Election Dirty Tricks About To Begin 942
An anonymous reader writes "ABC is warning that dirty election tricks are about to start. In the past, they've ranged from late-night robo-calls to voter intimidation. ABC has a pretty good list of what to watch out for as told by Allen Raymond, a former Republican operative, who was reformed after spending three months in prison in 2006 for pulling some of the stunts he now helps to prevent." To make this story timely, last week someone broke into a McCain campaign office in Missouri and stole a laptop computer containing "strategic information" about the local campaign.
As opposed to.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Clean tricks?
Re:As opposed to.. (Score:5, Funny)
Clean tricks?
You know, the ones where the prostitute has had all their shots ...
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight. At least they will apparently not continue to dominate the world, if we go by recent events.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Funny)
Man, I wish more Europeans realized the irrelevance of their countries. The pointlessness of a N-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight. At least they will apparently continue to not dominate the world, if we go by recent events.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, I wish more people realized the irrelevance of countries. The pointlessness of systems based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Actually, I think there's some hope.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Really expensive keggers, with millions of servants running around dishing out snacks and booze.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Sadly, when you look to countries which have more workable multi-party systems you often see far more political instability. Look at Japan, many European countries and so on - weak coalitions that are easily toppled as political allegiances change.
I'm not advocating a two-party system as perfect. I just can't see anything better in practice today.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not advocating a two-party system as perfect. I just can't see anything better in practice today.
Australian system, compulsory preferential voting and proportional representation in the upper house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system
Yes there's mostly two parties, but its much easier for smaller parties to actually win some seats and make a real difference and we've had a mostly stable system.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, as an Australian I prefer our system by far compared to the US system. I just didn't want to derail the thread.
Preferential and mandatory voting leads to the best representation of voter intention I've seen in the world, but it also can lead to the balance of power being held by a single independent politician. A few years back Brian Harradine held the balance of power in the senate, and was able to massively pork-barrel for Tasmania by selling his vote for terms that suited him well (even though the gov't of the day had an electoral mandate to deliver). It can be argued either way whether this is good or bad politics.
The best example I've seen in our politics so far was in Tasmania some years back when the Labor Party had to join a coalition with the Greens to form a government. There was a real move towards Green politics in Southern Tasmania, and that actually did come out in the elected politicians. It didn't last so long, and after a while the two major parties reworked the system to destroy third party power (yay democracy!) but it was the best representation of a third party I've seen here.
You may note that I discount the Nationals in the federal political coalition with the Liberals. They are utterly spineless, bending to the Libs' whim immediately and obediently. Sadly they represent the 'bush' voters as much as any inner-city Lib does (and their complete willingness to fold on Telstra was all the proof we ever needed of that). More's the pity. A real coalition would be better for all concerned.
(Help for our international friends - the Liberals (note the capital) are the Australian conservatives, Labor are closest to the small-L liberals and the Nationals are meant to represent the rural voters.)
To any Australian voters - always vote below the line! Distribute your preference how you want to, don't let some party official give your vote away!
(diatribe over, resume normal transmission)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
In a absolute system (one party in power, can do mostly what they want) things get done, and they can steamroll through unpopular things that are for the longterm good, but they can also steamroll through things that are for no-one but themselves
In a true multiparty system you must get concensus to get anything done so it is difficult to get unpopular things done
In a two party system like the US have, when the president and the house are the same party (as they often are in the first half of a term in office) they can push through almost anything .... when the president and the house are different parties (as they often are in the second half of a term in office
Stability is a false good, anyone in power for too long stops caring about mistakes (because they have not suffered for them)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Interesting)
In a true multiparty system you must get concensus to get anything done so it is difficult to get unpopular things done.
True enough, but the right thing and the popular thing are often not the same. As a libertarian I would say that a broad consensus, across a wide and diverse group of people, varied in terms of income, geography, race, gender, rural vs. urban, etc., should be a necessary but NOT sufficient condition for the passage of any law. Interestingly that is exactly why the U.S. Constitution was written the way it was . . it was designed to make exactly such a consensus a necessary (but not sufficient) prerequisite for any governmental action at the federal level. Unfortunately those checks and balances have mostly come apart, so we now have a mostly national (not federal) system in which people want to believe they have some stake and some semblance of control, but in which the same unelected oligopoly actually holds most of the power regardless of who wins elections.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
No no nonononononononono. No. People are dumb. They don't know what's good for them even when they know what's going on, which they rarely do. There's a good goddamn reason the US isn't a direct democracy.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with our "two party" system is the two parties are nearly identical, especially in the leadership. The planks of both parties are considerably different, but it has been a long time since a Republican has followed its party's plank.
