The GOP And Voter Disenfranchisement

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

There are two ways to increase your chances of winning an election, get more voters to cast their ballots for you, or get fewer voters to cast their ballots for your opponent. The GOP had decided to pursue the latter option.

There is nothing more sacred in a democracy that the right to vote, so an attack on voting rights is an attack on democracy. That is exactly what is happening in many states across our land. Republican governors and legislatures are passing laws making it extremely difficult for certain Americans to vote.

The Republicans use the illusion of voter fraud to mask their contempt of the Constitution. A report from the Brennan Center for Justice found the incidence of voter fraud at rates such as 0.0003 percent in Missouri and 0.000009 percent in New York. Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center said  “Voter impersonation is an illusion.” The Brennan report also states:

We are not aware of any documented cases in which individual noncitizens have either intentionally registered to vote or voted while knowing that they were ineligible.

Kris Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas and longtime conservative activist, has led the voter ID drive in his state. Kobach explained that between 1997 and 2010, Kansas has experienced “221 cases of reported voter fraud.” A dubious claim since not a single criminal conviction has resulted. Over the same period of time, Kansans cast 10 million votes. Even if everyone of the claimed cases of voter fraud were accurate, the rate of fraud would be miniscule.

Numerous surveys show that blacks, Hispanics, the elderly, and the young are less likely like to possess a form of government-issued identification. Except for the elderly, the other demographics are more likely to vote Democratic. The elderly are more likely to vote Republican. In a shameless display of the falsity of their voter fraud motivations, Republicans in Texas simply exempted the elderly from the new voter ID law.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, after signing a voter ID law requiring voters to have a photo ID, then closed DMV offices in Democratic areas and expanded DMV operating hours in Republican areas. South Carolina governor Nikki Haley said she “will go take them to the DMV myself and help them get that picture ID.” Even with carpooling, it would take 7 years, 4 months, 3 weeks and 5 days to take the 178,000 voters to the DMV. That assumes good traffic conditions.

H/T: WaPo, Bloomberg, E.J. Dionne, Think Progress, Daily Kos.

143 thoughts on “The GOP And Voter Disenfranchisement

  1. Nal,

    Thanks for posting about this important story. This all goes back to Paul Weyrich. I found the following video when I was doing some reading on the subject:

  2. I have been watching this story for some times, and each week brings a new outrage. I recall the bad old days in the south, where people of color were threatened with death if they tried to register to vote. Reforms did away with the poll tax and certain states had to clear any new voting laws with the Feds before they could implement them. Maybe those laws ought to be expanded to nationwide. Fat chance of that passing, though, in the current toxic climate in Congress.

    This is voter caging, pure and simple. The only real voter fraud we have seen so far has been by the Republicans, not Democrats.

  3. So a group exists that has no ID to buy liquor or cigarettes, drive, fly, work, cash a check, rent an apartment, or even get a marriage license… and they are queued up in line to vote?

    More voters are disenfranchised by the Republicrat duopoly’s absurd rules that keep third party candidates off ballots. If this were a serious effort to advance democratic debate that’s where the focus would be. It isn’t.

  4. Nal,

    The Days of LBJ and Voting are becoming a day of the past…..It is a sad state of affairs chiefly engineered by Lee Atwater….

  5. The use of voter suppression by the GOP is just more example that even THEY realize they cannot win elections honestly. What’s astounding is the level of their desperation indicated by how blatantly they are pursuing the matter this time around.

  6. culheath, they are so blatant because they know no one in Washington or the DoJ is going to call them on it. If some people were to start going to jail for violating Constitutional protections, it might stop. I agree with AY’s comment above. We are still reaping the fallout from Lee Atwater’s dirty tricks.

  7. Good post, nal. The democrats have to carry Wisconsin and Ohio.This could lead to President Perry.

  8. If there is a President Perry, we are doomed.

    The Republicants better be careful what they pray for, they may get it.

  9. SWM,

    I saw a 14 year old kid this weekend that basically is from the heartland of WI…I had to stop him as his T-Shirt had “Obama and Hope”…..I think anyone but the GOP will win seats in WI at present…..They are so pissed at what the GOP has brought them….I think 2 years ago the T-Shirt would not be as welcome….and Obama was hated….I think they are seeing that the GOP brings other what they pay for….

  10. Maybe, AY, if they are not stopped from voting in Wisconsin. Walker’s laws are said to be the most restrictive.

  11. Yes but suppressing the votes of the weak is the minor league.

    Corruption of entire election systems is the major league.

    The puppeteers behind the republicans and democrats have a goal, which is to render elections insignificant in terms of causing beneficial change by way of voting the bums out.

    There are two fronts, one is to provide candidates who will say anything during the campaign, but then when elected let their strings be pulled to do the work of the wartocracy. The other front is the manipulation of the election system on a large scale (corporate funding of elections; faith based election machines replacing hand counted paper ballots).

  12. Dredd, the most egregious problem I have seen are the electronic voting machines. I am dumfounded that Diebold has such a “problem” providing voters a paper receipt for verification of the vote. When I use a Diebold ATM, it not only gives me a paper receipt, but my banker tells me there is a duplicate copy inside the machine in case of a failure of the electronic components. But then, that is the bank. They get what they want to get.

  13. “On May 17, Carmen R. Davis became the latest casualty of an ongoing case of election theft on a grand scale. Davis, 38, a former ACORN worker, pleaded guilty in Kansas City federal court to filing false election paperwork. She had been among several defendants earlier charged with voter registration fraud and/or identity theft. Rathke and other ACORN leaders insist that the indictments were part of an organized effort to suppress minority turnout at the polls. But as Union Corruption Update indicated at length back in January, the evidence is damning: ACORN activists in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas padded the voter rolls with 35,000 or more fraudulent or questionable registration cards.

