Election Dirty Tricks About To Begin 942
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.
I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
The joys of living in the swing state of VA....
Re:dirty tricks (Score:1, Interesting)
I spent time on slashdot, I can tell you...
See how that does not work?
You pulled some scare lines from thin air and are backing them up with thin air.
Or should I say hot air.
Based on the polls of eligible voters in most states, McCain would be wary to have full voter turn out. He would lose. So guess what his campaign tactic is now?
Gallup Daily: Obama Leads 50% to 42% [gallup.com]
McCain has been push polling and voter caging for months now. He does not want people to turn out to vote. His best bet is suppression.
And, sadly, he has sunk that low.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:1, Interesting)
right... and the government has been hiding extra-terrestrials at area 51 since the 50s.
Record Robocalls, Shine the light (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen dirty tricks firsthand (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
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...
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.
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.
Re:Mc Cain + Palin spam emails (Score:3, Interesting)
i noticed as the sneaky bastards managed to deliver the email past gmail's spam filter straight into my inbox :(
heres the email
http://b.imagehost.org/0997/Image3.jpg [imagehost.org]
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Interesting)
Is political stability necessarily good? There's an optimal point somewhere between the instability of, say, Italy, and the stability of, say, Cuba.
As for the two party system: it can work sometimes. I'm not convinced that it's working in the US, and I'm not convinced that in general it's better than a three or four party system.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Interesting)
As a card carrying member of the "Bush is a Moron" club even I have to admit Bush actually did quite well as a debater. In terms of scoring debate points he fought both Gore and Kerry to a draw. I attribute this more to Gore and Kerry focusing too much on pre-prepared talking points rather than thinking on the fly during the debate, which made them seem wooden, disingenuous and out of touch. Bush had his talking points too (fuzzy math) but was able to put together some coherent statements responding to his opponents arguments. Comparing Bush to Palin is really an insult to Bush's intelligence--and I wouldn't have thought that was possible a month ago.
As a VP candidate Palin is the new Dan Quayle--only without the pedigree. If she were a man she would have been laughed off completely weeks ago, but they've played the gender card well.
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.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but wasn't it one of those 2004 debates where Bush had that bulge from something under his jacket? Did anyone ever really find out what the heck that thing was?
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)
Re:McCain v. Obama v. third-party (Score:5, Interesting)
What? No it isn't. I believe I know where you're going... that States should have the right not the federal government... but if the people decide that they want the feds to take over healthcare... that's totally legal, that's Democracy. You may not like it, but I'm sure that we have the power to let them.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Interesting)
In a true multiparty system you must get concensus to get anything done so it is difficult to get unpopular things done.
True enough, but the right thing and the popular thing are often not the same. As a libertarian I would say that a broad consensus, across a wide and diverse group of people, varied in terms of income, geography, race, gender, rural vs. urban, etc., should be a necessary but NOT sufficient condition for the passage of any law. Interestingly that is exactly why the U.S. Constitution was written the way it was . . it was designed to make exactly such a consensus a necessary (but not sufficient) prerequisite for any governmental action at the federal level. Unfortunately those checks and balances have mostly come apart, so we now have a mostly national (not federal) system in which people want to believe they have some stake and some semblance of control, but in which the same unelected oligopoly actually holds most of the power regardless of who wins elections.
Re:I've seen dirty tricks firsthand (Score:2, Interesting)
Know your rights. In my state it is illegal to ask to see identification when voting. And you can register at the polls so there's a process for that. It's been a while but I think you need a driver's license or a utility bill and your license. Either way it was relatively painless.
And if anyone other than the poll workers ask me for any information then I'll tell 'em to go fuck themselves. They have no right to ask me anything. That's where the 'know your rights' comes in. At least I know my rights here. In other states there will be differences.
Sounds like a course in basic government is in order for those areas where this kind of thing is prone to happening. Or a lot of folks with digicams recording the whole thing. These kinds of tricks can't stand exposure.
I haven't personally experienced any of the dirty tricks noted here. My little corner of the world isn't important enough for them to bother with meddling, it seems.
The worst thing about robocalls is that they don't free up the line after you hang up. For whatever reason they keep your line tied up until the end of the recording. An annoyance certainly and not something to endear me to any candidate.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you be more specific about when a person's vote becomes less valuable than yours?
Is it a debilitating mental illness (eg schizophrenia) ?
What about other mental illnesses (eg bipolar disorder) ?
Brain damage after a stroke?
Quadriplegic?
Paraplegic?
Broken leg?
Sprained ankle?
Stubbed toe?
On another axis:
Homeless?
Jobless?
Working poor?
Lower class?
Middle class?
Upper class?
Let's throw in another axis, just for fun:
Jewish?
Gypsy?
Protestant?
Muslim?
Catholic?
Buddhist?
Yes, I'm having a little fun at your expense, but you need to understand this - you do not get to choose what anyone else's vote is worth. The vote of every adult in your country has the precise same value as yours, whether that person be utterly unable to express any coherent thought or not. There is absolutely no regard for your feelings on this, and that is precisely correct. As soon as you remove someone's vote, you remove their voice. It's easy to go on from there, and I'd be surprised if you thought about what that means.
We've heard this before.
To conclude - please define some cut-off point in your criteria. Precisely when does another person's vote become meaningless in your eyes? What condition is the boundary which defines when their vote should not be counted? What conditions are okay?
