Slashdot Log In
Election Dirty Tricks About To Begin
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Oct 07, 2008 07:16 AM
from the pox-on-both-their-houses dept.
from the pox-on-both-their-houses dept.
An anonymous reader writes "ABC is warning that dirty election tricks are about to start. In the past, they've ranged from late-night robo-calls to voter intimidation. ABC has a pretty good list of what to watch out for as told by Allen Raymond, a former Republican operative, who was reformed after spending three months in prison in 2006 for pulling some of the stunts he now helps to prevent." To make this story timely, last week someone broke into a McCain campaign office in Missouri and stole a laptop computer containing "strategic information" about the local campaign.
Related Stories
Submission: Dirty Election Tricks About to Begin by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Country First? (Score:5, Insightful)
Already started (Score:5, Insightful)
Where have you guys been? The ads have been on TV for a couple of weeks. The economy is going down the tubes, so distraction is the key.
Re:Already started (Score:5, Informative)
It is when you're trying to convince a voter who's voting in the right state that he's registered in a different state.
Parent
Re:Already started (Score:5, Interesting)
Raymond says that such tactics have evolved from some of the more overt voter intimidation schemes seen back in the early 1980s when the GOP's "Ballot Security Task Force" used armed off-duty police officers at the polling places in New Jersey and posted signs reading "voter fraud is a felony." Other underhanded tactics...
So, reminding people that voter fraud is a felony is voter intimidation? Wrong.
Perhaps 'reminding people that voter fraud is a felony' is not voter intimidation. Reminding people that voter fraud is a felony using armed men in uniform is voter intimidation. Are the armed men protecting themselves against similarly armed voter fraudsters? No. The armed men are there to take advantage of the fact that there are very clear demographic statistics that show that some segments of the population (not to be racist, but it's typically African-American and Hispanic citizens) are very afraid of the police (and looking at history, perhaps rightly so). The fact that the men are armed does nothing to assist in 'preventing voter fraud' and does everything to scare away citizens who are skittish of authority and perhaps view their vote as a means of resistance that will not be welcomed by the armed guards...
Parent
Re:Already started (Score:5, Interesting)
For one thing, "reminding people that voter fraud is a felony" doesn't even come close to describing what the "Ballot Security Task Force" did. After investigations into their conduct, the GOP had to promise such conduct would not occur again.
I was referring more to this, though:
In 2006, voters in Virginia reportedly received fake voicemail messages from the state elections commission claiming that the voters were registered in another state and could be criminally charged if they cast their vote in Virginia.
If there is any sort of verification at the polls, making an error about which state you can vote in will be picked up and you won't be able to vote. This doesn't even remotely qualify as voter fraud, and lying about someone's registration status and threatening them with arrest and criminal charges is undoubtedly intimidation.
Parent
Mc Cain + Palin spam emails (Score:5, Funny)
i am already getting
Mc Cain + Palin spam emails
for last few weeks
tho im not from US :( stupid spammers
I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
The joys of living in the swing state of VA....
Re:I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:5, Funny)
Shocking? Where do you get the idea that you have any privacy or anonymity whatsoever, Paul?
Parent
Re:I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:5, Informative)
That is a horrifyingly accurate post. The real victors in war are the people who sell the bullets. Everyone else only plays along to use their products.
Parent
Plague, not pox (Score:5, Informative)
the dirtiest trick is already out of the bag (Score:5, Insightful)
electronic voting. no better device for dirty tricks has ever been invented
paper ballots. ocr. end of debate
anything else, including traditional mechanical voting machines, are ripe for abuse. not because you can't do dirty tricks with paper ballots, but because electronic voting (and to a lesser degree tradtional mechanical voting machines) increases the number of attack vectors by an order of magnitude, and increases the damage a lone operative can do, exponentially
fox news? plutocrat neocons? liberal media? america hating moonbats? corporate lobbyists? christian dominionists? uninformed apathetic voters?
make a list of what you consider the greatest threat to american democracy
nope, wrong
it's electronic voting. electronic voting removes transparency and introduces distrust into the voting process. electronic voting will prove to be the biggest mistake and the greatest threat to american democracy
democracy's greatest strength is that it creates legitimacy, no other form of government renews legitimacy in the eyes of its people. it gives the people a real voice in their own government. remove that trust with black box voting, and you remove legitimacy and stability and faith in the government. lose that, and you lose everything
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
Elections don't just have to be fair, they have to be _seen_ to be fair.
