A major march is on tap for August 6 in Atlanta to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act and to mobilize support for extension of some of the Act’s provisions. Although conceived and convened by the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the march has been enthusiastically endorsed and applauded by a wide array of civil rights, voting rights… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (44)Page 1 of 1 pagesI doubt the GOP really wants to extend the act because the African-American community is so heavily Democratic. While it would look VERY BAD to not reauthorize the Voting Rights Act on the part of Repugs, they have found other ways to disenfranchise voters more subtly. Black communities get the crappiest voting machines with the greatest likelihood of mistabulating the results. In addition, most black precincts do not have enough voting machines, meaning long waits in line which probably turns off a lot of voters. In Florida 2000, the GOP disenfranchised the black community through the use of a so-called felon list, which contained 90,000 names, 54% of which were black, even though African Amricans make up only 13% of Florida’s populataion. 95% of the people on that list were not actual felons, but had names similar to actual criminals. Katherine Harris and her office knew that, but did nothing about it. If that is not a violation of the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act, I do not know what is. Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and the heads of the company that made that database SHOULD ALL BE IN JAIL!!!!!
Posted by Liberal on Aug 5, 2005 at 6:49 PM American Center for Voting Rights
www.ac4vr.comTheir new report on the latest Presidential election
http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/default.html
There are links to specific reports of voter intmidation and suppression against both Democrats and Republicans.
Pretty interesting.
Posted by MiddleRoad on Aug 5, 2005 at 11:06 PM Although Salim Muwakkil has the correct idea that the Voting Rights Act should be renewed it’s a moot argument because of the ability to hack into voting machines plus the proof that the voting process and the counting of votes are all controlled by Republican operatives, not the American citizens.
When nine judges who get to vote twice for the president of the United States, once in the general election, and again in their personal meddling in the democratic voting process, then all the sugar-coated laws on the books amount to nothing but a comic exercise.
I personally don’t think we’ll ever have an honest election again as long as Republicans and their money-bloated corporate lobbyists control every single lever of our government. These people have become the epitome and complete personification of Greed and Corruption.
According to statistics that I read shortly after the November 2004 election, something like 78 million eligible voters did not bother going to the polls to cast their votes.
This was the recipe, call it the Perfect Storm, that gave us the Bush disaster that we must all live with for the next 4 years. When this many people view the voting process as so corrupt and meaningless that they don’t bother going to the polls we gave our assent to the dictatorship we have today in the form of a one-party rule.
Voting Rights Act, Help America Vote Act? Like all Bush rhetoric and Republican legislation, it’s just eye wash.
Posted by Richard2 on Aug 6, 2005 at 2:33 AM I absolutely agree with the majority of what Richard2 said that the voting process is so fragile currently too allow easy corruption. However i am sick and tired of hearing democrats bitch and moan about how only Republicans do these dirty tricks. Sure we all know that Bush, oh i mean King George as he likes to be called, cheated the American public in back to back elections. However how come you democrats never ever mention how the democratic party took Ralph Naders name off the ballot in many many states. (http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=166)
http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=163
http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=115
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=316And too lefty before you accuse me of being a conservative again, just because I am not one of the millions of Democrats brainwashed like u who believe the democrats do no evil remember that Nader did get over a million votes in 2004 and that I am one of those million not one of the Bush voters
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 7, 2005 at 6:23 PM Dear Lefty:
Kerry Receives 100 Times More in Contributions from GOP Donors than Nader
Center for Responsive Politics Finds: 50,000 Republican-Kerry Contributions vs. 700 Republican-Nader Contributions
$10.7 million for Kerry vs. $111,700 for Nader.
Who is really in bed with Republican fat cats: Ralph Nader or John Kerry? Who is the real independent candidate with the independent message?
Washington, DC: Today, the Independent presidential campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo released the preliminary findings of research conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. The findings demonstrate that Senator John Kerry has thousands of contributors who have supported the Republican Party. Kerry has more than ten million dollars donated by Republican donors.The anti-Nader Democrats have spread their big lie to discredit Nader and silence his anti-war and progressive message that Kerry could not rebut. The anti-Naderites hired Stanley Greenberg to conduct surveys and focus groups to determine how best to smear Nader. They found that falsely claiming Nader was funded and controlled by Republicans was the most effective line they could use—a line that can’t pass the laugh test when compared to the facts. They announced their findings at the Democratic Convention and then spread the lie through the Naderfactor.com and the United Progressives for Victory.
But the reality was only 700 Republican contributions (no individuals, but individual contributions) had given donations to the Nader campaign and most of the contributors were people Nader had worked with on justice issues in the past. Even among these 700 the Democrats received more money than Nader/Camejo—$111,700 to $146,000. But, the Democrats continue to use the Big Lie—despite the facts.
The logical question—never asked by any journalist, so the Nader campaign had to—is how many Republican Fat Cats gave how much to Kerry and the Democrats was never asked of the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) by any journalist. So the Nader campaign asked the question the Kerry campaign never wanted asked: Is Kerry in bed with large contributors from the customary hedge their bets Republican campers- how many of them and for how much? If elected, will Kerry give them the access they want due to their donations?
Preliminary CRP results: 50,000 contributions who have given to President Bush or the Republicans have given $10,697,198 in large contributions to Kerry. This means 100 times more Republican money has been contributed to the Democrats campaign than to the Nader-Camejo campaign. That amount is five times the entire budget of the Nader Presidential campaign! These are preliminary results because there are so many that it is too expensive for the Center to review the donations for final results. Maybe an independent media outlet would like to try, rather than continue to repeat the corporate media’s reporting of the malicious Democratic fabrication that the campaign is funded by organized Republicans. We’re waiting for the full story on how the Kerry campaign is funded by the Republicans who play both sides of the two party duopoly.
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 7, 2005 at 6:27 PM Just for you Lefty
http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=107
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 7, 2005 at 6:33 PM NaderRader said: “Kerry Receives 100 Times More in Contributions from GOP Donors than Nader . . . .”
Hey NR, come over here for a sec. Here try on this pretty white coat. I know, the sleeves are a little long and they have these funny straps, but, just try it. There you go . . . boom, bang, pow, umph, slam, bam, urrrrrghhhaaah!
OK boys, you can take NR to the booby hatch now.
Posted by Lefty on Aug 8, 2005 at 1:43 AM “The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 during the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson after a decade of civil rights activism revealed the deep roots of opposition to black enfranchisement.”
True, but why in an article with obvious partisan overtones would the author leave out the salient fact that those most vehemently opposing black enfranchisement were virtually all Democrats?
“The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed African-Americans the right to vote, but that guarantee was often stymied by government officials committed to white supremacy.”
By government officials, could the author possibly mean segregationist Democrat senators? Another relevant fact strangely omitted. In addition, it might have proved informative to relate the fact that the 15th Amendment was ratified by Republicans over the strong objections of Democrats. Or that a year later, Republicans introduced the Ku Klux Klan Act to end intimidation and violence against blacks and those who supported them. (Republicans) The author might have ventured four years ahead in time to mention how Democrats in Tennessee passed Jim Crow Laws to restrict the rights of blacks to use public facilities.