    Interim U.S. Attorney Bradley Schlozman brought charges in Kansas City against four people less than a week before Election Day. Prosecutors later dropped the charges against one of the defendants, Stephanie Davis. Her identity had been stolen by Carmen Davis; information as to whether the two are related was not available in the four-count indictment dated January 5, 2007. Carmen Davis, who also goes by the name Latisha Reed, was accused of using Stephanie Davis’s Social Security number while employed as a voter registration recruiter for ACORN in August and September of 2006. Ms. Davis/Reed allegedly caused three false registration applications – all in the name of the same person, but with different addresses – to be filed with the Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners.

    Three other persons accused of offenses during their tenure as ACORN voter activists also are paying the price. Dale Franklin, who pleaded guilty in February to filing false registration forms, received probation only days before Davis entered her guilty plea. Brian Gardner pleaded guilty in March and is awaiting sentencing. And Kwaim A. Stenson is scheduled to go on trial in July. These are victories for public integrity, but minor ones in the overall scheme of things. No four low-level operatives, no matter how clever, could have created tens of thousands of phony or suspect registration cards on their own. Moreover, the states of Colorado, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin each recently have investigated, and on due occasion, convicted ACORN members for vote fraud. The leadership of ACORN doesn’t seem fazed. Why should they? The Democratic Party and organized labor are the organization’s prime beneficiaries. (, 5/17/07; U.S. Department of Justice, 1/5/07; other sources).

  14. From Election Law Blog:

    No evidence of any NAACP complicity offered. No evidence of any in-person voter impersonation fraud, which would support the voter id law so fervently supported by the fraudulent fraud squad members in the linked reports.

    Let’s see the squad start calling for an end to absentee balloting, and then I’ll take their concerns more seriously.

  15. Nal (Author): “A dubious claim since not a single criminal conviction has resulted.”

    Ready to retract that statement, Nal?

  16. anon nurse,

    That link to the story on Wikipedia was incredibly interesting … I remember very well the fund raising efforts and rhetoric of O’Dell …Walden O’Dell, chief executive of Diebold and a top fundraiser for the Bush campaign, wrote in a fund-raising letter in 2003 that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year (2004).”

    Remember the “Pioneer” ($200,00) and “Ranger” ($100,000) status that could be bought with enough fundraising money in the Bush campaign? O’Dell was quite proud of his badges: “I am one, and proud of it,” O’Dell said in a statement issued by Diebold’s corporate headquarters. Yep, he was issuing political statements from his corporate headquarters and still claiming his voting machines were honest.

    Diebold’s Board finally got rid of ol’ Wally in 2005 and set a new policy banning top executives from making political donations. Their stock immediately jumped $2.00 a share when Wally “resigned, effective immediately, for personal reasons.”

    Somehow messing with Wikipedia pages seems so “business as usual”.

  17. “How Common Is Fraud?
    Election fraud does exist, but hasn’t been shown to be widespread. The New York Times reported in 2007 that a five-year crackdown on such fraud by the Bush administration’s Justice Department had produced 70 convictions at the federal level, including 40 campaign workers or government workers convicted of vote-buying, intimidation or ballot forgery, and 23 cases of multiple voting or voting by ineligible voters. But the Times described these as unconnected incidents and said the Justice Department had turned up no evidence of “any organized effort to skew federal elections.”
    Bush administration officials have pushed hard to find such evidence, too hard in one case, according to an investigation by the Department of Justice’s internal watchdogs, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Their report into the firing of nine United States attorneys concluded that the “real reason” for the firing of New Mexico’s U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was “complaints about Iglesias’s handling of voter fraud and public corruption matters.” The complaints included gripes by state Republican Party officials who believed that widespread fraud by Democrats had prevented George Bush from winning the state in the 2000 presidential election. Iglesias launched a task force that worked with the FBI but found that “there was insufficient evidence in any of the cases the Task Force reviewed to support criminal prosecution by the [U.S. Attorney’s Office] or state authorities,” according to the report of the OIG and OPR. These included cases involving ACORN workers. Republicans charged that Iglesias was showing insufficient rigor in prosecuting the cases.”

  18. Ah yes, I was wondering how long it would take before one of the morans brought up Acorn. Read a tiny bit and you discover that the fraud was committed by people paid to register voters. Because they were paid by the name they made up names to get paid. Acorn itself weeded out as many of those as they could and worked with officials to eliminate more. There has never been a bit of evidence of a single illegal vote cast based on these registration drives.

    Acorn was the defrauded not the ‘defrauder’.

  19. From the report linked (but apparently not read) in the original post:

    More precisely, “voter fraud” occurs when individuals cast ballots despite knowing that they are ineligible to vote, in an attempt to defraud the election system.

    This sounds straightforward. And yet, voter fraud is often conflated, intentionally or unintentionally, with other forms of election misconduct or irregularities.

    Conflating these concerns is not merely a semantic issue. First, the rhetorical sloppiness fosters the misper- ception that fraud by voters is prevalent. That is, when every problem with an election is attributed to “voter fraud,” it appears that fraud by voters is much more common than is actually the case.

  20. Nal,

    Please tell us; How is a person, who is not required to present an ID, going to be identified as not being the person casting the vote?

    When no ID is required, and no image of the person placing the vote is recorded, how likely is it that a person who committed in-person voter fraud is going to be convicted? Care to provide a scenario inwhich a conviction would be likely?

  21. Well, well, well. A dozen or so paid employees fill out paperwork improperly and get caught. No votes were ever cast based on that improper paperwork.

    On the other hand, there are big corporations like Diebold who cannot seem to invent a voting machine that can do the same thing, vis-à-vis paper receipts, as their ubiquitous ATM machines can do. Then there are the phone calls telling voters the voting day has been changed, or they cannot vote for some other reason. Or the punch ballots with styluses too short to punch the card, found only in largely Democratic precincts. Or the bags of unsealed votes that magically change the outcome of a major judicial election several days after the polls close. My fingers are getting tired, so I will stop here. I could go on for several pages about voter fraud that has NOT been prosecuted–and ol’ cynical me speaking–probably never will be prosecuted, because that would destabilize the halls of power.