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent my Saturday doing it, and felt pretty damn good afterwards for someone who, by right-wing ideology, is doing something morally wrong. I helped a lady born in 1925 who can't talk or get around much anymore (but who had political news on the TV) fill out an absentee ballot application. If it weren't for me, she would not be voting this year. I helped another lady born in 1923 fill out her first ever voter registraition! I had a guy invite me into his (incredibly modest rent-controlled) home, sit down next to his open bible while we filled out his form, and tell me dead serious that he felt God sent me there that day to get him registered. I wouldn't nessecarily agree, but who knows? Perhaps.
As the saying goes, if this is what being wrong feels like, I don't want to be Right.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with our "two party" system is the two parties are nearly identical, especially in the leadership. The planks of both parties are considerably different, but it has been a long time since a Republican has followed its party's plank.
Carrol Quigley, Georgetown professor and mentor to Bill Clinton said this in Tragedy & Hope,
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers." "Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
He also had this to say:
It is increasingly clear that, in the twentieth century, the expert will replace ... the democratic voter in control of the political system. Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits
(Tragedy and Hope: 866).
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Interesting)
"Comparing Bush to Palin is really an insult to Bush's intelligence--and I wouldn't have thought that was possible a month ago."
I've come to this epiphany only recently, though i felt it a long time ago...
Almost any discussion of our current President, and by extension any Republican candidate, by the loyal opposition generally referred to as the Democratic Party, seems to regularly include an ad hominem
Many people generally seem to be willing to use ad hominem attacks against Republicans, as the above quoted excerpt is an example thereof... Of course, these attacks are without substance or merit, unless of course the claim about a person's trait or characteristic is true and germane. Just so we're clear on this, our current President may be a moron, but this is not borne out by his ascendence to the Presidency, nor his choice of advisors and operatives. In other words, he's not so stupid that he didn't manage to win the Presidency. Twice. Of course, to be fair, the failure of the Democrats to defeat him is not because they are stupid. Being partisan, I lay that on their failed arguments, though I may be wrong.
Remarkably, however, I'm convinced that it is current Democratic Party strategy to consider any challenge, disagreement, or rebuttal of their positions to be by definition 'ad hominem attacks'. A clever device. rather than debate the merits, first claim assumption that any disagreement is obviously uninformed, specious, or wrong-headed, and then label it a personal attack. Ah, there goes any cogent opposition, down the drain of utter refutation by the basest or means - calling them idiots. No, malicious idiots.
The real trick is to cast your opponent as incapable of meaningful participation in the debate, as they are either mentally/emotionally/ethically inadequate, motivated purely by the desire to insult your person, etc...
Yes, the real trick is to deny your opposition any basis for debate.
Not working.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. (Score:2, Interesting)
ABC, a controlled puppet of one of the 5 corporations who own 95% of all USA mainstream media and who's masters hold controlling shares in both presidential candidates, wants you to believe that there is some sort of real choice and buy into this false left-right dichotomy.
Unfortunately for you, this is all a puppet trick played out on a stage when the real usurping of our government occurred a century ago and we have been subjected to a form of subversive slavery with increasingly severity since.
Watch this great big brother talk. [youtube.com]
The real battle is not between obama and mcain. The real battle appears to be between the neonazi faction of bush and cheney [youtube.com] who have been moving towards a coup for the past 8 years [youtube.com] and may have finally made their move on oct.1 [youtube.com] versus the established uber elite who oppose this and would like to see the system of subversive control remain in place as-is.
Was the 20 trillion payout the bush administration handed out this fall enough to satisfy them? Remember, because of fractional reserve banking [google.com], every trillion they dump into existence immediately becomes 9 trillion (conservatively: see "modern money mechanics"). [i-link-2.net]
The answer to these problems: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, I'm going to play the part of a party-neutral observer, since I hate all politicians. Here is what you need to do to get a clean election.
-Republicans: Alright, you need to let minorities and homeless people votes. I know, it sucks. And you can't vote for dead people. And you can't arrange for campaign contributors to provide the electronic voting machines. Etc. I know you guys are aware on some level of the crap you've done.
-Democrats: You need to get rid of winner-take-all voting systems. California, I'm looking at you.
Of course this won't happen because the margins will always be close enough to make voting machine scams worth it. And truly representative voting would be a disaster for the dems, since taking the winner take all states gives them equal footing against all the representative states that are taken by republicans. Funny how that works.
OK, go ahead and rip my plan apart.
-b
Re:McCain v. Obama v. third-party (Score:3, Interesting)
So, let me get this straight: You think that that phrase means that it is the Federal government's responsibility to provide health insurance? You'd think the founding fathers would have implemented it in their day if that was the case.
If you interpret things that broadly, the document ceases to mean anything at all. The Constitution was about limiting the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government explicitly. If you want to make up new responsibilities, why stop there? Can I get someone else to pay for my car insurance? My car note? My apartment? My food?
If you want to socialize medicine, do it at the state level so people like me that definitely don't want it don't have to deal with it. It won't make for a healthier public, it'll make for another third rail of politics that will grow in scope and cost until we're even more bankrupt than we already are.
Re:As exemplified by kdawson's posting (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, this is colloquially referred to as the "B-b-but Clinton!" Effect. Basically, when someone points out that the political group you prefer did something wrong, point out that someone from the other major party also did something wrong, and imply that (therefore) it is all a wash, regardless of whether or not the original revelation of wrongdoing was done in order to draw a comparison between the two parties (that is, even if the original statement that "party A did [wrong thing]" and ended at that, make your response be a partisan response).
GOP supporters have been getting 10 years of mileage out of Clinton in particular, but it applies to things like this as well.
Sometimes this is deliberate, though I think some people are in such a partisan mindset when elections come around (or, all the time, I guess) that its impossible for them to just say, "Yes, my party did this, and it was wrong."
Re:Plague, not pox (Score:3, Interesting)