure (because Gore offered a meeting that was turned down and we don;t know that's what he would have offered), that Gore only did it after other options failed, etc etc; but I think I am on fairly safe ground that it is gernerally accepted that at one point Gore suggested a full statewide recount, regardless of the morality issues.

[nicky g]

For instance, here. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/15/152106.shtml)

"Earlier in the evening Gore promised:


If Republicans allowed manual recounts to continue in Democrat-dominated Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties, he would accept the final tally of those results added to the certified results from 64 other counties and overseas absentee ballots, due by midnight Friday.

Or, "I am also prepared, if Gov. Bush prefers, to include in this recount all the counties in the entire state of Florida ,'' Gore said."

Also, on the meeting issue, according to this report Gore asked for it not to negotiate on things down a bit. That it didn't happen does not mean Gore never offered the state recount: he offered that publicly.

[GWB]

The Gore offer was a desperation move made after he ended up behind in the recount. Gore partisans were able to manufacture votes in the selected counties by counting unclear ballots as Gore votes, but they weren't enough. So why not manufacture votes in more counties? He never supported an honest recount, and actively worked to not count real votes from soldiers overseas. Even Democrats remarked at the time that Gore's state-wide offer was not serious.

[nicky g]

I can;t be bothered to argue this. I just wanted to point out in response to Earlcat that he did in fact make such an offer, irrespective of his motives or whether it could be taken seriously.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
I can;t be bothered to argue this. I just wanted to point out in response to Earlcat that he did in fact make such an offer, irrespective of his motives or whether it could be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you. The unending argument about 2000 is silly. Long ago it was clear I won Florida, but the conspiracy theories have a life of their own.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think the they go to so much trouble to keep people from voting?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe they do. I think they do their best to make sure people don't vote more than once. When you have more people registered than are eligible in certain counties, that's a problem.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, "I am also prepared, if Gov. Bush prefers, to include in this recount all the counties in the entire state of Florida ,'' Gore said."


[/ QUOTE ]

The offer was disingenuous since Gore knew the deadline by Florida State law to institue any additional recount prceedings had already passed. His offer was akin to offering you a bite of his ice cream after it had already been eaten. Makes for a good soundbite 4 years later but it had no substance.