“Anyone who claims that voting rights for minority Americans are now secure need only to look to Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004,” said NAACP Board Chairman Julian Bond, during the group’s annual convention last month in Milwaukee. The NAACP has aggressively sought to redress the polling irregularities and other barriers black voters faced during those elections, and is strongly supporting the August 6 march.”
This myth serves only to distract attention away from the fact that any “irregularities” and “barriers” were the fault of Democratic party election officials, not of any nefarious GOP plot. The Democrat chaired Civil rights commission and Janet Reno’s justice department found no evidence of any such scheme. Current paranoia about computerized voting also falls short on evidence, but not on hyperbole.
Wouldn’t it be more honest and perhaps even beneficial for blacks if the author would present the whole picture, rather than generalize and sterilize past events to buttress a political agenda? I guess if he did, black people might wonder about his current characterization of Republicans given that they were largely responsible for abolishing slavery, giving them the right to vote and passing tons of legislation to protect their newfound status. They might wonder whether perhaps they shouldn’t automatically believe that the Democratic party has their best interests at heart, given that party’s shameful past, and the fact that instead of accounting and apologizing for such a past, it seeks to hide it.
http://www.calpatriot.org/february03/erasing.html
Posted by Natalie on Aug 9, 2005 at 4:35 AM Natalie,
Who cares whose fault it is that citizens in a democracy do not have an effective right to vote? It is shameful that the US which wants to export its system everywhere, at the point of a gun if necessary, has proved to the world once again that the most precious possession a person has in a so called democracy, the right to vote, is so easily removed in the good old US of A. As a citizen of a country whose leaders have lead us into the morass and barbarism of the war in Iraq, I am simply disgusted that any citizen, for whatever reason, can have his or her right to vote effectively nullified. Shame. The point is to fix it, not to assign blame. And by the way, I am sure you are right about the mutual responsibility of both Republicans and Democrats for this breach of human rights. So, your point is? Just fix it!
Posted by Jane Doe on Aug 9, 2005 at 7:00 AM Natalie Said: “True, but why in an article with obvious partisan overtones would the author leave out the salient fact that those most vehemently opposing black enfranchisement were virtually all Democrats?”
Natalie, our resident pathological liar is back. Why, Natalie, do you not explain that in the 60’s the republican supporters of civil rights were northern liberals and the southern and the democrat segregationists were southern conservatives like Strom Thermond (converted to republican), George Smathers, Spessard Holland, Eugene Talmadge, Richard Russell, etc., etc., all extreme right wing, christian fundimentalist, wackos of the highest order.
All of them would be proud republicans in 2005. And the republican party would be proud to have all of them.
Posted by Lefty on Aug 9, 2005 at 3:31 PM Jane Doe said: “It is shameful that the US which wants to export its system everywhere, at the point of a gun if necessary, has proved to the world once again that the most precious possession a person has in a so called democracy, the right to vote, is so easily removed in the good old US of A.”
No Jane, the USA hasn’t taken anyone’s right to vote away. I am part of the USA and I havn’t done it. No liberal American I know has done it. Rather, it is the crooked conservative scum who have done it, with the unwitting support of the conservative idiots who voted for them. (Hmmm! Unwitting conservative idiots. A redundancy?).
Posted by Lefty on Aug 9, 2005 at 3:38 PM Sorry Lefty, I have to disagree here. As a Democracy, we vote for a government that represents us as a country and a body politic. If our government, or a fraction thereof, has deprived a citizen of the right to vote (or to speak/worship/etc) then we as a populace are complicit. If we don’t approve of this, as a collective culture, then we remove the government (or fraction of it) that has offended and replace it with one we approve of. The USA has taken away voting rights in Fla, Ohio, Texas, etc etc etc. Either we approve of this behavior, or we don’t? What’s it gonna be?
Oh, and btw, Jane said “...easily removed in the good old US of A” not ‘by the USA’.
Posted by mn on Aug 10, 2005 at 1:36 AM MN,
American liberals have no more part in depriving American citizens of their right to vote than they do in the continued fraudulent war in Iraq - the Bush/Cheney kickback for no-big contract scam war. I for one will not take the blame for the crimes of conservatives. If you want to, you have my blessing.
Posted by Lefty on Aug 10, 2005 at 5:18 AM Lefty:
How about the Democrats going along with the Republicans in not allowing the people of the District of Columbia to have representation in Congress?www.dcvote.org
Washington D.C.
Taxation without Represntation since 1801
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 10, 2005 at 11:07 PM Hey you guys,
Stop passing the buck and start bucking the ‘pass’ on the basic right to vote! It is a right - no ifs, no buts, and it doesn’t matter who tried to take it away when. The point is to fix the problem, not to assign blame or score points. I can’t believe that serious people who would all describe themselves as supporters of ‘democracy’ (even if they disagree about what it means or who is more democratic) can seriously believe there can be any justification at all, in any circumstances for denying people the vote. Once you qualify that right, all else is so much piss and wind as we say here. Get a grip!
Posted by Jane Doe on Aug 11, 2005 at 5:02 AM There’s something about people that go around accusing others of lying. They are often trying to distract attention away from the fact that they themselves are guilty of it. It’s no different, really, than a four year old pointing to his little sister and screaming “She did it!!”, when in fact little sister did not, but doubt has been successfully raised in Mommy’s mind.
Mommy then asks questions to ascertain the truth.
Little Lefty, did Republican Everett Dirksen play perhaps the most pivotal and crucial role in the fight to break the filibuster by southern Democrats against civil rights legislation in 1964? He did? Was he considered to be a strong conservative? He was? Did he have several conservative Republican partners in his corner acting as floor managers and captains helping him to bring about the end to the filibuster? He did? Were some of their names Charles Halleck of Indiana, William McCulloch of Ohio, Robert Griffin of Michigan, Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio, Clarence Brown of Ohio and Roman Hruska of Nebraska? They were?
Besides Strom Thurmond, did any of the other southern Democrats leave their party and join up with the GOP? Very few if any? You say even as late as 1980? Did any of the signers of the Southern Manifesto ever join the Republican party? You say no senators, and you’re still working on the house, but so far, nobody? How about all the Democrat senators voting against the confirmation of black justice Thurgood Marshall in 1967. Did any of them ever switch to the Republican Party? No? You say as a matter of fact Robert Byrd voted against Marshall and Clarence Thomas and is still a member and leader in good standing in the Democratic party? You say he was even once a high mucky-muck member of the klan? Wow. Why had I never heard of that before I started getting the Fox News Channel? You’re not answering.