Carrol Quigley, Georgetown professor and mentor to Bill Clinton said this in Tragedy & Hope,
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers." "Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
He also had this to say:
It is increasingly clear that, in the twentieth century, the expert will replace ... the democratic voter in control of the political system. Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits
(Tragedy and Hope: 866).
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Interesting)
Is political stability necessarily good? There's an optimal point somewhere between the instability of, say, Italy, and the stability of, say, Cuba.
As for the two party system: it can work sometimes. I'm not convinced that it's working in the US, and I'm not convinced that in general it's better than a three or four party system.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds good to say that, but how do you actually do it? There's no real barrier to the creation of third (or fourth or fifth) parties here in the US, they just don't get votes of donations. The Dems and Repubs could and, if it ever came to it, might put real barriers up if they wanted or needed to, but as things stand it's pretty much a social problem. People feel that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, but until more people vote third party it will continue to look that way. How do you fix that?
I'm guilty of it too, I'm not acting holy here. I haven't really even looked at the third party candidates this year, because I badly enough DON'T want a Republican that I'm going to vote Democrat. It's wrong of me... I should vote for the guy I want, not vote against the guy I don't, but it seems the lesser of two evils right now.
Solutions [Re:No, the real trick] (Score:5, Informative)
The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies. Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight.
Either approval voting [approvalvoting.org] or range voting [wikipedia.org] (aka score voting [rangevoting.org]would break the forced two-valued dichotomy of the current system.
(In fact, approval voting is just one version of range voting-- in games theory, they are identical).
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
It's even more empty than you realize.
the candidates REFUSE to attend the debate if they dont get to review the questions first. they also will refuse to answer some questions.
The hard questions that people want answered they refuse to deal with. That's how fricking empty it is.
I want them to answer the hard ones.
"when are you going to end this war on the middle east?"
"What are you personally going to do to fix healthcare?"
"How are you going to help address corruption in Capitol hill?"
"What is your position on Medical Marijuana? Why?"
"What are you going to do to restore the constitution and amercian rights?"
They REFUSE to answer the above questions or the other hard ones I cant think of.
They also refuse to debate with the other candidates that are willing to answer those questions. Our election process is a complete joke.
Americans don't want them to answer honest (Score:5, Insightful)
See the problem with answering questions honestly is that americans don't want to hear the truth. Carter proved that out when he asked the americans to tighten their belts and live within their means. They called his speech a "malaise" because Americans didn't want to hear it or accept it. So Reagan was voted in when he said "Carter is wrong, you can have anything you want!"
Bush Sr. said no new taxes. But a tax hike was required at an important time, so he helped raise taxes. He was then voted out.
A significant portion of Americans believe that the US government is required to preserve their specific way of life, no matter what that is. What's why we require so much foreign oil. That's why we have such large cars. That's why so many people have such large credit card debt. We want our politicians to tell us we can have everything, and they want them to ensure that we can get it. Few Americans are willing to accept that maybe we personally all have to accept responsibility and start buying less and tighten our belts and accept higher taxes. We have to start thinking about quality of life, and not "quantity" of life.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Why was this modded up? The first sentence is simply untrue. In every major presidential debate, the moderators make it perfectly clear that the questions were not shared with anyone prior to the event. Do you think that journalists such as Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, Tom Brokaw, or the late Tim Russert would flat-out lie to their viewers? It's true that the candidates haggle over the most minute details, such as podium height, but I think you're confusing finagling over the details of the format of the debate with knowing the questions in advance.
As for the second point, I'll admit that candidates will sometimes refuse to answer questions (Palin especially comes to mind). But as Gwen Ifill explained on MTP this week, it is not her job as moderator to force Palin to answer. It was a debate between the candidates, and therefore her role was merely to guide the questioning. Biden should have been the one to call Palin out on her non-answers. That was his failure, not Ifill's. As for your "hard" questions:
1. Was talked about extensively in the last debate, which focused on foreign policy.
2. Was talked about to an extent in the last debate, which is substantial given that it was supposed to focus on foreign policy. Will probably be a major focus of tonight's debate.
3. The fact is that this isn't a big issue for most people, especially with the economy in the tank. Nevertheless, the candidates' positions are readily available: McCain will continue the Bush administration's policies towards medical marijuana, and Obama will instruct the Justice Department to not enforce the federal laws on medical marijuana patients.
4. The way this question is worded, it will never be asked. It is loaded.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want to say that we were right to try and stay out of WWII even as genocide occurred, I'd be completely within my rights, I could even go further and suggest that it was a good thing, try doing that in Europe. It is a genuinely disgusting sentiment, but here you can actually say it.
