DNC and Voter Suppression

An anonymous reader points to this Drudge Report story about an election day manual specifying aggressive tactics to be used in the event of any election problems. While Drudge says the Democrats are planning to "declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists", that's not what the manual says.

Re:How is this "voter intimidation"?

[GreenHell]

I think the problem Drudge has is the pro-active part.

I'll agree, it seems a bit sleezy in that it implies that tactics in the past will definitely used again. However, at the same time, I see the reason for it: they're saying that these tactics have been used in the past, so it only makes sense to make sure that people are aware of them and on the lookout to ensure that they aren't used again.

Re:Pre-Emptive Strike?

[revscat]

So let's say this is true. Is this worse of a crime, the same, or less of a crime than the wholscale destruction of voter registraiton cards as carried out by GOP operatives in multiple states over the past few weeks?

Why not just Distort the story a bit more

[Crashmarik]

What the memo said is that they should pre-emptively raise claims of voter fraud even if there wasn't any evidence yet.

This isn't a story about voter suppression its a story about the Dem's trying to get results they don't like tossed out by the courts. Much the way they handle news and facts they don't like.

To call this voter suppression is to detract from the story and render it a straw man.

Re:Pre-Emptive Strike?

[N3WBI3]

As was well said eralier in the post is it OK cause its 'less wrong' than what someone else is doing?

But I guess if you want to even things out how about the DNC fraud in Ohio:

http://hundredpercenter.blogspot.com/2004/09/autho rities-investigating-voter-fraud.html

Face it both parties are ripping up registrations and registering dead people (like in SD where someone paid 13K by the democrats registered a dead person and had many more suspicious cards turned in.

Re:nice move michael!!

[dman123]

I have never had to show ID in order to vote unless it was for the registration itself. This oddity has always been, well, odd. Why allegedly go through the trouble of verifying eligibility and then not ask for an ID when it's time to punch the holes or mark the circles? This is the most easily explotable area for fraud. You can bet I'd raise holy hell if someone "accidentally" voted on my behalf before I got to the polling place.

Slashdot reader poll:

Do you have to show an ID on voting day in order to vote?

Re:To be fair...

[jdiggans]

Republicans think that Democrats stuff the ballot box with fraudulent votes... dead people, illegal aliens, people voting in multiple times in different jurisdictions etc. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.

Do you have any proof to this at all? There is plenty [democrats.com] of proof about Republican action during the 2000 election (and an attempt at a repeat [cnn.com]).