Do you really think that George Smathers, Spessard Holland, Eugene Talmadge (Democrat as of retirement in 1980) and Richard Russell would feel comfortable in a party that did so much to secure the rights of African Americans, the rights these democrats fought so hard to deny? Do you honestly think they would be welcome? By what evidence? The GOP’s heart-felt embracement of David Duke? Do you really think that religious fundamentalism is an indicator of racial hatred? Might it possibly be the opposite? Do you think that virtually all conservatives, religious and not, would so warmly embrace thoroughly black individuals like Clarence Thomas, J.C. Watts, and Condoleezza Rice if they harbored some kind of intolerance based on race? Would the definitively conservative Rush Limbaugh invite Thomas to officiate at his wedding if he held some kind of racial animus toward blacks? How many high-profile liberals have been wed by black justices? (research project job opening)
Little Lefty, don’t you think there perhaps could have been lots of other reasons why the south gradually realigned to the Republican column other than race? Could there have been any migration from the north to the south over several decades time? Could not other issues like the size of government, fighting communism and religious and moral values have had something to do with the way people vote? Did any of the racist southern Democrats ever die? Do you think perhaps part of what characterized being a “conservative” in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s could be vastly different from what does in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and 00’s? Is not the mental picture of a “liberal” far different today than of the one might have had several decades ago? You’re not answering.
I’m afraid Little Lefty that based upon history you are guilty of at best wishful thinking, and at worst lying. Your contention that the Democrat racists of yester-year are anywhere near of the same mind as conservatives today is fanciful and false.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2005 at 6:25 AM Jane, what in the world makes you think that anyone has tried to take the right to vote away from anyone that is legally entitled to do so? Please, be specific. If indeed anything like that had really happened to supposedly so many people, one would presume there would be some kind of proof available. Is this on par with the belief in space aliens? God? Is this simply a matter of faith?
The simple truth is that far from being the victim of vote fraud and voter intimidation, Democrats throughout history have been the instigators of such. From burning crosses to literacy tests to false fear mongering, the Democrats have remained true to form when it comes to voter manipulation.
For me to point out the Democratic party’s history and current stance on race is not passing the buck, but simply making it known, so people might take it into account when deciding who is best to represent them. You would prefer an information black-out or white-wash?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2005 at 6:28 AM Itty, bitty, teeny, weeny Natalie,
Thank you for pointing out the ancient history of the Democratic party. Now lets take a look a the current history of the republican party.
Let’s see, didn’t the republican racist, G.W. Bush campaign at racist/segregationist Bob Jones’s University, twice?
Didn’t republcan racist Daddy Bush reveal his racist hatred for blacks with his Willie Horton campaign?
Didn’t republican racist Jeb Bush arbitrarily purge 10’s of thousands of black voters from the voting rolls, and direct state police to set up road blocks in Lee and Duval Counties to harass and intimidate black voters and purposely direct that predominently black voting pricincts be understaffed and have too few voting machines in 2000 and 2004?
Didn’t republican racist Karl Rove mastermind the South Carolina “John McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby” in the 2000 primary because they knew it would resonate well with the republican constituency in South Carolina?
Let’s see, did David Duke choose to run as a democrat or a republican? Republican, right?
Isn’t it the GOP that came up with the “Southern Strategy” to convert southern democrats to the republican party by labeling the democrats as the “black party?”
Isn’t it the GOP who hire legions of “challengers” to hang out in black voting districts in southern states and to arbitrarily challenge older black voters right to vote as an intimidation tactic in 2000 and 2004.
Aren’t overt proud racist, bigots Strom Thermond, Trent Lott, Jessy Helms, William Rhenquist, Antonin Scalia, Bill Frist, John Ashcroft, George Bush, Ronald Reagan all well known republicans?
Aren’t all of the white supremist racist hate groups: KKK, The Order, The Brown Berets, Ayrian Nation, Christian Patriots, White Panthers, The Minutemen, Euro-American Alliance, Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord, Christian Defense League, EACH AND EVERY ONE MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE GOP?
Yes, pea brained little lying Natalie, to all of the above.
Posted by Lefty on Aug 12, 2005 at 3:09 PM Natalie,
I may be a ‘foreigner’ but I do know a little about US history, both past and more contemporary events. First let me say, while I am familiar with the shameful history of the Democratic party, particualry in the 1950s and 60s as the civil rights struggle intensified in the US, and I am aware of the honourable role that liberal Republicans sometimes played in staying the worst excesses of that ugly breed of Southern Democrat, I am aware that time has moved on.Let me explain my incredultiy about the current US system.
Where I live, electoral enrolement is taken care of by a non political, public service Commission. If you move to a new address, it won’t be long before the Electoral Commission (whose role it is to ensure fair and proper elections)writes to you asking if you have enroled at your new address, and enclosing a card with a stamped and preaddressed envelope to assist you to enrol without cost.
Once an election is called, there is a grace period (I think it is about four weeks) which permits particulary young people who have just turned 18 to enrol so that they can cast a vote. When voting, there are no machines whatsoever. Everyone votes with a pencil, and drops their completed ballot into locked ballot boxes. The booths are staffed by employees of the electoral commission, who mark off the roles when you attend to vote. Voting occurs all day Saturday, and the polls are open for 12 hours or more.Counting commences at the close of the poll. Candidates and their scrutineers can watch as as the ballots are counted by hand. I repeat, all ballots are counted by hand, and the process is open to scrutiny by all candidates or their scrutineers. Ballots which are doubtful or challenged are set aside for recount, and in the event of a challenge to the Court over a result in a particular seat or electorate, the ballots are bundled up and the Court hears submssions from the aggrieved party or parties. It is very rare, in fact I cannot recall an instance where a Court decision made the difference to the overall result. In addition and most importantly, there is absolutely no political intereference in the process of enrolement.
The main point is that every vote, every vote, is counted by hand, in front of people. The main rule is ‘clear voter intention’. And let me tell you, our ballots, particularly for the Senate can be very complicated and long.Now Natalaie, if little ole’ Australia and the UK and practically every democracy worthy of the name can guarantee, with a high degree of certainty that everyone who wishes to cast a ballot is able to do so, and that every vote is counted under the scrutiny of all candidates, why oh why is it beyond the wit of the US to guarantee its citizens the same rights?
Oh and by the way, I am familiar with the story of both Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. In a word-disgraceful. Elected officials should never ever have the right to interfere with either the enrolement process or the counting of ballots, nor should they have any say over the way that ballots are counted, or where the polling takes place. The opportunity for skulduggery is just to high, and it is clear that party operatives will do anything to increase their electoral chances by denying some groups the right to cat a ballot. It is an absolute disgrace that in 2005, many US citizens have to struggle to exercise their right to cast a vote. It is even more disgraceful that those most likely to have their voting rights abrogated are black Americans and the poor generally.
It is no wonder US politics is so skewed towards the already wealthy and powerful, when even the right to cast a vote is made so hard, such an obstacle course for poeple who are already stretched in terms of time and resources, and where politcal operatives can ensure that a ballot never gets counted ,in favour of machines, also ordered and paid for by elected officials. Incredible.
Posted by Jane Doe on Aug 14, 2005 at 4:56 AM Sorry for the delayed response, but I was attending a regional Klan meeting. I actually got to meet Karl Rove!! He’s even cuter in white sheets, if you can believe it.
Lefty wrote and I respond:
“Thank you for pointing out the ancient history of the Democratic party. Now lets take a look a the current history of the republican party.”
If you consider 40 years ago to be ancient history, I’m starting to feel mighty old. Well I guess we’re gonna look at “current history”, which up until now I thought was physically impossible.