  22. From HotAir. How appropriate. Hang onto that ACORN stuff sport. Maybe you will turn into a mighty oak someday.

    How about the massive voter caging, strange bags of unsealed ballots, electronic votes that shift strangely in the middle of the night, and IT experts who have bad things happen to them? Lets be sure and go after a few low level people who register a handful of voters. Those are the REAL criminals in the eyes of the Republican spin machine.

  23. OS,

    My comment was not intended to be dismissive of the other valid points made in your last comment.

    All legal votes should count, and the process should be such that the potential for should be minimized. I’m all for a voter receipt.

  24. Remember, only Otteray Scribe’s left-wing sources are valid and beyond reproach. That’s how the game works. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  25. Suggestion:

    If you don’t have an ID, submit to some another form of matching identity to the person’s name in which the ballot is cast? Picture, retinal scan, fingerprint?

  26. Con: Cries of voter fraud are being used to suppress democracy
    By RICHARD MEANS Saturday, July 30, 2011
    The Janesville Gazette

    OAK PARK, Ill. — At this critical time in our nation’s history, when wider participation by the American people in their own democracy should be encouraged, Republican politicians are instead suppressing that participation by limiting access to the voting booth.

    So-called “voter ID” laws signed into law this year in several states have nothing to do with their purported aim of protecting the sanctity of elections and everything to do with concentrating political power in fewer and fewer hands.

    As a former prosecutor of election-law violations in Chicago, I know a little something about election fraud. But what I found in years of pursuing cases of ballot abuse is that it almost never involved ordinary citizens who, say, voted when they weren’t eligible, voted under an assumed name, or voted multiple times.

    Instead, the fraud was almost exclusively perpetrated by political operatives, who stuffed ballot boxes, “lost” ballots, or otherwise manipulated the vote totals in their precincts and wards.

    On the unusual occasions when individual voters were involved, they were bribed or intimidated into cooperating with the scheme by a political operative. National and local investigations over the years have confirmed my personal experience.

    Since the supposed target of the new laws is a non-existent problem — systematic or widespread fraud by individual voters — these laws, which require citizens to present a photo ID in order to vote, can only be interpreted as an attempt to further politically marginalize already marginalized populations in our country, including the elderly, the disabled, rural residents, low-income citizens and minorities.

    These are the groups who are less likely to have government-issued photo identification, and often face financial and logistical hurdles in trying to obtain it.

  27. Right-Wing Voter Suppression Effort Caught Using Doctored Photo (VIDEO, PHOTOS)
    Huffington Post
    September 6, 2010

    A right-wing group in Houston engaged in a systematic voter suppression and intimidation effort used a doctored photo in its showcase video. Tellingly, a hand-lettered sign carried by an African-American woman at a 2000 Florida, Gore-Lieberman recount rally was changed from, “Don’t Mess With Our Vote,” to read, “I Only Got to Vote Once.”

    Huffington Post editors first suspected the photoshopping after I posted “Possible Arson and the Right’s Texas Voter Suppression Effort” regarding King Street Patriots’ attacks on a nonprofit voter registration effort and the mysterious fire that destroyed all of Harris County’s (Houston) voting machines.

  28. Top Ehrlich aide, consultant indicted in Md. robocalls case
    By John Wagner
    Washington Post, 6/16/2011

    A senior aide and a consultant hired by former Maryland governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) were indicted Thursday in a case stemming from thousands of anonymous robocalls placed on election night last year that suggested voters could stay home even though the polls were still open.

    Paul Schurick, 54, Ehrlich’s de facto campaign manager, and Julius Henson, 62, a consultant paid by the campaign, were both charged with three counts of conspiracy to violate election laws, one count of influencing votes through fraud and one count of failing to identify the sponsor of the calls. In addition, Schurick was charged on one count of obstruction of justice.

    In a statement, the Office of the Maryland State Prosecutor, which obtained the indictments from a Baltimore grand jury, said its investigation is continuing. All but one of the charges handed down Thursday carry maximum prison sentences of five years.

  29. NoWay–I must have misread what you intended. Sorry. Agree that all elections should be clean and votes easily and accurately verified. Josef Stalin could have been talking about recent US elections when he made that famous statement about who counted the votes was more important than the voter.

    Boris Bazhanov, in his book, Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary, wrote (translated from the Russian):

    You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “That I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.

  30. I am tired of hearing that the top 1% need to pay their fair share. Those who receive medicaid and other low-income programs mostly pay NOTHING in Income taxes. It is time they pay their fair share. I always believed that everyone brings a gift to the party no matter how great or small yet the Democrats want to continue and feed those who contribute nothing. If we are all Americans then we need to ALL contribute. We can discuss the Progressive tax system later but at least everyone should pay.

  31. Jack,

    There are many elderly people who are recipients of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Many of these same people worked hard for decades and paid income taxes. Shall we take their benefits away from them now that are no longer working and paying income taxes? Should we tax their Social Security benefits?

  32. Medicare is for the elderly and disabled who have worked and paid into the system. Medicaid is for the poor and elderly who have, for some reason, not paid in due to poverty or disability. Jack, shall we make my daughter’s neighbor pay too. She gets SSI and Medicaid. She only gets an amount that pays for her minimal public housing and for some food–food stamps help with that. She has no car, no television, no telephone and no air conditioning. She does have medical expenses because she is crippled and in a wheel chair so she has to use free public transportation for those trips. Her Medicaid does not pay for all her prescriptions, so she goes without getting some of her prescriptions filled. She loves green bell peppers but they are expensive at the store. She saves her money so she can buy a bell pepper as a luxury a couple of times a summer. Jack, how much do you propose she pay?

  33. Elaine,

    Of course not except for medicaid. Anybody who did not or does not pay income taxes should receive nothing. Also, what is wrong with making medicaid recipients pay a premium. Social security retirees have to pay for a supplement for their 20% not covered under medicare. Medicaid recipinets by and large do not contribute anything yet receive much.

    I do not believe any social security benefits should be taxed even for people who are getting much more than the $32,000/year. In the 80s,90s and 2000s we increased entitlements and due to job losses revenues have declined. Technology has a lot to do with that because technological advances take the place of jobs. Unless this changes America will stay in decline. What we need to do is raise tariffs and start building at home but this will also require removing union barriers and we both know how difficult that will be.