"In Europe"? What the hell does that mean? I'm "European", and I can say that in public. AFAIK there's nothing prohibiting me from doing it other than shame and life-long ridicule. I'd say the same applies to most European countries, other than Germany where it may - or may not - fall under the anti-nazi speech laws, but then Germany is the scene of the crime, and what they do is not my concern.
Demagogues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Demagogues (Score:5, Funny)
Dictatorships are run by dictators. Monarchies are run by monarchs.
So I guess the US is a country?
Oh wait - that joke doesn't work in written form.
In the nation of the media (Score:4, Insightful)
Appearance is 90%.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
how about the one where that one side convinces it's followers that it's less corrupt than the other side, and (perhaps) takes LESS money from special interests, even though the full disclosure sites show they actually took at least as much, if not more money?
What bugs me about this election, more than any other, is that the sides are polarizing. As a student of history, this is setting off alarm bells.
Republicans and Democratics: Zelotry will get you in trouble.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest trick is the one that Obama is pulling. The one that makes us all think that he is somehow a better choice because he appears smarter, cooler, and more articulate than McCain.
Oh, you mean COMMON SENSE?
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
The VP debate was funny until I checked the news the next day and everything was about how well Palin did, saying that she even 'won' (politically). Then it was just very sad.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
i'm glad i'm not the only one who noticed that.. while she did very well compared to early interviews.. saying she "won" is complete crap.. all she did was add drama to things and put in little fear remarks when no one had the chance to question her on them.. such as the closing .. i wonder where she gets off saying we are all going to lose our jobs if democrats are elected..
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's better than what Bush did in 2000. He didn't answer a single question, and somehow he won it.
If your goal is to win, winning without answering a single question is about as good as you can get.
What it proves (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I didn't think he won. I don't think anyone with any intelligence thought he won, either. Although it proves that P.T. Barnum knew what he was talking about.
I think it proves you're one of those people Pauline Kael made famous when she said "I don't see how Nixon could have possibly won. No one I know voted for him"
Re:What it proves (Score:5, Insightful)
Did something I say go over your head? I know exactly how he won. He won by appealing to the lowest common denominator, just like P.T. Barnum. Although unlike P.T. Barnum, Bush was not a genius at manipulating people to take advantage of them. He was just some dumb cowboy that came across as more likable to people dumb enough to vote for President based on who they'd rather sit down and have a beer with.
Before you shoot back with a reply, I'm not talking about his Republican base, who would've voted for him in 2000 almost no matter what. I'm talking about the people who were sitting on the fence. I'm talking about people who switch sides in a poll over the most asinine things, like Gore hugging his wife on TV because people thought he was too stiff (surprisingly enough, people did switch over that). I'm talking about dumb-asses, and there are more than enough of those to sway a national election.
So did he win the debate on merit of the intelligence of his answers? No. Did he win in terms of voters swayed? Yes. So IMO he lost the debate, but won where it counts (in the polls).
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Interesting)
As a card carrying member of the "Bush is a Moron" club even I have to admit Bush actually did quite well as a debater. In terms of scoring debate points he fought both Gore and Kerry to a draw. I attribute this more to Gore and Kerry focusing too much on pre-prepared talking points rather than thinking on the fly during the debate, which made them seem wooden, disingenuous and out of touch. Bush had his talking points too (fuzzy math) but was able to put together some coherent statements responding to his opponents arguments. Comparing Bush to Palin is really an insult to Bush's intelligence--and I wouldn't have thought that was possible a month ago.
As a VP candidate Palin is the new Dan Quayle--only without the pedigree. If she were a man she would have been laughed off completely weeks ago, but they've played the gender card well.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, Bush did not do well against Gore (aside from the fact that he impressed people who care more about how someone looks than what comes out of their mouth). Bush may not have been wooden in the 2000 debate, but he came across as extremely insincere. I'd take wooden over insincere any day. He sounded like a used-car salesman. Maybe that's what most people like, but that vibe has always bothered me. Combined with the fact that every single answer against Gore was "Well folks, I'm stupid. But I can surround myself with smart unscrupulous people who will tell me what to do.", I knew from his first debate with Gore that Bush's presidency would be bad. I had no idea it would be this bad.
Now we hear McCain saying the same thing (about the economy, at least). Fortunately Obama looks good and comes across well to the same people who decided that Bush won his debates against Gore without answering a single question. No one can win an election if only the intelligent people vote for him.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Funny)
>Yeah, but wasn't it one of those 2004 debates where Bush had that bulge from something under his jacket? Did anyone ever really find out what the heck that thing was?
Yes.
Remember, the democrats running were for gun control, so Bush was ready for them.
If they had pulled out a gun during the debate that said "Replica" on the side of it...
Bush would have pulled out a gun saying "Desert Eagle .50" on the side of it.
Now run along, there's no pussy for you here.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
What's so smart about believing that democrats only want to tax those making over $250,000/year? They bring out that bedtime fairy tale every election.