“Let’s see, didn’t the republican racist, G.W. Bush campaign at racist/segregationist Bob Jones’s University, twice?”
Yes you know the Bushes often try to hide their racism by appointing numerous blacks to the highest positions of responsibility in the U. S. Government. They are that desperate to distract you. Bob Jones!! EEEK!! Leave it to the left to turn anyone that might threaten their vision of a God-free government-dependent society into something satanic or worse—racist! BTW, GWB received 30% of the black vote and 47% of the hispanic vote for governor in 1998. Not too bad for a Republican and a racist to boot. But that of course was before the national smear machine was engaged.
http://tinyurl.com/9v8q8
“Didn’t republican racist Daddy Bush reveal his racist hatred for blacks with his Willie Horton campaign?”
Sounds good, and scary, too. Problem is that the ad was not even put out by the Bush campaign. I guess that doesn’t matter. Republicans are still racists. Everybody knows it. On the flip side, don’t Democrats or their supporters regularly use race-bating and false fear-mongering techniques to prevent blacks from even considering voting Republican? Oh I forgot. It’s O.K. for them. “Another black church will burn.”
“Didn’t republican racist Jeb Bush arbitrarily purge 10’s of thousands of black voters from the voting rolls, and direct state police to set up road blocks in Lee and Duval Counties to harass and intimidate black voters and purposely direct that predominently black voting pricincts be understaffed and have too few voting machines in 2000 and 2004?”
So now Jeb’s a racist too? This sounds really scary. Man, you use that racist label like some kind of all purpose cleaner to remove any doubt as to who’s to blame for almost everything. What have you been reading? The Enquirer or Greg Palast? Isn’t it also true that GWB was abducted by space aliens and programmed not to sign Kyoto to allow the Earth to warm just enough to accommodate their species? Road blocks? Not according to Mary Frances Berry’s final report. Believe me, if it happened that bitter partisan would have said it did. But she didn’t, because it didn’t. Doesn’t matter, though. Repugs are STILL racist. Everybody knows it.
“Didn’t republican racist Karl Rove mastermind the South Carolina “John McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby” in the 2000 primary because they knew it would resonate well with the republican constituency in South Carolina?”
There’s that all-purpose label AGAIN. Dying to see your rock solid evidence that the Bush Campaign or Rove was behind anything of the sort. Dying to see your evidence proving, not speculating, that the whole black baby thing even happened. Wait, I did see Karl at the meeting….never mind.
“Let’s see, did David Duke choose to run as a democrat or a republican? Republican, right?”
Only as a last resort, and despite condemnation by the GOP. Most of his political efforts were as a Democrat, as is far more fitting and natural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke
Continued…...
Posted by Natalie on Aug 15, 2005 at 3:26 AM pg. 2….
“Isn’t it the GOP that came up with the “Southern Strategy” to convert southern democrats to the republican party by labeling the democrats as the “black party?”
Well, aren’t you the black party? I thought you wanted to be. Funny how you were unable to become it on your own and required the help of Republicans. I wonder if Karl Rove could have been behind the whole thing. What was he doing in 1964? Are you telling me that the Democrats today wouldn’t be more than happy to have their “racist” Reagan Democrat voters back? It’s just politics. It doesn’t necessarily prove racism. Howard Dean goes around all the time labeling the GOP as the “white party”. Is he racist? Is he trying to deflect from fact that he lives in a lily-white state and is surrounded by lily-whites?
“Isn’t it the GOP who hire legions of “challengers” to hang out in black voting districts in southern states and to arbitrarily challenge older black voters right to vote as an intimidation tactic in 2000 and 2004.”
I really doubt it, especially considering all your distortions so far. I believe the Kerry campaign did send thousands of lawyers to the polling places to insure Democrats the right to vote, registered or not, living or dead. I know they sent swarms of lawyers to Florida in 2000 to muddy the waters and choke the air with chads.
“Aren’t overt proud racist, bigots Strom Thermond, Trent Lott, Jessy Helms, William Rhenquist, Antonin Scalia, Bill Frist, John Ashcroft, George Bush, Ronald Reagan all well known republicans?”
All purpose cleaner. Order now and receive a handy travel size. You are crackling me up, dude!!
“Aren’t all of the white supremist racist hate groups: KKK, The Order, The Brown Berets, Ayrian Nation, Christian Patriots, White Panthers, The Minutemen, Euro-American Alliance, Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord, Christian Defense League, EACH AND EVERY ONE MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE GOP?”
God you people are really fixated on race. Who are the real racists here? The KKK also hates Jews and Israel and Republicans have been seen way less times cheering for the Palestinians than have the Democrats. If any KKKer does support Republicans, they should be clued in to the fact that the best way to destroy the black family is to support Democrats; witness their current state. Racists often aren’t overly bright, I guess. The White Panthers support Bush? The only White Panthers I’m familiar with were ideological brothers with the Black Panthers. Did they mutate? The minutemen support George “Amnesty” Bush? If you say so. I believe Hillary recently voiced support for controlling illegal immigration. Is she racist? Oops, I forgot. She’s a democrat and gets a pass. Doesn’t matter that her husband was mentored by a segregationist. Doesn’t matter. Even assuming all these groups support the GOP, the better question is whether the GOP supports these groups. And also are you correctly classifying all of them as having agendas based on race. You got Bob Jones wrong, so my guess is that you did the same here.
The Communist party USA’s website looks like it was authored by Howard Dean. What are we to conclude from this? I’m pretty sure that most of their members voted for Kerry. I believe they even endorsed him, at least subtly. Is Kerry a communist? He did display a certain sympathy for them in Vietnam and South America. Just asking.
The overwhelming vast majority of criminals support Democrats. That would be murderers, rapists, thieves, and child molesters. What is the proper question? Do criminals support Democrats, or do Democrats support criminals. Whoops, I thought I had a good point here, but Democrats DO support criminals. Never mind.
Yes, pea brained little lying Natalie, to all of the above.
Those in glass houses…...
Posted by Natalie on Aug 15, 2005 at 3:30 AM Natalie,
Would you care to respond to my post? That way you could take a breath from screaming at your ideological opponents for a minute or two, and explain to me why ensuring that every person is able to cast a vote free from the interference of elected officals or their agents, on whatever grounds, seems to be beyond the wit of the US polity to guarantee. Please, just respond to the question - do you agree that every person should have the right to cast a ballot free from the interference of any agent of any political party or elected official. Yes or No?
Posted by Jane Doe on Aug 15, 2005 at 3:41 AM Sorry Jane, I was meaning to respond to your post because it actually intrigued me. The kind of universal electoral process you describe sounds wonderful at first blush and I might even consider voting for such a system. But believe me, if proposed here, it would not be applauded by our friends in the Democratic party. It would surely be opposed by some Republicans as well, but on balance you have to understand one thing about American politics. The Democratic party opposes any measure that would seek to identify and qualify voters. Something as simple and seemingly sensible as requiring picture I.D. when voting is bitterly opposed by most of them. The reasons why are obvious.