  34. Otteray Scribe

    Always a grief worse-case scenario. Government is not the mom and dad of the people. What you are doing is trying to justify that which is not right. People should help people and not government. We have become a lazy society because as a population we like to have the governemnt do what we know we should be doing. Most people would rather contribute money rather than their time. Unless we change our thinking we all will lose.

  35. Jack, all too many people are selfish. Your system will not work in practice. I do not see my example as some kind of worst case scenario. In the universe of people in which I travel, it is an everyday thing. That lady is not an exception, but typical of thousands of people just like her that live in poverty, and would literally starve if they did not first die of medical neglect were it not for government programs.

    Remember those pesky phrases in the Preamble to the Constitution? They were not put there by accident.

  36. Otteray Scribe

    Her Medicaid does not pay for all her prescriptions, so she goes without getting some of her prescriptions filled

    This is a freebie which she really is not entitled to. Never rob Paul to pay Peter. Earn your way. This is why we need to take care of all of our Social security and Medicare recipients.

  37. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)

  38. “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” — Thomas Jefferson

  39. This discussion brings a favorite quotation to mind:

    “Man has places in his heart which do not yet exist, and into them enters suffering in order that they may have existence.” -Leon Bloy

  40. kderosa

    When we allow illegals to come into our country and then end up at our hospitals where the America tax-payer pays under the notion of general welfare is a joke and one example of what is killing our our nation.

  41. OS,

    You’re correct. Who counts the votes (including the method/machine) is at least as important as making sure that the person casting the vote is really that person.

    I think every citizen who wants to vote should be able to. Along with that comes the responsibility to make sure that the vote cast is correctly applied to the person/initiative for which it is intended.

  42. Jack – let me clue you in to a little secret. Back in the 80’s when Reagan tripled the national debt in his first term by cutting taxes actual conservatives panicked. The result was to create a phoney crisis about the solvency of social security and raise the taxes on working people. That extra money was spent to disguise the real cost of the income tax cuts. There are now several trillion dollars of surplus paid in, so when you suggest taking away SS and Medicare simply to maintain the income tax cuts Boy Blunder and his Super Friends passed in his first term you are stealing from working people to give more money to people who already have an awful lot of it. Much of it earned by the sweat of people who paid those additional FICA taxes.

  43. anon nurse:

    interesting quotation.

    Why does it have to be suffering which gives man existence? Sounds rather bleak to me and pretty depressing, in fact it seems like the guy would rather be dead.

  44. Frank, you aren’t entitled to your own historical facts.

    A majority of Democrats voted for that bill in the House and a majority of Republicans in the House voted against it.

  45. Jack,

    No one knows how long they are going to live. Many elderly people are living longer today than they did in the past. Many may have put money aside for their retirement but have used up what they had saved because they lived longer than expected. What do you suggest we do with those elderly who no longer have money to pay for their own medical care or nursing homes?

    I’d prefer that my tax dollars help pay for the care of the sick and elderly who don’t have the money to pay for themselves. I think it’s much better than spending billions of tax dollars on wars and giving tax breaks to huge corporations. To me it’s all about the priorities a society has. Many people in this country seem to have lost their compassion and empathy in recent years.

  46. Klownderosa – really it was a Republican that first really tore up the Constitution. Good old Abe Lincoln! He stole private property from fine gentlemen and pissed all over the 3/5ths clause the founders had written out explicitly.

    And I bet you think the world would be a better place if that had never happened and chattel slavery was still the law of the land.

  47. Klown boy – yes, to there ever lasting shame Ds did vote for it. But is Rs that now want to steal that money to hide Boy Georges tax cut devastation.

  48. Klwon boy – just like to is Rs that passed part D with the stipulation that the government could not negotiate prices on drugs. It gives the drug companies a ton of money & ensures that this new Medicare is unsustainable. Rather than fix the problem by buying in bulk & getting a better price they want to pretend there is a real crisis and the only solution is to gut the entire program.

  49. @Frank

    Why don’t you expalin in your own words,or at least in owrds of other’s you understand why the 3/5ths clause was all about.

    “yes, to there ever lasting shame Ds did vote for it. ”

    Thank you.

    “just like to is Rs that passed part D with the stipulation that the government could not negotiate prices on drugs. It gives the drug companies a ton of money & ensures that this new Medicare is unsustainable.”

    Support? Who voted for the bill?

  50. Jack and others who think like Jack:

    I do not dislike you, do not hate you and do not disrespect you. I simply pity you. Pity for your lack of compassion, lack of empathy and lack of soul. Pity for your inability to see a larger picture than your narrow economic self interest. I truly feel sorry for you and all who think like you.

    I sincerely hope you do not fall on the kind of hard times that have befallen others and that if you you do, there will be programs that will save you. Those are not empty words; I mean that.

  51. D**n, my posting, with relevant quotes just disappeared with some kind of auto-refresh. I’ll try without the quotes, more or less.

    Well, two things: The Civil Rights Act speaks only about restricting literacy tests. Other qualifying procedures are not enumerated. While the Voting Rights Act has a more broad statement about protecting voter rights both statutes specifically single out race or the 15th Amendment. The VRA also provides procedures for how a proceeding initiated by the Attorney General will be handled and what procedures regarding oversight of a state or smaller state subdivision can take place if the Attorney General prevails.

    The good news is that while the actual statutes regarding voting rights are narrowly focused the actual procedures to make it difficult to vote generally make it difficult for more than one protected class so that any remedy that removes the impediment re-establishes voting rights to all affected classes.

    The bad news is the the Justice Department doesn’t appear to be interested in even performing oversight in the states it it charged with overseeing (Preclearance) changes to voting qualification laws in the states it has a statutory requirement to oversee.

    It looks like people or on their own in securing voting rights these days.