A typical Joe Sixpack has got to be able to look at the elections and grudgingly admit - "Darnit, my party lost and there wasn't that much cheating".
Rather than "What's this complicated bullshit? They're cheating big time I know it".
And the funny thing is - it doesn't really have to be that complicated. Hand counting scales.
Parent
2 things (Score:5, Insightful)
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
2. however, if you use the existence of the electoral college as a reason not to vote, no: you're wrong. the electoral college is a negative tweak to a system that still works. removing the electoral college merely makes it work better. the existence of the electoral college doesn't nullfy the entire process and doesn't nullify your vote. it merely warps the value of your vote in ways that are really kind of arbitrary, neither favoring one ideology or another. it's noise in the system
now, there are people out there with learned helplessness, with deficits in their ability to trust. there are plenty of reasons and examples of the system creating distrust, but there are also people in this world with a pathological disability: an inability to trust
such people are not disenfranchised by the system, such people disenfrachise themselves
so if you do not vote, simply because the electoral college exists, you are looking for a reason not to vote, and you found a very flimsy one. its really not a good reason not to vote
and if you don't vote because of the electoral college, there's osmething wrong with you. its self-disenfrachisement
Parent
Record Robocalls, Shine the light (Score:5, Interesting)
McCain v. Obama v. third-party (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to continue drilling the McCain campaign on economic issues. Neither McCain nor Palin has addressed the economy in an intelligent, organized manner.
We need to continue drilling Obama on the constitutionality of the things he wants to do. Social healthcare is prominent unconstitutional issue and it must be drilled.
We need to continue drilling the media to get more focus on the third party candidates and the up to 10% of the vote they have in some states, especially swing states like Ohio.
Our dirty tricks--we the geeks--can be to FLOOD iReport, Digg, Reddit, and such with third party coverage. They need to be inundated with it.
I've seen dirty tricks firsthand (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I've seen dirty tricks firsthand (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I've seen dirty tricks firsthand (Score:5, Interesting)
NPR did a spot on voter intimidation this morning. They said that a certain state (forget the one) will no longer allow out-of-state political operatives to dispute someone's eligibility to vote, and all challenges must be in writing, with particulars.
This was done in response to Republican tactics in the last election.
Parent
Re:As opposed to.. (Score:5, Funny)
Clean tricks?
You know, the ones where the prostitute has had all their shots ...
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight. At least they will apparently not continue to dominate the world, if we go by recent events.
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Funny)
Man, I wish more Europeans realized the irrelevance of their countries. The pointlessness of a N-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight. At least they will apparently continue to not dominate the world, if we go by recent events.
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, I wish more people realized the irrelevance of countries. The pointlessness of systems based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Actually, I think there's some hope.
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Sadly, when you look to countries which have more workable multi-party systems you often see far more political instability. Look at Japan, many European countries and so on - weak coalitions that are easily toppled as political allegiances change.
I'm not advocating a two-party system as perfect. I just can't see anything better in practice today.
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not advocating a two-party system as perfect. I just can't see anything better in practice today.
Australian system, compulsory preferential voting and proportional representation in the upper house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system
Yes there's mostly two parties, but its much easier for smaller parties to actually win some seats and make a real difference and we've had a mostly stable system.
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, as an Australian I prefer our system by far compared to the US system. I just didn't want to derail the thread.
Preferential and mandatory voting leads to the best representation of voter intention I've seen in the world, but it also can lead to the balance of power being held by a single independent politician. A few years back Brian Harradine held the balance of power in the senate, and was able to massively pork-barrel for Tasmania by selling his vote for terms that suited him well (even though the gov't of the day had an electoral mandate to deliver). It can be argued either way whether this is good or bad politics.
The best example I've seen in our politics so far was in Tasmania some years back when the Labor Party had to join a coalition with the Greens to form a government. There was a real move towards Green politics in Southern Tasmania, and that actually did come out in the elected politicians. It didn't last so long, and after a while the two major parties reworked the system to destroy third party power (yay democracy!) but it was the best representation of a third party I've seen here.