Of course I agree that “every person should have the right to cast a ballot free from the interference of any agent of any political party or elected official”, and to any extent that it goes on here I condemn it. I certainly don’t feel like I’ve ever been interfered with. The voting process in my particular state is much like the one you describe, except the ballots that are marked with pencil are fed into an electronic reader and you are immediately told if you forgot to vote for someone or if one of your marks is unreadable, and of course you then have the ability to correct it. Votes are counted incrementally on the spot and reported to a central location. I believe the process is conducted by a non-partisan or at least a bi-partisan group.
But all states are different, and they have the individual right to design their own systems, which I would say is an example of our constitution in action… limiting the power of the federal government…. which is one of its main purposes. The men designing that constitution had their former government in mind when they did!
The Florida system is its own. The process there normally goes quite smoothly, but due to the closeness of the count in 2000, and due to the inability of Mr. Gore to honor the result of a recount, there was chaos. The interference you talk about took place at the hands of an elected group of partisan elites…the Florida Supreme Court. They morphed into legislators and tried to change election law in mid-stream and were scolded for it by the U.S. Supreme Court. They kept right on. What are you gonna do when people behave like that? You put a stop to their madness, which is what the U.S. Supreme Court did. (subsequent independent reviews by newspapers confirmed Bush would have won anyway)
Our system may not be perfect in all states, but we the people have the ability to change it. We have the ability to adopt a universal federal system if we want, but I’m not sure that would be best. The bigger the beast you create, the harder it is to destroy if it misbehaves. Don’t believe all the whining about not being able to vote and not having your vote counted. It’s just so much partisan bitterness. Voting is pathetically easy to do, you can do it early or wait till the last minute, but you do have to abide by certain basic laws and standards. The Democrats seem to think they shouldn’t have to. Let me ask you: Does that seem fair to you?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 16, 2005 at 4:52 PM Hmm Natalie,
Big government is the problem here is it? Constitutional issues with guaranteeing that every body has the right to cast an effective vote, in order to protect against the Monarch hey? That last bit is a bit rich, since the Monarch against which you say your constitiutional creators struggled, would no more have approved of guarantees of a universal right to cast a secret ballot than your founding fathers did. I don’t know what small government has got to do with it. I am on about the state of a government’s democratic credentials, not its size.I don’t know what laws and standards you say the Democrats are refusing to abide by or adhere to, but you didn’t understand my post very well I think. I am not interested in partisans behaving badly, (they all do, without exception).I am interested in the fundamental basic principle, without which the constitituionalism so beloved of the US is a mere simulacrum of democracy, form without substance. Do you believe that everybody has a right to vote, free from any interferece in registering, casting, or attending the ballot? Do you believe that everybody in the US has a right to have their vote counted, and that people elect governments, not Courts. Finally, US constitutional arrangments are of course, a matter for it. But please don’t get confused about how the rest of the world works. If it is possible for the rest of the democratic world to conduct such things with a minimum of fuss or flap, with ballots counted quickly and accurately, and proper impartial commissions ensuring that elected officials and/or their agents stay right away from the design, conduct or counting of ballots, then why can’t the US? That, in a nutshelll, is the problem I see the the US has with claiming the mantle as being democratic. In my view it doesn’t matter who did what to who when. The fact that these shenanigans are considered par for the course, and not a subject of for concern or rectification speaks volumes in my mind.
Posted by Jane Doe on Aug 16, 2005 at 11:35 PM I think we have a much bigger problem than we think.After this last election,it’s becoming apparent that our democracy is crumbling.Bill Maher made a comment about the touch screen voting machines in March 2004to the effect of when one looks at the system,one thinks it would be pretty easy to hack into,but they(republicans)wouldn’t dare.Oh yes they would dare.Who’s willing to bet they not only dared to do it,but would do it again.
What surprises me about the voting system in our country is the variety of systems and the complications of each of them.In the state where I currently live,they use a scantron ballot much like the standardized tests forms we had in school.Voting with one of these forms takes no more than a couple of minutes,ten seconds if you vote straight ticket.In fact you could be nearly illiterate or unable to speak English and still able to vote.This system is simple,accurate,and allows verification through a paper trail.Why not implement it in other states?Simple,it doesn’t suit the republican agenda.It doesn’t allow one to cheat if one doesn’t like the results.
Hey Lefty,
Isn’t it interesting that we see
no more trolls or freepers now
that they have to identify
themselves?By the way,nice of you to point out that it’s the right toward which all of these extremists gravitate?right-winger seem to collectively,and selectively,forget that.Hey,guess what party got Tim McVeigh’s vote?
Natalie,
The Willie Horton ad was devised by Lee Atwater.
Dose it matter who developed the propaganda or who it’s supposed to benefit.Then again,the right loves,like any crook,an alibi.What the ad didn’t mention is that Willie was released on furlough by Dukakis’s REPUBLICAN predecessor.Also Rove studied how to campaign under Atwater.The parallels between their tactics is apparent.One last thing.Has anyone else noticed how the networks have said very little about Rove and his outing of Valerie Plame?
Democrats questioning Bush’s policies:traitorous.
Republicans compromising national security to further a vendetta:no,they didn’t and it’s traitorous to even suggest it,now,watch us spin the topic.
Posted by wwoods on Aug 17, 2005 at 5:00 PM Sorry I have not been able to come to Lefty’s and Jane Doe’s defense, but I have been on vacation. It is clear that not ALL trolls have been eliminated through the new login process on this website. I still stand by my initial assertion that Katherine Harris should be in jail for violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments.
Natalie is idiotic to assert that Communists and criminals support the Democratic Party. She clearly has not been to any leading Communist websites. Oh how they loved Bill Clinton! Clinton/Kerry pro-criminal? Obviously natalie did not follow Clinton’s relentless and deadly enforcement of the “war” on drugs. Kerry never even hinted he would change policy. Typical of conservatives to decry those who posit a different anti-terror approach as “pro-terrorist” and those who claim our current drug policy is flawed as “pro-criminal.” Last time I checked, opposition to the death penalty does not mean one would set all inmates free. To posit that rehabilitation is a better solution to crime than merely punishment DOES NOT mean one supports criminal behavior. Canada and Scandinavia have rehabilitative components to their criminal policy and crime is better in those countires than in the U.S. There have been no studies connecting harsher punishment to less crime. Oh, that’s right, Natalie does not need data in its conventional sense to justify her ideologically driven opinions.
The Democratic Party has never coddled communism either. Even if they did appease communist voters in this country, that bloc is so small that it would have no impact on elections. Felons are not allowed to vote so it would not make sense for Democrats to coddle them either. It would make sense, however, for the GOP to capitalize on the racism and xenophobia rampant through the south and the southern white man’s bitterness toward Johnson for his support of civil rights to gain political power in future elections. Evidence, Reagan began his 1980 campaign for president in the VERY SAME county that those three civil rights workers were brutally murdered. Ken Mehlman, RNC chairman, even apologized for the GOP Southern Strategy, proof of its existence. Yet conservative blowhards like Limbaugh were enraged that the GOP would appease the blacks. The whole anti-welfare campaign by the GOP was built around angering white people that their tax dollars were paying for lazy black people to keep being lazy. Open your eyes Natalie, please.