    “The United States Commission on Civil Rights recently reviewed the Justice Department Preclearance record and found that the percentage of DOJ objections to submitted changes has declined markedly throughout the 40-year period of the Act: from 5.5 percent in the first period to 1.2 percent in the second, and to 0.6 percent in the third. Over the last 10 years, the overall objection rate was so low as to be practically negligible, at less than 0.1 percent.[15] The Commission’s two Democratic members dissented from the report, charging that the Commission had “abandon[ed] the field of battle.”[16]”

    The second thing is, OS is right, getting the vote is one thing but using a completely unreliable system to do it and count it is something else altogether. We need to go back to paper and pencils, easy and verifiable.

  52. @Otteray Scribe,

    Are you done with the moral posturing? Did it refresh you feelings of moral superiority?

  53. Srsly, Illegals, the 3/5 designation and taxes? Can no thread remain un-corrupted by the manifestly ADD tendencies of the likely suspects. You know, there’s medication for that. The Professor is wise to not have me on the short list of posters he would trust as a guest poster- I would not hesitate to erase mean-spirited and stupid posts and block other posters of the hi-jacking kind with a whimsical and capricious abandon, for just cause, just cause I could.:-)

  54. anon nurse, fabulous link regarding who’s editing Wikipedia. Considering how much heat Diebold takes for their voting machines I’m not surprised at their involvement at all.

  55. Otteray Scribe

    I never said anything about not helping people. I stated that we as a people are more apt to give dollars and expect others to take care of the problem rather than giving of our time. When government gives it creates a lot of abuse and waste and of course beauracracies. Also, we would tell those who abuse the system to buzz off and help those who are really in need. That is why entitlements would best work in the private sector.

  56. Jack,

    “I never said anything about not helping people. I stated that we as a people are more apt to give dollars and expect others to take care of the problem rather than giving of our time.”

    Many people work long hours; some work two jobs. They also have to do food shopping, clean their houses, do laundry, make out bills, take care of their children–and maybe their parents. Not all people have the time or the energy to care for the elderly and the disabled in their “spare” time.

    P.S. I believe it was the private sector that blew a hole in our economy. We taxpayers had to bail out the banks, AIG, etc.

  57. Otteray Scribe

    With an expanding population, increase in unemployment, lack of manufacturing, and unfair trade deals with the rest of the world, Do you believe the government can continue down this path of reckless spending with entitlement spending? As I stated earlier the only solution is to what we did as a nation as a result of the 1837-40 amd 1930s depressions: Increase tariffs and bring manufacturing home. In addition, we have to do something about unions even though many progressives don’t want to talk about it. The past is there to learn from. Friday Dylna Rattigan(MSNBC) explained well why we are in a mess: It began with Clinton, continued with Bush, and exploded under Obama.

  58. Elaine M.

    No the private sector didn’t. It was easing lending practices to people who had no concept of a dollar. Many people didn’t read their contracts and borrowed way above their heads, I do not blame the bank because every person knows what they earn and what they spend and should be accountable. Adam and Eve tried to pass the buck and blame the serpent and that didn’t work out too well.

  59. Jack,

    “It was easing lending practices to people who had no concept of a dollar.”

    Why did the “private sector” do that? Isn’t the private sector the responsible party then? If a bank gives someone who is a poor risk a loan, who is really at fault? The bank or the individual who is a poor risk?

    What about Credit Default Swaps and Credit Debt Obligations? What about the Quants?

  60. Elaine M.

    I have learned that in just a few short moments you are good with making excuses for people. We can all give time if we make a decision to do so. Our government is currently 14.3 trillion in debt and by tomorrow will increasing that to ver 16 trillion. We pay about 30 billion in interest each month on that debt. A country can’t last much longer with those facts. We have enjoyed a life that many in past present and future will never see but it is coming to an end Unless we make tough choices by cutting entitlements. Socking it to the rich is not a solution and as I stated earlier every American should be paying income taxes which is Fair. I can’t stand the Progressive tax system but am willing to compromise if it will bring stability and fairness. Before a discussion on fairness can begin, the very least everybody in Amewrica should be paying income taxes that work.

  61. Elaine M.

    You missed it again! Clinton along with Barney Frank loosened the lending restrictions to almost forcing banks to lend. Just go back and watch Dylan Ratigan on Friday and you will hear in specific detaisl.

  62. Jack,

    “I have learned that in just a few short moments you are good with making excuses for people.”

    Please explain which people I made excuses for.

  63. Elaine M.

    Credit debt obligations! Are you kidding? How many people have stopped paying what they owe? Learn from Dave Ramsey who went bankrupt and then once he became successful went back and paid off his debts even though he didn’t have to under the law. Pay what you owe!!!

  64. There are many elderly people who are recipients of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Many of these same people worked hard for decades and paid income taxes.

    You do not pay for medicaid only for SS and Medicare. Medicaid is a freebie. I am tired of going to specialists and having to pay full price in addition with my insurance premium and medicaid patients getting it for free. That is not the vision of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madision.

  65. Elaine, et al……

    I think this group of trolls have more names than any other group on record….As soon as you get close to pinning one down….another pops up to deflect the other….

  66. Jack,

    I think there is plenty of blame to go around. I’d say that the financial problems in this country go back further than the late nineties. Remember the “dotcom” bubble…the savings and loan scandal? Remember Alan Greenspan? Remember trickle down economics? Both Democrats and Republicans bear responsibility for our problems. I think Obama didn’t help much with the economic team he chose–especially Geithner and Summers. Imagine appointing a Secretary of the Treasury who hadn’t paid his own income taxes? Yet the Republicans didn’t have a problem with that. But they did have a BIG problem with Elizabeth Warren.

  67. Only trolls & sociopaths could assert something like “People should help people and not government. ” with a straight face.

    What do they think the government is, some living entity or mechanism disconnected from people?