You may note that I discount the Nationals in the federal political coalition with the Liberals. They are utterly spineless, bending to the Libs' whim immediately and obediently. Sadly they represent the 'bush' voters as much as any inner-city Lib does (and their complete willingness to fold on Telstra was all the proof we ever needed of that). More's the pity. A real coalition would be better for all concerned.
(Help for our international friends - the Liberals (note the capital) are the Australian conservatives, Labor are closest to the small-L liberals and the Nationals are meant to represent the rural voters.)
To any Australian voters - always vote below the line! Distribute your preference how you want to, don't let some party official give your vote away!
(diatribe over, resume normal transmission)
Parent
Solutions [Re:No, the real trick] (Score:5, Informative)
The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies. Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight.
Either approval voting [approvalvoting.org] or range voting [wikipedia.org] (aka score voting [rangevoting.org]would break the forced two-valued dichotomy of the current system.
(In fact, approval voting is just one version of range voting-- in games theory, they are identical).
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want to say that we were right to try and stay out of WWII even as genocide occurred, I'd be completely within my rights, I could even go further and suggest that it was a good thing, try doing that in Europe. It is a genuinely disgusting sentiment, but here you can actually say it.
"In Europe"? What the hell does that mean? I'm "European", and I can say that in public. AFAIK there's nothing prohibiting me from doing it other than shame and life-long ridicule. I'd say the same applies to most European countries, other than Germany where it may - or may not - fall under the anti-nazi speech laws, but then Germany is the scene of the crime, and what they do is not my concern.
Parent
Demagogues (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Demagogues (Score:5, Funny)
Dictatorships are run by dictators. Monarchies are run by monarchs.
So I guess the US is a country?
Oh wait - that joke doesn't work in written form.
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Funny)
As a Canadian, I have to say that if the worst does come to pass... Well, let's just say that there is a whole bunch of concrete and razor wire standing by. Don't tell the americans about this though, they'd just get all pissy.
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Interesting)
The VP debate was funny until I checked the news the next day and everything was about how well Palin did, saying that she even 'won' (politically). Then it was just very sad.
Really? I heard they both pretty much did what was expected from them. Palin did well, but probably not good enough to matter. Biden demonstrated he knew what he was talking about without getting pedantic, and that he'd be an adequate choice as VP.
And according to the analyses I read, that's pretty much all the Obama/Biden ticket needs to do: show they're not idiots, reliable, and an adequate choice to lead the country. McCain and Palin are working so hard to appear mavericks that they come across as unreliable loonies.
No idea if it's true, but if it is, it'd be pretty impressive that a young, black advocate for change has conquered the "safe choice" position. Although that's probably more because of McCain's panicky stunts than his own doing.
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's better than what Bush did in 2000. He didn't answer a single question, and somehow he won it.
If your goal is to win, winning without answering a single question is about as good as you can get.
Parent
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Biden did any better. They both just repeatedly misstated the other campaign's position while only extolling the virtues of their own.
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution. It's not a lot if you want to lead a country, but a basic understanding of the law is kind of vital, I think.
Parent
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. Because the homeless folks are jumping from state to state to get multiple votes.
Why shouldn't a homeless person have the same right to vote as me?
Parent
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
What is your source for them being illegal aliens? or just making up facts as you go?
I'm willing to bet it's the later.
They are simply guilty of the greatest crime in America, being poor. Regardless they are still human and if citizens just as worthy of a vote as you are.
Parent
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
A) They don't pay taxes
B) They don't own land
C) They don't have families
D) They don't have any interaction with most laws (from cars to copyright)
Maybe we need a country and people that believe in statements like: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Parent
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps because: ...and so on...
A) They don't pay taxes
B) They don't own land
C) They don't have families
D) They don't have any interaction with most laws (from cars to copyright)
You do realize that in the United States, the minimum age to register to vote is 18, right?
And a lot of 18-year-olds are still living at home, may not have jobs and are therefore not paying taxes (BTW, poll taxes were eliminated in the U.S. by 1966.), and probably don't have dependents of their own?
Wow... by your qualifications, they shouldn't be allowed to vote either, huh?