And how does the incumbent party responsible for the largest increases in national debt in history continue to claim that they're the fiscally responsible party?
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
And how does the incumbent party responsible for the largest increases in national debt in history continue to claim that they're the fiscally responsible party?
I'm pretty sure that was the cause of the Republicans getting booted out in 2006, and will probably cost them them the 2008 election.
Republicans do a great job talking about fiscal conservatism, but my conservative friends all tell me they've had enough. My response: "What took you so long?"
Democrats are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really annoying to me to have to call the Democrats "the Party of Fiscal Responsibility", because they didn't get that way by being responsible and wanting to cut government spending, they got that way by default, with Bush,Cheney,&Rove spending borrowed money like there's no tomorrow.
Bill Clinton does deserve some credit - it *was* the economy, stupid, and his administration did a good job of managing the situation they got left with, though they did manage to spend the proceeds of a radically productive technology boom. And a lot of the spending restraint he showed was because the Republican-dominated Congress kept attacking him over his tacky personal life so he couldn't do most of the Democrat-agenda big-spending programs like HillaryCare, whereas after Bush got elected they were too scared to say no to anything he wanted (and even after Katrina and losing the war demonstrated the failure of Bush's Strong Trustworthy Powerful Father-Figure model of government got enough of Congress replaced by Democrats, Bush kept them scared as well.)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Darn tootin' right she won! Of course, it's a Pyrrhic victory when the criteria for "winning" is that you don't make yourself look like too much of a moron on international issues AND you have to study for a week to pull that off.
Say it ain't so Joe.
At least Putin didn't rear his head into the debate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Interesting)
The VP debate was funny until I checked the news the next day and everything was about how well Palin did, saying that she even 'won' (politically). Then it was just very sad.
Really? I heard they both pretty much did what was expected from them. Palin did well, but probably not good enough to matter. Biden demonstrated he knew what he was talking about without getting pedantic, and that he'd be an adequate choice as VP.
And according to the analyses I read, that's pretty much all the Obama/Biden ticket needs to do: show they're not idiots, reliable, and an adequate choice to lead the country. McCain and Palin are working so hard to appear mavericks that they come across as unreliable loonies.
No idea if it's true, but if it is, it'd be pretty impressive that a young, black advocate for change has conquered the "safe choice" position. Although that's probably more because of McCain's panicky stunts than his own doing.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Palin did well, but probably not good enough to matter
Yeah, but the common Fox News crowd opinion seems to be that by not coming across as a moron or a lunatic Palin "won" politically. It was widely feared in Republican circles that Palin would completely foul up the debate and lose all credibility. If that had happened it would put McCain in the unenviable position of having to choose between supporting her (and looking like he was an idiot or a fool), or dumping her (and looking like he made a fantastically bad choice in the first place). By doing OK Palin avoided a complete disaster, so she "won".
The problem with the whole debate in my opinion was that Biden couldn't "win". Palin could "lose", if she really made herself look like an idiot or said something crazy, but Biden could have been Cicero and it wouldn't have mattered. The nature of the two candidates totally put the the ball in Palin's court. If she did well she would win, if she did OK she would tie (and still in a way "win"), if she bombed she would lose. Biden was going to more or less be fine unless he bombed (and lost), but could never "win" on he own.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Informative)
Well, yes, they have. If for one, you call 18 months "several years" (nice spin, pal), and if for two you ignore at least twelve instances of Republican filibustering, and if for three you ignore the impact of a President who has used more presidential vetos than every other President in US history COMBINED, not to mention signing statement.
Then I guess we could say that they've played a hand or two.
Yes, I'm aware that they've also handled some of the things they have done horribly, but still. Nonetheless, nice try, Dittohead.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Biden did any better. They both just repeatedly misstated the other campaign's position while only extolling the virtues of their own.
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution. It's not a lot if you want to lead a country, but a basic understanding of the law is kind of vital, I think.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
I find that a very dubious claim. The Constitution enumerates the powers that the federal legislative bodies should hold, and grants them the authority to do so. The problem is that politicians use the clause giving them power to regulate interstate commerce, combined with the necessary-and-proper clause, to put their hands into everything. The typical defense of this view is McCulloch v. Maryland, in which SCOTUS granted the federal government the power to institute a bank. Given that the Constitution grants the power "To coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof," this isn't too troubling. But today you'll find all sorts of situations where powers have been stretched much, much further.
While recent Republicans have been quite guilty of this, I view the Democrats as the worse offenders. You won't find federal authority over education in the Constitution. Or welfare. Or science subsidies. Or health care.