  68. Jack, I am disabled. I had to be disabled for 18 months before I could qualify for ss disability (for which I had worked and paid into the system – not a freebie as already noted by some here). During those 18 months I had to be n assistance including medicaid since i was physically disabled.
    The amount of ss disability comes to a staggering $9,462/year. I have no family to help with my life costs as a result I have to go to the state for food stamps and other help. The only thing ‘entitlement reform” will do, if it takes more away from medicare and ss will be to raise your state taxes to make up for what is lost from our ‘income’.
    You seem to be very lucky in life, you are not disabled, at least to the point where you cannot work, you have money to provide for ourself and are not impoverished. It is folk like you, who see the plight of folks like me, as nothing more than an issue for debate and ideology. You are very lucky sir, but, please, find some compassion in yourself, if not empathy, for those whose lives have been impacted by age, disability, circumstances out of their control that require them to ask the state for help. (And have no illusions sir that it is not humiliating to have to ask for help from the state.


  69. Carol,

    I’m not sure how long ago you became disabled, but in 2011 individuals qualify for payments after five months. Benefits go to about $28K annually.

  70. Carol Levy

    I am sorry for your situation and would do what I could to help if I lived in your area. My point is that government should have never got mixed up in entitlements and thus we are now paying a price. It is all of America’s fault not just one political party. God Bless you!

  71. I work with clients who are on SSI and I do not know of any who get over $674/month. The reason for that is the most an individual can get on SSI is $674/month.

    The most a married couple can get on disability is $1,011/month.

    If there is any income coming in from any source, benefits are reduced by that amount.


  72. If a person has been employed and paid in the maximum in taxes, disability they draw will be equal to the maximum they would get if retiring on Social Security at age 66. That amount for 2011 is $2,366/month.

  73. Raff, a very high percentage of disabled people get SSI with the maximum of $674/month. They do not get the (usually) somewhat higher Social Security Disability benefits They have to have been disabled five months before being able to draw benefits, and then every three years have to prove to the Disability Determination Service they are still disabled. Our state denies 70% of all people who apply. Now, use all your lawyerly persuasive argument skills to convince me that seventy percent of the people who come in with a six-inch-thick stack of medical records are not disabled.

  74. Facts are troublesome little buggers … thank you OS for the actual numbers.

    Carol Levy,
    rafflaw is right … most of your fellow countrymen/women have compassion for you and seek to help you better your situation

  75. I do not want to be misleading in citing the numbers for Social Security Disability benefits. That maximum amount of $2,366 is available to those who have maxed out contributions every year they worked. Hardly anyone does that. Most SSD benefits I am aware of are more closely aligned with the SSI maximum, maybe a bit more. Most of the ones with whom I come in contact get around a thousand or so a month.

    I started working and paying in close to the maximum starting at age 14 when I went to work at a local department store. The only years I did not pay the maximum was when I was in graduate school and was on a fellowship. I am here to tell you that compared to a fellowship, living on welfare is the life of Riley. Anyway, I had several years of living below the poverty level, but made up for it after graduation by working beyond retirement age and paying in the max, so I now draw the most the law allows for Social Security.

    And since I am too damn hyperactive to retire, I have to pay taxes on some of the benefits I get. That sort of sucks, but is the price of doing business.

  76. Puzzling: “I’m not sure how long ago you became disabled, but in 2011 individuals qualify for payments after five months. Benefits go to about $28K annually.”

    The date of eligibility is the 1st of the month after 5 months of disability; however, an initial claim can take 5 or 6 months, a Reconsideration another 3 -6 months, and a Hearing as much as a year or two. A person’s receipt date could likely be 18 – 24 months after her entitlement date. (And lawyers get 25% of the retroactivity.

    The Diminished President
    Published: July 31, 2011

    By rights, Barack Obama should be emerging as the big political winner in the debt ceiling debate. For months, he’s positioned himself near the center of public opinion, leaving Republicans to occupy the rightward flank. Poll after poll suggests that Americans prefer the president’s call for a mix of spending cuts and tax increases to the Republican Party’s anti-tax approach. Poll after poll shows that House Republicans, not Obama, would take most of the blame if the debt ceiling weren’t raised.

    Yet the president’s approval ratings have been sinking steadily for weeks, hitting a George W. Bush-esque low of 40 percent in a recent Gallup survey. The voters incline toward Obama on the issues, still like him personally and consider the Republican opposition too extreme. But they are increasingly judging his presidency a failure anyway.

    The administration would no doubt blame this judgment on the steady stream of miserable economic news. But it should save some of the blame for its own political approach. Ever since the midterms, the White House’s tactics have consistently maximized President Obama’s short-term advantage while diminishing his overall authority. Call it the “too clever by half” presidency: the administration’s maneuvering keeps working out as planned, but Obama’s position keeps eroding.

    Start with the first round of deficit debates this winter. After the Republican sweep, the White House seemed to have two options: double down on Keynesian stimulus or pivot to the center and champion deficit reduction. Instead, Obama chose to hover above the fray, passing on his own fiscal commission’s recommendations and letting the Republicans make the first move.

    The strategy worked, in a sense. Goaded by the president’s evasiveness, Paul Ryan and the House Republicans put forward a detailed long-term budget proposal of their own, whose Medicare cuts proved predictably unpopular. But while the subsequent policy debate favored Obama, the optics of the confrontation diminished him. The chairman of the House Budget Committee looked more like a leader than the president of the United States.

    Then came the spring’s great foreign policy dilemma, the civil war in Muammar el-Qaddafi’s Libya. The president (wisely) didn’t want to put America’s blood and treasure on the line for the rebels, but he also didn’t want to take responsibility for letting Qaddafi crush the revolt. So the White House opted for a kind of quasi war, throwing just enough military power at the problem to ensure a stalemate and then punting responsibility to our NATO allies. An Obama adviser told The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza that the president was pioneering a new American way of statecraft: “Leading from behind.”

    Again, the strategy worked, sort of. An immediate humanitarian crisis was averted, and Libya quickly fell out of the headlines. But it left Americans to contemplate a peculiar and unpresidential spectacle: The leader of the free world taking the country to war while pretending that he wasn’t, and then effectively washing his hands of the ultimate outcome — which, 135 days and counting later, is still very much in doubt.