Parent
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
The line that moved your post from bigoted to just plain stupid was reason D. Your idea of "most laws" is "cars and copyright"? Homeless people have far more interaction with the actually important laws, and far more need for those laws to be reasonable and just, than people whose idea of the "law" is limited to traffic rules and copyright.
I don't know what "propositions" you are talking about (though I don't follow Mississippi politics), but all your "criteria" would be explicitly unconstitutional.
Did you know that most homeless people are not actually homeless for very long? Only a minority would even fall into your batshit-crazy idea that people without land or children have no stake in the future of our society.
Parent
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Informative)
From: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/voterInformation/regToVote.aspx [state.oh.us]
What are the qualifications to register and to vote in Ohio?
You are qualified to register to vote in Ohio if you meet all the following requirements:
1. You are a citizen of the United States;
2. You will be at least 18 years old on or before the day of the general election. (If you will be 18 on or before November 4, you may vote in the primary election for candidates, but you cannot vote on issues until you are 18);
3. You will be a resident of Ohio for at least 30 days immediately before the election in which you want to vote;
4. You are not incarcerated (in prison or jail) for a felony conviction under the laws of this state, another state or the United States;
5. You have not been declared incompetent for voting purposes by a probate court; and
6. You have not been permanently disenfranchised for violations of the election laws.
You are eligible to vote in elections held in your voting precinct more than 30 consecutive days after you are duly registered to vote in this state.
I see nothing about paying taxes. Nothing about owning land. Nothing about having families. Basically, you're talking out your ass with no factual basis for doing so. Because your points are all 100% wrong and 100% foul of Ohio election laws.
Why isn't owning land allowed to let a vote count more? Because it violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Section 1. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection. As in all citizens count the same for voting.
Furthermore, any use of taxes to determine voting rights or status falls foul of the 24th amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
If a homeless person can prove citizenship, there is no legal basis to deny or devalue their vote.
Parent
"almost no questions asked" (Score:5, Informative)
... except for:
1) citizenship
2) name
3) birthdate
4) state driver's license or SSN (required)
But hey, they're poor, so obviously they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Especially since they so often vote the wrong way, and thus prove how unAmerican they are.
Parent
Re:"almost no questions asked" (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait, what?
Lets test each of these:
1) Citizenship - No poverty limitation there. You're basically born into it, are lucky enough to get amnesty, or wait through the bureaucracy. This isn't New Zealand...
On the other hand, if you can't prove you're a citizen WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING TRYING TO VOTE?
2) Name - When I was born, those were being handed out free to everyone. Maybe something has changed?
3) Birthdate - Since when is a date something you have? Its a fact. Can't be owned. Poverty has no bearing.
4) Driver's License or SSN - The former requires having a car, while the latter, again is given without any cost whatsoever. Just walk into the office and ask for one.
If this is 'Informative', I have completely missed the sarcasm tags...
Parent
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have said, underhanded, yes, but not fraud. Kindof like the primarily Democrat regions in Ohio and Florida had a shortage of voting machines, while the Republican areas had more than enough to keep the wait short. Or how the polls allowed late comers in Rep. but not Dem areas. Well the latter might be borderline.
Gerrymandering anyone?
Fraud is when the Deceased in Chicago all seem to vote on the same party line.
Fraud is when "you"'ve and "everyone else" voted twice or more for West Virginia, again, all on the same party line, before you've (or anyone else) even entered the polling station.
Fraud is voting machines that change votes.
There's plenty of examples of all these happening, and it doesn't follow party lines. And it's not limited to the locations mentioned either. Each party has their areas that they keep by their underhanded tricks, or their frauds.
Parent
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have said, underhanded
Sorry, but what?!?!?!?!
How on earth is it "underhanded" to help underprivileged people exercise their right to vote?
Parent
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that one of the Republican party's strategy for the last hundred years or so was to claim voter fraud wherever imaginable and then claim to be victimized by fictitious fraud, right? It's something that they started doing because they didn't want to count black votes.
In fact it was on a down swing during much of the 90s because they lost a few key legal decisions and were barred from doing so.
To suggest that there's anything improper or illegal going on there is suggesting far more than the facts dictate. What was going on is that the Republican party doesn't want the poor and homeless to be able to vote and so they throw up these spurious fraud complaints hoping to keep some legitimate votes from being counted.
Parent