I'm not saying these are bad ideas. I'm saying the Constitution does not grant that authority to the federal government. Implied or correlated powers are one thing, but completely unrelated powers are another. Someone who's read and understood the Constitution by itself should conclude that these are issues that should be handled by the several states. It's sad that neither party represents the viewpoint that a lot of people hold -- that the federal government should be made weaker, not stronger.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Where do you get off justifying your slurs on the US Constitution? The Constitution, like the Magna Carta before it, was nailed down on paper precisely so it cannot deviate, or be conveniently misremembered, changed, concealed, or any number of other dirty tricks. At most, it can be amended. The writers knew there would be cases where the law isn't crystal clear, and set up an entire branch of government devoted to figuring out exactly how it all should apply to the infinite variety of situations that arise, and keeping things as consistent and therefore fair as possible by recording reasoning and decisions for posterity. They had a lot of precedent to draw on from the experiences of other civilizations, and made good use of it.
The attitude here just the sort of stuff of which the fall of great nations starts. Wailing that we can't be sure what anything really means, the Constitution is a pile of crap that says anything a judge wants it to say, there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans they're both political parties and all politicians are liars and scum, they're all morally equivalent both pulling tricks of approximately equal dirtiness at approximately the same frequency. We can't know if global warming is real, it's okay to falsify income on loan applications because it doesn't really matter and everyone else does it too, it can be believed that the federal government's largess has already turned us into a nation of deadbeat welfare recipients because no evidence to the contrary (or in support either) is trustworthy, we also can't know for certain that any activity really does hurt the environment, it doesn't hurt to teach Intelligent Design in school because it could be true but we'll never know because we can't know anything at all, and, of course, the VP debate had no clear result so might as well call it a tie. All because, according to this attitude, no one can ever be sure what's real, and everything is going to hell anyway. It's the ultimate in defeatism by knowledge denial.
That attitude is worse than wrong. We can research solid facts, we can know what is true and what isn't. On all the questions above, despite what naysayers think we can get answers good enough to act on. We can make sound decisions based on these facts. We won't ever have complete information, but that's a far far cry from no trustworthy information at all. We won't always make the best decision, but that's hindsight. As to the VP debate, it's a solid victory for the Democratic side. Palin tried very hard to spin pretty much every question, even one straight from grade school civics classes, "Is the VP part of the executive branch?" Palin earns an F for her non-answer. Biden earns a B, since he didn't get the facts completely correct. The Republican party has thoroughly embraced this totally unproductive and self-destructive anti-knowledge attitude. You know it's bad when they refuse to give straight answers to basic civics questions we'd expect a 10th grader to know or be able to figure out easily. Very disappointing that their best maverick reformer showed by his VP pick that he wasn't turning away from these anti-fact liars and losers that infest the Republican party. "Doubt is our product" Sure, kindred spirits feel it was a Palin victory. Let us hope those kindred spirits are few in number. They are so going to crater this election.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Informative)
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution.
Riiiiiight.
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3162) aka the USAPATRIOT ACT: Biden (D-DE), Yea
On H.R. 3199 aka USAPATRIOT ACT II: Biden (D-DE), Yea
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
That's their job but I think there was much more to it than that. I'm a 50-ish Aussie who knows virtually nothing about Biden or Palin, I watched the debate on youtube expecting to see a loudmouth yanky politician argue with a rabid "soccer mom". What I saw was a polished statesman forced into debating a not so rabid "soccer mom", eg: in his conclusion he pratically begged the American people to choose reason and science over fear and faith.
That he had to have the debate with such an ordinary crackpot speaks volumes for American democracy, choosing Biden would speak equally well of Joe Sixpack.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Funny)
As a Canadian, I have to say that if the worst does come to pass... Well, let's just say that there is a whole bunch of concrete and razor wire standing by. Don't tell the americans about this though, they'd just get all pissy.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Informative)
the only thing i have to say is
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html [whitehouse.gov]
please read it in full..
then look up the history of Presidential Directives and what in history they have changed including overruling the supream court - (freeing of slaves, the march of tears, WWII jap camps to name a few)
then ask - why - if it isn't to be used, was it passed at all?
then realize that economy is listed
"(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions; "
and just look around..
and again ask.. if it isn't to be used then why was it put in place?
For anyone who is going to respond to this.. please read it in full first.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
But Palin was McCain's choice. She illustrates his judgment, or rather lack thereof; we would not be ok with the sort of president who chooses Palin for a running mate.
Country First? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Country First? (Score:4, Insightful)
Already started (Score:5, Insightful)
Where have you guys been? The ads have been on TV for a couple of weeks. The economy is going down the tubes, so distraction is the key.
Re:Already started (Score:5, Informative)
It is when you're trying to convince a voter who's voting in the right state that he's registered in a different state.