On a final note, Natalie treats “criminals” like they are a distinct segment of society, such as blacks, or men, or women. That is a false analogy, for EVERY human being is one marijuana cigarette, one DUI, one unpaid parking ticket, one punch away from being a criminal.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 17, 2005 at 10:30 PM Can someone answer my question please, preferably Natalie. What is it about the US political class that makes it as a whole(both Democrat and Republican) so reluctant to guarantee every US citizen a vote, to appoint independent non partisan commissioners to oversee and conduct, enrolement, placement of voting booths, conduct of elections and counting of ballots?
The Cold War anti communist rhetoric here is simply incredible to an outsider (ie a foreigner, citizen of another country, subject of Empire I guess). You see Natalie to an outsider like myself, it looks a tad suspicious that when a discussion about the right to vote is being conducted, someone wants to introduce a discussion about various groups as a way of seemingly trying to undermine a basic principle. Let me explain what I mean. The issue in any democracy worthy of the name, particularly democracies where there are large gaps in economic power and influence, is that the guarantee of ‘one person one vote’ is the only guarantee that the socially, economically and politically less powerful are, at the time of voting at least, exactly equal in a formal sense at least, to those who possess much more power in both theory and in fact.
The reason I have been pressing you about the importance of the guarantee of this formal right, is that the above rationale for the right to cast a vote and to have it counted, is understood in other more developed democracies, as being the last redoubt against the tyranny exercised by the powerful against the less powerful. You see once you start introducing issues about who may or may not be ‘communists’, or arguments about whether convicted felons may vote, you have already started to qualify, or at least appear to be wanting to qualify, the fundamental principle. That is not a position held elsewhere in the world, and I must again write, you simply do not understand I think, how very scary this debate looks to an outsider, where the proper and impartial conduct of ballots is probably the most strongly held bipartisan value in the society I live in.
Please again I ask you, do you agree that the rights described above, are the most fundamental of the political rights that free and equal citizens can exercise? Yes or No. And BTW, the rest of the world does have an interest in this question since the US has abrogated to itself recently, the right to act unilaterally anywhere and everywhere it sees fit, the only protection the rest of us have from the cabals that are thrown up from time to time by the US syste (note Natalie, from both sides of your political spectrum), is at least the small comfort that US citizens themselves, can at least vote the ratbags out of Office when they get fed up. If only the rest of us could.
Posted by Jane Doe on Aug 18, 2005 at 2:16 AM Liberal,
True,not all of the trolls have been dispelled.Yet,if you look at the postings over this summer,those especially on the home page,the popular articles,you’ll see what I mean.The relative quiet is a breath of relief.Frankly after viewing what one freeper did to this site over the summer,the sheer juvenile hi-jinks,I’m beginning to think that Jay and Silent Bob were on to something.
On a side note,I don’t know how or why some of you chose to e-mail me,but please stop it.I hate to be rude,but it is really bothersome,even when they are friendly,to find twenty-five e-mails in my box.say it to me here,if you would.
Posted by wwoods on Aug 18, 2005 at 12:41 PM Hey,my bad.The site’s been auomatically forwarding follow-ups to my address.Sorry.
Posted by wwoods on Aug 18, 2005 at 5:58 PM Communists don’t support the Democratic party, said Liberal.
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/586/1/27/
If I’m wrong about this being the leading American communist website or at least one of them, I guess I’m just not that up on communists in America. The followers and fans of this pathetic ideology—who declined to put up a candidate—voted for whom do you suggest? George W. Bush?
Democrats tough on crime? You really want me to list all the ways Democrats and their voters have enabled crime and criminals? With a 4000 word limit? For now let’s just say that the attendance of Republicans at the last “Free Mumia” rally was damn pathetic, not to mention the slobbering sympathy from the left for the thugs at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
It’s about much more than deterrence. It’s also about justice being done according to the will and votes of the people, not by the decree of some soft-hearted judge overruling the collective wisdom of those people and setting policy on punishment above and beyond his or her authority to do so.
The Democratic party has never coddled communism? Whose eyes need to be opened? You can be proud of the Democratic party’s stance on communism, as am I, prior to the late 60’s. But starting about then there emerged an attitude of appeasement or “peace”, which was famously and aristocratically articulated by John Kerry for the world to see. His dismissive attitude toward the menace that is communism and his demonization of the mythical American “war criminal” was surely welcomed by those holding our P.O.W.‘s. This is an interesting perspective from a former high ranking communist intelligence officer:
http://tinyurl.com/ads3k
Nobody’s denying there was a certain southern strategery on the part of the GOP. But to imply that ” hunting for votes where the ducks are” is anywhere near on the same moral plane as murder, torture, and the deliberate attempt at denying basic civil rights and privileges because of skin color is an insult to the real victims, not the professional ones.
Why is Jimmy Carter never asked about his Georgia strategery to appeal to segregationists in his race for Governor there? Why doesn’t his presidential campaign statement supporting the ability of a neighborhood to “maintain its ethnic purity” qualify him as a genuine racist, just like Trent Lott? I can only surmise that it’s because that conservative media is protecting someone they know is one of their own, deep in his heart.
The whole thing is far more complicated than simply and conveniently rationalizing that southern segregationist Democrats must have suddenly morphed into Republicans and went on about their merry racist ways.
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2004/alexander.htmlhttp://shinbone.home.att.net/grovel.htm
“Felons are not allowed to vote so it would not make sense for Democrats to coddle them.”
Oh but it does make sense to coddle them; in fact they are proposing new federal election standards that would guarantee a felon’s right to vote once they’ve served their time. So there’s your coddling exposed.
I responded to this article because I found it quite ironic and laughable that Democrats would be marching and warning that the very people who were most responsible for securing their right to vote are somehow now poised to take it away or weaken it. But when one remembers their smearing of Charles Pickering as a racist, when in fact he was probably one of the bravest and most effective voices in his area against the Klan and racial hatred, it’s quite understandable.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0417,hentoff,52960,6.html
I think it would behoove African Americans to demand some accountability and maybe even some apologies from the Democrats, instead of forever allowing them to put forth the self-defeating false distraction that Republicans are the reason for all their problems, when in fact there is so much more to the story.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2005 at 11:48 PM Natalie’s comments “If I’m wrong about this being the leading American communist website or at least one of them, I guess I’m just not that up on communists in America. The followers and fans of this pathetic ideology—who declined to put up a candidate—voted for whom do you suggest? George W. Bush?”
I’ll respond to that.
This tiresome drone may keep the Republican Party faithful from sinking totally into the abyss of unwelcome news which keeps pouring forth from Iraq where U.S. military commanders are looking for at least a partial exit in time for the 2006 election which G. W. Bush assumed would be advertised as his crowning achievement for bringing democracy not only to Iraq, but the entire Middle East.