    The same pattern has played out in the debt ceiling debate. Instead of drawing clear lines and putting forward detailed proposals, the president has played Mr. Compromise — ceding ground to Republicans here, sermonizing about Tea Party intransigence and Washington gridlock there, and fleshing out his preferred approach reluctantly, if at all.

    The White House no doubt figured that this negotiating strategy would either lead to a bipartisan grand bargain or else expose Republican extremism — or better still, do both. And again, the strategy is arguably working. Americans were given a glimpse of right-wing populism’s reckless side last week, and the final deal will probably let the president burnish his centrist credentials just in time for 2012.

    But winning a debate on points isn’t a substitute for looking like a leader. It’s one thing to bemoan politics-as-usual when you’re running for the White House. It’s quite another to publicly throw up your hands over our “dysfunctional government” when you’re the man the voters put in charge of it.

    In fairness, the president’s passive-aggressive approach is a bipartisan affliction. The ostensible front-runner for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, took a deliberately hazy position on last week’s crucial House debate, preferring to flunk a test of leadership rather than risk alienating either side. (The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney quipped that “if you took Obama’s plan and Romney’s plan, and just met in the middle, you’d be in the middle of nowhere.”)

    This leaves Americans to contemplate two possibilities more alarming than debt-ceiling brinkmanship. First, that we’re living through yet another failed presidency. And second, that there’s nobody waiting in the wings who’s up to the task either.

  78. The President Surrenders
    Published: July 31, 2011

    A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong.

    For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

    Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

    The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

    Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

    And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

    Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the next time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But the G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to be more reasonable in the next round?

    In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.

    Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

    First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

    And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable.

    At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.

    But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite.

    Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels.

    It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.

    In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.

    A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 1, 2011, on page

  79. The President blinked.

    “Clinton did not know how Obama could avoid a repeat shutdown, but insisted that the president stand his ground. “First, the White House could blink,” Clinton said. “I hope that won’t happen. I don’t think they should blink.”

  80. Unless Obama pulls off some trick of legerdemain, he looks anything but like a leader. He has managed to look like the caboose on the train, not the locomotive.

    His predecessor, Teddy Roosevelt, called the Presidency a “bully pulpit.” Well, Mr. President, we are waiting for you to step up to the pulpit and lay some fire and brimstone on the opposition party and its tea party sycophants. Sometimes a kind word and turning the other cheek does not work inside the beltway. To paraphrase author Robert Heinlein, if you go into politics, you need to be prepared to cut your opponent’s heart out and eat it. We are waiting for a signal that you finally figured out compromise is a foreign concept to the Republicans. Their interpretation of compromise is that you capitulate. I want to see the President act presidential. We need a Roosevelt (either one), a Lincoln or a Lyndon Johnson. We do not need a Buchanan or Hoover.

  81. Otteray Scribe:

    “Jack and others who think like Jack:

    I do not dislike you, do not hate you and do not disrespect you. I simply pity you. Pity for your lack of compassion, lack of empathy and lack of soul. Pity for your inability to see a larger picture than your narrow economic self interest. I truly feel sorry for you and all who think like you.

    I sincerely hope you do not fall on the kind of hard times that have befallen others and that if you you do, there will be programs that will save you. Those are not empty words; I mean that.”

    What in your mind eliminates poverty? In my mind it is only one thing and that is wealth creation. There is only one proven system for wealth creation for a large number of people.

    Have you ever stopped to think that people like me might have a tremendous empathy for people? That we want everyone to be prosperous and happy and well fed. And that we think the best way for that to happen is human freedom.

    If I am a selfish bastard and want what is good for me, then I want to live in a country with both economic and political freedom. I want to live in a country where my future success is not guaranteed. Where I have to compete every single day for my daily bread and do a better job than the next guy, not one day a month but every single day or I may not eat. And where every other person is doing the same thing, innovating and expanding and creating new products and services to save a dollar and get a leg up on the competition.

    Look at food, look at the Internet. It is happening where government doesn’t have a heavy hand.

    For Christ sake, how many different kinds of tacos are there now? Chicken tacos, beef tacos, fish tacos, Asian tacos, vegetarian tacos, tacos with pork BBQ, tacos with a Vietnamese flair. Why is that? And how many little one man or 2 man operations has that spawned? And sometime soon someone is going to start mass producing designer tacos and make a shit pile full of money and put thousands of people to work.

    There is only one way to lift human beings up, that is wealth creation. And there is only one system that provides the best opportunity for wealth creation for the largest number of people. And it isn’t socialism or its many variants.

  82. “Otteray Scribe
    1, July 31, 2011 at 11:13 pm
    Raff, a very high percentage of disabled people get SSI with the maximum of $674/month”

    Don’t forget eventual Medicare payment deductions from that $647/a month.

  83. eniobob, people on SSI do not get Medicare. They are on Medicaid, which is for the poor and disabled. They do not have Medicare A or B deductions. Medicaid usually provides lower payments to providers, along with many restrictions. That is why many physicians who take Medicare refuse to accept Medicaid. Poor people get screwed coming and going.

  84. Roco, keep drinking the Kool Aid. Unfettered capitalism does not spawn jobs–the past couple of decades have proven that. And tax cuts to spawn jobs is just more of the widely disproved and ridiculed theory of Laffer, Ronald Reagan’s favorite economist.

    If socialism does not work, then go tell it to the French, Germans, Chinese and Japanese. We are way behind the rest of the civilized world in health care and infant mortality, mostly due to lack of availability of health insurance. Live in your dream world. I feel sorry for those who care more for tax cuts than human beings, especially babies.

  85. Roco, I suspect OS’s answer involves some sort of magic and untried Democratic talking points. I would love to live in this fairytale world were competition is abolished, I have a job for life, and all my needs are provided for by a gentle, kind, uncorrupt government. Sign me up.

  86. Otteray Scribe:

    Unfortunately I dont think Reagan went far enough.

    Japan has a shitty economy, France has high persistent unemployment, Germany is doing OK but only because they have more freedom than France does.