Re:Already started (Score:5, Interesting)
Raymond says that such tactics have evolved from some of the more overt voter intimidation schemes seen back in the early 1980s when the GOP's "Ballot Security Task Force" used armed off-duty police officers at the polling places in New Jersey and posted signs reading "voter fraud is a felony." Other underhanded tactics...
So, reminding people that voter fraud is a felony is voter intimidation? Wrong.
Perhaps 'reminding people that voter fraud is a felony' is not voter intimidation. Reminding people that voter fraud is a felony using armed men in uniform is voter intimidation. Are the armed men protecting themselves against similarly armed voter fraudsters? No. The armed men are there to take advantage of the fact that there are very clear demographic statistics that show that some segments of the population (not to be racist, but it's typically African-American and Hispanic citizens) are very afraid of the police (and looking at history, perhaps rightly so). The fact that the men are armed does nothing to assist in 'preventing voter fraud' and does everything to scare away citizens who are skittish of authority and perhaps view their vote as a means of resistance that will not be welcomed by the armed guards...
Re:Already started (Score:5, Interesting)
For one thing, "reminding people that voter fraud is a felony" doesn't even come close to describing what the "Ballot Security Task Force" did. After investigations into their conduct, the GOP had to promise such conduct would not occur again.
I was referring more to this, though:
In 2006, voters in Virginia reportedly received fake voicemail messages from the state elections commission claiming that the voters were registered in another state and could be criminally charged if they cast their vote in Virginia.
If there is any sort of verification at the polls, making an error about which state you can vote in will be picked up and you won't be able to vote. This doesn't even remotely qualify as voter fraud, and lying about someone's registration status and threatening them with arrest and criminal charges is undoubtedly intimidation.
Mc Cain + Palin spam emails (Score:5, Funny)
i am already getting
Mc Cain + Palin spam emails
for last few weeks
tho im not from US :( stupid spammers
I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
The joys of living in the swing state of VA....
Re:I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:5, Funny)
Shocking? Where do you get the idea that you have any privacy or anonymity whatsoever, Paul?
Re:I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:5, Informative)
That is a horrifyingly accurate post. The real victors in war are the people who sell the bullets. Everyone else only plays along to use their products.
Plague, not pox (Score:5, Informative)
the dirtiest trick is already out of the bag (Score:5, Insightful)
electronic voting. no better device for dirty tricks has ever been invented
paper ballots. ocr. end of debate
anything else, including traditional mechanical voting machines, are ripe for abuse. not because you can't do dirty tricks with paper ballots, but because electronic voting (and to a lesser degree tradtional mechanical voting machines) increases the number of attack vectors by an order of magnitude, and increases the damage a lone operative can do, exponentially
fox news? plutocrat neocons? liberal media? america hating moonbats? corporate lobbyists? christian dominionists? uninformed apathetic voters?
make a list of what you consider the greatest threat to american democracy
nope, wrong
it's electronic voting. electronic voting removes transparency and introduces distrust into the voting process. electronic voting will prove to be the biggest mistake and the greatest threat to american democracy
democracy's greatest strength is that it creates legitimacy, no other form of government renews legitimacy in the eyes of its people. it gives the people a real voice in their own government. remove that trust with black box voting, and you remove legitimacy and stability and faith in the government. lose that, and you lose everything
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
Elections don't just have to be fair, they have to be _seen_ to be fair.
A typical Joe Sixpack has got to be able to look at the elections and grudgingly admit - "Darnit, my party lost and there wasn't that much cheating".
Rather than "What's this complicated bullshit? They're cheating big time I know it".
And the funny thing is - it doesn't really have to be that complicated. Hand counting scales.
2 things (Score:5, Insightful)
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
2. however, if you use the existence of the electoral college as a reason not to vote, no: you're wrong. the electoral college is a negative tweak to a system that still works. removing the electoral college merely makes it work better. the existence of the electoral college doesn't nullfy the entire process and doesn't nullify your vote. it merely warps the value of your vote in ways that are really kind of arbitrary, neither favoring one ideology or another. it's noise in the system
now, there are people out there with learned helplessness, with deficits in their ability to trust. there are plenty of reasons and examples of the system creating distrust, but there are also people in this world with a pathological disability: an inability to trust
such people are not disenfranchised by the system, such people disenfrachise themselves
so if you do not vote, simply because the electoral college exists, you are looking for a reason not to vote, and you found a very flimsy one. its really not a good reason not to vote
and if you don't vote because of the electoral college, there's osmething wrong with you. its self-disenfrachisement
Re:2 things (Score:4, Insightful)
Just turn the electoral colleges into ridings. State has 20 EC votes? State is broken into 20 ridings. People in each riding vote for whoever. Whoever has the most votes in that riding gets that EC vote.