But, instead of wildly cheering Iraqi citizens waving American flags and tossing rose petals in the path of the “liberating army” Bush now finds himself bogged down in an escalating insurgency and a miasma of his own making. Now, Bush’s mandate for Iraqis to sign their “democracy constitution” has hit major roadblocks.
Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south want total autonomy. The Kurds are demanding that a provision be inserted in the new document that permits them to secede from Iraq to form a separate, sovereign state in control of the oil interests near Kirkuk.
That leaves prime minister Ibrahim Jafaari left to run the central Baghdad government while the 25% Sunnis in the central interior of Iraq have virtually no oil wealth or any political power since they have only 17 seats of the 275-seat membership in the new government.
One newsman on the night of Bush’s preemptive bombing of Baghdad said, “... in a few days we’re going to own that country.”
Well, Bush has owned that country for over 2 ½ years and now that the ownership deeds are being signed Bush is hoping to declare yet another faux victory, although this time without the fanfare of landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier 30 miles off the coast of San Diego. Maybe he can bring another turkey to the 138,000 U. S. troops – which at least would be a symbolic gesture considering that the entire Bush adventure has turned out to be just that.As to the bromides from some who are nostalgic for the “good old days” when Democrats were painted as communist sympathizers they need only to bring themselves up to date on the policies of the current occupants of the U.S. Congress and the White House to see how palpably false and atavistic that claim is.
On the contrary, G. W. Bush coddled and embraced the repressive former KGB head ,Vladimir Putin, whom Bush affectionately calls “Pootie Poot”, whose tyrannical Russian government has slipped back into near anarchy and communist rule with elections all but eliminated.
Bush embraced (read bribed) one of the biggest dictators in all the Middle East, Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf. Bush has forked over $3 billion U.S. taxpayer money in order to prop up this repressive regime that trains al Qaeda terrorists in the madrassas of Karachi and Islamabad to kill Americans wherever they can.
G. W. Bush also coddles the biggest communist country of them all, China. Because Bush cannot afford to lose his Wal-Mart constituency he has literally sold our nation’s treasury and our children’s future to a country that now holds the second largest amount of U.S. government securities, much of which they are using to build up their military forces at an accelerated rate so rapidly that Bush’s own defense chief, Donald Rumsfeld, has become alarmed.
Of course, the Bush Bootlickers and apologists would love to have everyone forget these truths since Swill Boating their political opponents and “catapulting the propaganda” (Bush’s words) has worked so well in the past. My guess is, though, the turkey has come home to roost.
Posted by Richard2 on Aug 22, 2005 at 1:51 AM Natalie,
I see you prefer to conduct a debate about:-
1. Who is ‘soft on Communism’ and whether the poele posting here are communists
and
2. Who is soft on criminals.
rather than the topic at hand, which is the importance of the fundamental guarantee of a right to vote absolutely free from any interference on behalf of political operatives or their orgnaisations.
Hmmm. Could I ask you again please, although I now know better than to expect a reasoned and respectful reply.Do you, or do you not, support the right to vote of evey person, in the way I have described above, as a matter of principle, or is the real position you hold, as it now appears to be, that a citizen’s right to vote is subject to the views of the politically connected and powerful, and may be interferred with at will if someone determines that it is not in their interests that a group or groups have the absolute freedom and right to cast a ballot, on the same terms and with the same gurantees equally with everyone else.
I am afraid your posts have conviced me that there is indeed something rotten in the state of US democracy, and you sweet Natalie, did that all by yourself. I can assure you I am not remoteley interested in the posts of outraged US liberals on this issue, for the reason I pointed out earlier. All partisans behave badly when it comes to permitting other peole to cast a ballot. That is why the right must be so carefully protected and understood as so fundamental. You have convinced me that you do not share those views. Now I understand exactly what is being said about the US across the world on this topic.
Posted by Jane Doe on Aug 22, 2005 at 4:57 AM “Such cynicism exasperates some Democrats. Last year, Joe Andrew, who served as Bill Clinton’s chairman of the Democratic National Committee, blasted conspiracy theories that electronic voting machines, or DREs, would be used to steal votes and said “most liberals are just plain old-fashioned nuts” on the subject. He lamented that prominent Democrats “are rallying behind the anti-DRE bandwagon in a big election year because they think that this movement is good for Democrats.”
“Nor has the truth stretching stopped with the election. Barbara Arnwine of The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights claims photo ID laws “could disenfranchise 10% of the electorate.” In June, DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued a report on last year’s election in Ohio. He claimed it backed up charges of widespread “voter suppression.” But after a scholar involved in writing the report told journalists that wasn’t so, Mr. Dean had to return to the microphones to revise his remarks: While we certainly couldn’t draw a proven conclusion that this was willful, it certainly has the appearance of impropriety.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007142
Posted by Natalie on Aug 22, 2005 at 4:27 PM Jane, what country are you from? You seem to be reluctant to say, maybe not, but I feel it’s unfair for you to criticize our voting system from the comfort of national anonymity.
Please tell me, and I will work on yet another response to your questions, although I thought I had addressed them. I think you and others misunderstand my reasoning for responding to charges of racism in kind with similar charges that may indeed be equally specious.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 22, 2005 at 4:36 PM Jane Doe is from Australia, Natalie, whose government is a willing accomplice in the brutal occupation in Iraq.
First, how do YOU know that those inmates at Guantanamo are guilty of anything? Hardly any have had charges brought against them, and thanks in part to John G. Roberts, the military can try these men in secret tribunals outside the the constitutional requirements of due process and a trial by a jury of one’s peers.
Second, it appears that the only way one does not coddle communism is to start violent and illegal proxy wars in the third world that defy self-determination, according to you. Don’t forget the overheated belligerent rhetoric that can damn near start wars of mutual destruction.
Third, you just don’t remember the enthusiasm and glee with which Clinton embraced the “War” on drugs, do you? You also whitewash history, because the war on crime- particularly drugs- was stimulated by “a variety of factors that have little or nothing to do with crime itself” the National Criminal Justice Commission concluded. Such factors included “exploiting racial tension for political purposes,” with racial bias in enforcement and sentencing that is devastating black communities. Who started the war on drugs? Ronald Reagan. Who has taken its enforcement to a whole new police-statish level? George W. Bush.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 22, 2005 at 8:49 PM You know, I was really just kind of half joking when I responded to the charge that KKKers support Republicans by saying that communists and criminals support Democrats.
The vehement protest against the validity of these charges actually heartens me, and I’m beginning to think maybe I was wrong to level them. Perhaps my perception is based on the misinterpretation of selected media excerpts and does not reflect reality.
I offer my apologies.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 23, 2005 at 4:13 PM Natalie,
For the record, as if it matters to the matters at hand, I come from Australia whose government has indeed commited us to the illegal invasion of Iraq. Although the decision made little difference in our national elections last year, be assurred, the majority of the people opposed our intervention in support of the US, and still do so. This is a diversion from the matter at hand.