    If you really cared about babies, you would strive for political and economic freedom. The proven method for extending life and improving health is prosperity. Political and economic freedom provide prosperity.

    Why do you not like political and economic freedom? Personally I dont like seeing babies die, so that is why I am for freedom.

  87. OS:
    I got what I am talking about in black and white,as far as those deductions for Medicare,have family member who had knee injury,Their medicare starts this month as matter of fact so does the deductions.

    Injury happened (3) years ago .

  88. eneobob, those deductions do apply to Medicare recipients. They hit you for Part A & B, etc. If you were getting Medicaid, you would not have the deductions. Some states have their own version of Medicaid via a treaty with the Feds. In Tennessee, for example, it is called TennCare. Those programs operate at pretty much the same rules as Medicaid, in that there is no Part A, B or D deductions. There is no equivalent state run program for Medicare. As I said earlier, if you were getting disability via the Social Security Disability program, you draw Medicare. If you did not pay in enough to the fund, then you get SSI and Medicaid. You have to have worked at least ten (10) quarters at full time wages to qualify for Social Security and Medicare. Work less than ten quarters and you would get SSI and Medicaid if disabled.

  89. Sounds like the GOP is learning from the dems real well. For people to insinuate that voter fraud is low is just foolish. We have seen what groups like ACORN do and how they have splintered into about a dozen different groups are are up to their old tricks and this group is 100% funded by dems to cheat at the polls. We have seen desm keep polls open past the normal closing hours in heavey dem districts in every election cycle so we already know where they are coming from on this issue… they are mad the opposition is either playing the same game or making it hard for them to cheat.

  90. “We have seen what groups like ACORN do and how they have splintered into about a dozen different groups are are up to their old tricks and this group is 100% funded by dems to cheat at the polls.”

    ROFLMAO, Se, y’all should have left them alone so they stayed in one group- they’d be easier to monitor that way. Serious lack of foresight there eh?

  91. ….and asks for a smoke….he is looked at by the bartender very strangely….and then he is puzzled why the bartender looks at him so and asks….

  92. I just saw some of your comments. Thank you to all who read what I wrote and responded in such kind ways.
    It is nice when you have a coommunity that can help, although sometimes money is what you need to stay in your home and take care of basic needs.
    I have no family and because my disability kept me housebound for many,many years I sadly do not have folks on whom I can call when in need. In our society the sense of community that once existed no longer seems to be the case and those in need, as a result, often do get left by the wayside.

  93. Re people causing their own housing and mortgage problems. Certainly an anecdote is only an anecdote however, I know from real estate agents of folks who were lied to about getting a mortgage and next were visited by the District attorney’s office because these were scam artists going around preying on those they knew were in desperate situations. Not everyone is as smart as we are.

  94. OS:

    “I said earlier, if you were getting disability via the Social Security Disability program, you draw Medicare”

    That is the case with my relative.

  95. Facing Backlash For Disenfranchising Voters, Gov. Walker Reverses Course On Plan To Close Several DMV Offices
    By Marie Diamond
    ThinkProgress Justice on Aug 6, 2011

    In a sharp reversal, the state of Wisconsin announced yesterday it will expand Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) services to accommodate the increased demand for photo identification in the wake of a controversial new Voter ID law. As ThinkProgress reported last week, after signing a Voter ID law earlier this year that disenfranchises tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters, Gov. Scott Walker (R) then called for closing as many as 16 DMV offices across the state, making it even more difficult for residents to obtain the ID they needed to regain their electoral voice.

    Walker’s undemocratic plan prompted widespread criticism and has apparently compelled the administration to completely change its position:

    Department of Transportation Secretary Mark Gottlieb said the expansion leaves all current offices open, increases the total number of offices across the state from 88 to 92 and drastically expands the hours of operation for some 40 counties.

    The change, expected to cost about $6 million the first year and $4 million every year going forward, was called for by Gov. Scott Walker’s 2011-13 budget and was meant to address an increase in demand for photo IDs in the wake of the state’s new law requiring voters to show ID at the polls.[…]

    The plan announced Thursday differed markedly from the one first unveiled last month, which called for closing as many as 16 offices while expanding office hours elsewhere. That proposal was immediately panned by some as unfairly targeting Democratic areas.

  96. […] The GOP And Voter Disenfranchisement ( LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); LD_AddCustomAttr("LangId", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Autotag", "politics"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "2012-election"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "gop"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "gop-obstructionism"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "bangor-daily-news"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "charles-e-summers-jr"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "charlie-webster"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "david-farmer"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "electoral-fraud"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "maine"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "republican"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Tag", "talking-points-memo"); LD_AddSlot("LD_ROS_300-WEB"); LD_GetBids(); Share this:ShareFacebookPrintEmailRedditTwitterDiggLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  97. […] Elections are won by garnering the most votes.  This is true for almost every election except that of the Presidency, there is an entire process above the popular vote called the Electoral College which I won’t explain here.  That is for another chat beside another fire.  One way to garner the most votes is by simply getting more people to cast their vote in your favor, the other way to garner the most votes is to preclude citizens who are likely to vote for your opponent from exercising their right to vote at all.  This is why voter identification (Voter ID) laws are a vital tool in elections. Minority voters are less likely to possess the state issued photographic identification. In many cases those who were previously able to exercise their right to vote will no longer be able to vote. In the 2008 election, a whopping 96 percent of African-American voters cast their vote for Barack Obama. […]

  98. […] Elections are won by garnering the most votes.  This is true for almost every election except that of the Presidency, there is an entire process above the popular vote called the Electoral College which I won’t explain here.  That is for another chat beside another fire.  One way to garner the most votes is by simply getting more people to cast their vote in your favor, the other way to garner the most votes is to preclude citizens who are likely to vote for your opponent from exercising their right to vote at all.  This is why voter identification (Voter ID) laws are a vital tool in elections. Minority voters are less likely to possess the state issued photographic identification. In many cases those who were previously able to exercise their right to vote will no longer be able to vote. In the 2008 election, a whopping 96 percent of African-American voters cast their vote for Barack Obama. […]

Comments are closed.