That having been said, the EC made sense when America was, in fact, the 'United States,' which it isn't now. The Federal government has a direct impact on American voters; therefore American voters should vote directly for the Federal government.
Record Robocalls, Shine the light (Score:5, Interesting)
McCain v. Obama v. third-party (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to continue drilling the McCain campaign on economic issues. Neither McCain nor Palin has addressed the economy in an intelligent, organized manner.
We need to continue drilling Obama on the constitutionality of the things he wants to do. Social healthcare is prominent unconstitutional issue and it must be drilled.
We need to continue drilling the media to get more focus on the third party candidates and the up to 10% of the vote they have in some states, especially swing states like Ohio.
Our dirty tricks--we the geeks--can be to FLOOD iReport, Digg, Reddit, and such with third party coverage. They need to be inundated with it.
Re:McCain v. Obama v. third-party (Score:5, Interesting)
What? No it isn't. I believe I know where you're going... that States should have the right not the federal government... but if the people decide that they want the feds to take over healthcare... that's totally legal, that's Democracy. You may not like it, but I'm sure that we have the power to let them.
I've seen dirty tricks firsthand (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I've seen dirty tricks firsthand (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I've seen dirty tricks firsthand (Score:5, Interesting)
NPR did a spot on voter intimidation this morning. They said that a certain state (forget the one) will no longer allow out-of-state political operatives to dispute someone's eligibility to vote, and all challenges must be in writing, with particulars.
This was done in response to Republican tactics in the last election.
Need Evidence (Score:4, Funny)
To make this story timely, last week someone broke into a McCain campaign office in Missouri and stole a laptop computer containing "strategic information" about the local campaign
Whoa there... I'm gonna need some pretty solid evidence if you want me to believe that the McCain campaign had strategic information.
Another trick (Score:4, Informative)
Another one to be aware of is Michigan Republicans using lists of foreclosures in the precinct and challenging a voters eligibility to vote based on that list. NPR Story [npr.org], Michigan Messenger Story [michiganmessenger.com].
If you're concerned about this, look up your states Voter Eligibility and Identification Requirements on a state.XX.us website. Print out a copy and bring them with you. If you're challenged, challenge them right back and stand up for fellow citizens around you who are being unfairly challenged.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. Because the homeless folks are jumping from state to state to get multiple votes.
Why shouldn't a homeless person have the same right to vote as me?
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
What is your source for them being illegal aliens? or just making up facts as you go?
I'm willing to bet it's the later.
They are simply guilty of the greatest crime in America, being poor. Regardless they are still human and if citizens just as worthy of a vote as you are.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
And I personally have lived in the area all my life. I personally doubt you have spent any time with any of these groups. Basically, you see a group with clipboards talking to an Hispanic looking group so they are illegals. I personally think you are talking out of your ass.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
A) They don't pay taxes
B) They don't own land
C) They don't have families
D) They don't have any interaction with most laws (from cars to copyright)
Maybe we need a country and people that believe in statements like: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps because: ...and so on...
A) They don't pay taxes
B) They don't own land
C) They don't have families
D) They don't have any interaction with most laws (from cars to copyright)
You do realize that in the United States, the minimum age to register to vote is 18, right?
And a lot of 18-year-olds are still living at home, may not have jobs and are therefore not paying taxes (BTW, poll taxes were eliminated in the U.S. by 1966.), and probably don't have dependents of their own?
Wow... by your qualifications, they shouldn't be allowed to vote either, huh?
Re:dirty tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
The line that moved your post from bigoted to just plain stupid was reason D. Your idea of "most laws" is "cars and copyright"? Homeless people have far more interaction with the actually important laws, and far more need for those laws to be reasonable and just, than people whose idea of the "law" is limited to traffic rules and copyright.
I don't know what "propositions" you are talking about (though I don't follow Mississippi politics), but all your "criteria" would be explicitly unconstitutional.
Did you know that most homeless people are not actually homeless for very long? Only a minority would even fall into your batshit-crazy idea that people without land or children have no stake in the future of our society.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Informative)
From: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/voterInformation/regToVote.aspx [state.oh.us]
What are the qualifications to register and to vote in Ohio?
You are qualified to register to vote in Ohio if you meet all the following requirements:
1. You are a citizen of the United States;
2. You will be at least 18 years old on or before the day of the general election. (If you will be 18 on or before November 4, you may vote in the primary election for candidates, but you cannot vote on issues until you are 18);
3. You will be a resident of Ohio for at least 30 days immediately before the election in which you want to vote;
4. You are not incarcerated (in prison or jail) for a felony conviction under the laws of this state, another state or the United States;
5. You have not been declared incompetent for voting purposes by a probate court; and
6. You have not been permanently disenfranchised for violations of the election laws.
You are eligible to vote in elections held in your voting precinct more than 30 consecutive days after you are duly registered to vote in this state.