I am unimpressed with your quotes from some dopey Senator about voting machines, and how good they may or may not be.What gives me the creeps is how quickly this discussion strayed from the real issue of principle, and got bogged down on issues to do with the characteristics of voters (race, political persuasion, previous time served in prison-a proxy for race hmmm?) rather than with the integrity of the actual voting process. Do you understand the point I am making, or do you prefer to throw ‘sand’ in the face of this debate, in order to obscure a blindingly simple democratic point. Let me spell it out. In your system practically anyone, it seems, can devise the means, polling places, balloting processes, enrolement procedures, counting and tallying of ballots. This includes elected officials and/or their agents. As a result, partisans of all persuasions have built in mechanisams to ‘rort’ ballots, as we say in this country. It is a matter of record that this regularly happens in your polity, at both state, local and now national level. Note, I am not making any accusations as to who is most guilty. It doesn’t matter. Just one instance is enough to stuff up any pretence of formal equality, or democratic rights. Now once again, slowly, do you, or do you not, support an approach to these matters which excludes the possibility, be it ever so remote, of any elected official or their agent, being able to make any decisions over the many process and procedures that go to the equal right of every person, to cast a vote, and have that vote counted on the same basis across the whole country, irresepective of here they live, what their politics may or may not be, what their race is, or what their purported leanings might be. Yes or No. Your silence and diversions tell me all I need to know about the real purposes of your intervention in this debate, and I can assure you, you would last two seconds where I come from, with arguments based on who is supposed to be a ‘commie’ (sooo 1950s). The purported failings of your political opponents on this very important, dare I say iconic issue for anyone who has the remotest right to call themselves ‘democratic’ as opposed to being a ‘Democrat’, are beside the point. Try ‘an issue of principle’ and see how you go. Bye Bye.
Posted by Jane Doe on Aug 24, 2005 at 4:09 AM OK Natalie, I am not supporting the Democrats’ historical approach to communism, I am just saying that they were very anti-communist and never scrupled to use the U.S. military to prevent its spread, even if communism had popular support in whatever country it took hold. See Cuba, Guatemala, and Vietnam.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 24, 2005 at 3:47 PM Jane,
Thanks for your information. Australia has a very interesting voting system and I was totally ignorant of it. (except for the parts you related, of course)
I have some comments on your system and how it compares to ours, but I don’t have time right now.
Please bear with me and check back in a day or so.
Thanks.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 24, 2005 at 5:02 PM Jane,
I have always understood that you are unconcerned about internal partisan arguments in the U.S. and are more concerned that some of us may not have been afforded a proper opportunity to vote, and that the process of marking and counting that vote may have been compromised by parties with conflicting interest. I don’t think your concern is based in much reality, which is why I’ve felt free to argue other matters.
But I responded to your question directly and unconditionally I thought, which I assume was meant to gauge my level of agreement with you on the importance of unencumbered voting, thus:
“Of course I agree that “every person should have the right to cast a ballot free from the interference of any agent of any political party or elected official”, and to any extent that it goes on here I condemn it. I certainly don’t feel like I’ve ever been interfered with…...”
I went on to point out however, that in America, certain standards must be met in order to vote. This is not an attempt to prevent qualified persons from registering their vote, but merely a necessity in order to avoid the meaninglessness of a result that is based on invalid votes—be it for reasons of citizenship, age or body temperature. Surely you have similar standards in Australia. Surely non-Australians are not allowed to vote. Surely 13 year olds are not allowed to vote. Surely you are not allowed to assume the identity of a deceased person in order to vote.
Why did you not respond to my question? : “The Democrats seem to think they shouldn’t have to. (abide by agreed to standards) Let me ask you: Does that seem fair to you?”
Suggested response: “All parties should abide by all laws and standards that have been set forth and agreed to before the election.”
OF COURSE the identity of your country is relevant to this discussion, because you criticized our voting system from the standpoint of yours being superior. I don’t think I necessarily agree.
Compulsory voting? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone here, right or left, advocate for that. In fact, it would fly in the face of our founding principles, which at core boil down to maximum power and choice to the individual and minimum power to the federal government. What’s next? You must choose a church or religion to belong to, but you may NOT choose to NOT believe?
To force someone to vote might seem like you’re doing something for a person or a nation’s own good, but just whos definition of good are you using, and who’s to say that MY best political expression isn’t simply not to vote? To vote in Australia seems not like a right, but a commandment. I think I prefer a society that is free to vote or not, an electorate that is inspired and motivated to vote out of passion, privilege and information—not one that views voting as a chore to avoid a fine. (I’m not saying that everyone there feels that way, but certainly many must)
Here in America, unlike Australia, we have an unambiguous constitutional right to freedom of speech—but we are not forced to make a speech on one side of an argument or another. We are free to remain silent.
Here in America, unlike Australia, we have an unambiguous constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms—but we are not forced to bear arms.
Freedom is the operative concept. I think a society that is mandated to vote, and is asked to entrust the whole procedure to an evidently unaccountable untouchable body, is not as free as they might think. Perhaps they feel they are today, but how solid is the foundation that will prevent their freedom or perception thereof from collapsing in the future? Are the people refereeing your elections human, subject to partisan emotions, or are they robots? Even if they were robots, would they not be subject to human programming?
continued…..........
Posted by Natalie on Aug 25, 2005 at 9:11 PM pg. 2
I think you’ve perhaps fallen victim to the seductive rhetoric coming from those who lost elections and are looking for someone or some computer to blame. The article I quoted from and linked to earlier illustrates how the cooler heads in the Democratic party understand there was no “disenfranchisement of blacks”, or “Diebold plots” for them to blame their losses on. They understand that it is precisely this type of whining by their left fringe that contributed to their losses. They understand that they need to appeal to voters with positive ideas of their own, and quit relying on demonizing the other party and blaming everyone but yourself for your losses.
I submit to you, Jane, that you are simply wrong about there being such nefarious and discriminatory practices going on in American elections. If the left-leaning (to put it charitably) U.S. commission on civil rights after weeks of exhaustive investigation failed to come with even one example of an African American being kept from voting due to anything more than their car breaking down, or officials of their own party failing to plan for a crowd, I can’t imagine that the state of our election system is anywhere near the level of corruption that is so often portrayed by the liberal media and by the ultra-liberal section of the blogosphere.
You can sleep easy down under. Like yours, our system isn’t perfect, but it does a pretty darn good job at ultimately choosing officials that represent the wishes and ideals of the nation. We as a people recognized that discrimination against minorities was wrong, and the politicians responded. We as a people have power and a voice in our individual localities, and collectively WE are in control of our national destiny, despite conspiracy theories and fund-raising schemes claiming otherwise.
Here we take voting for granted, like the sun coming up in the morning. We do not need laws to mandate voting and maintain databases on us and follow us around and demand to be kept updated on our exact whereabouts. We have retailers that do that voluntarily for free! ;-)
Posted by Natalie on Aug 25, 2005 at 9:15 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Salim Muwakkil
- Assassinated by the State
The federally sanctioned murder of a Black Panther. - The ‘Post-Racial’ President
Barack Obama navigates a world where color still matters. - Government-Assisted Terrorists
- The Irony of Obama’s Boycott
America's first black president refused to attend a U.N. conference on racism. - African-Americans Back Burris
- Will Holder Hold Cops Accountable?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