I see nothing about paying taxes. Nothing about owning land. Nothing about having families. Basically, you're talking out your ass with no factual basis for doing so. Because your points are all 100% wrong and 100% foul of Ohio election laws.
Why isn't owning land allowed to let a vote count more? Because it violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Section 1. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection. As in all citizens count the same for voting.
Furthermore, any use of taxes to determine voting rights or status falls foul of the 24th amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
If a homeless person can prove citizenship, there is no legal basis to deny or devalue their vote.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
You missed the part where giving people multiple votes based on owning land violates the equal protection clause. Don't worry, I'll keep repeating it for you.
As far as me creating my own context...you said that since "they don't pay taxes" means their vote should not count the same as yours. What you may have meant was that they paid less in taxes than you, but unless they never buy anything at all they do pay taxes. That is an elitist caste system mentality. And it is the reason the equal protection clause was added to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Not to mention the 24th, which does not allow taxes to be used in any voting determination.
As I pointed out. Three times now.
Your next point was that since "they don't own land" their vote shouldn't count as much as yours. I don't own land either. Should my vote count less?
You then said "they don't have families." Did you mean your narrow view in that they most likely aren't married with children? I'm not married and don't have children. Should my vote count less than yours? Or did you mean they don't have any family? No brothers, no sisters, no parents living? That being an only child with no parents living should make a vote count less frequently?
By your rationale, elections should be decided by the number of multiple-voters who decide to turn out. That we should put it all in the hands of the married homeowners with children and minimize the significance of the single, the renters, the childless.
Hence the 14th amendment.
"almost no questions asked" (Score:5, Informative)
... except for:
1) citizenship
2) name
3) birthdate
4) state driver's license or SSN (required)
But hey, they're poor, so obviously they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Especially since they so often vote the wrong way, and thus prove how unAmerican they are.
the real question to ask (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"almost no questions asked" (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait, what?
Lets test each of these:
1) Citizenship - No poverty limitation there. You're basically born into it, are lucky enough to get amnesty, or wait through the bureaucracy. This isn't New Zealand...
On the other hand, if you can't prove you're a citizen WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING TRYING TO VOTE?
2) Name - When I was born, those were being handed out free to everyone. Maybe something has changed?
3) Birthdate - Since when is a date something you have? Its a fact. Can't be owned. Poverty has no bearing.
4) Driver's License or SSN - The former requires having a car, while the latter, again is given without any cost whatsoever. Just walk into the office and ask for one.
If this is 'Informative', I have completely missed the sarcasm tags...
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have said, underhanded, yes, but not fraud. Kindof like the primarily Democrat regions in Ohio and Florida had a shortage of voting machines, while the Republican areas had more than enough to keep the wait short. Or how the polls allowed late comers in Rep. but not Dem areas. Well the latter might be borderline.
Gerrymandering anyone?
Fraud is when the Deceased in Chicago all seem to vote on the same party line.
Fraud is when "you"'ve and "everyone else" voted twice or more for West Virginia, again, all on the same party line, before you've (or anyone else) even entered the polling station.
Fraud is voting machines that change votes.
There's plenty of examples of all these happening, and it doesn't follow party lines. And it's not limited to the locations mentioned either. Each party has their areas that they keep by their underhanded tricks, or their frauds.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have said, underhanded
Sorry, but what?!?!?!?!
How on earth is it "underhanded" to help underprivileged people exercise their right to vote?
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent my Saturday doing it, and felt pretty damn good afterwards for someone who, by right-wing ideology, is doing something morally wrong. I helped a lady born in 1925 who can't talk or get around much anymore (but who had political news on the TV) fill out an absentee ballot application. If it weren't for me, she would not be voting this year. I helped another lady born in 1923 fill out her first ever voter registraition! I had a guy invite me into his (incredibly modest rent-controlled) home, sit down next to his open bible while we filled out his form, and tell me dead serious that he felt God sent me there that day to get him registered. I wouldn't nessecarily agree, but who knows? Perhaps.
As the saying goes, if this is what being wrong feels like, I don't want to be Right.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that one of the Republican party's strategy for the last hundred years or so was to claim voter fraud wherever imaginable and then claim to be victimized by fictitious fraud, right? It's something that they started doing because they didn't want to count black votes.
In fact it was on a down swing during much of the 90s because they lost a few key legal decisions and were barred from doing so.
To suggest that there's anything improper or illegal going on there is suggesting far more than the facts dictate. What was going on is that the Republican party doesn't want the poor and homeless to be able to vote and so they throw up these spurious fraud complaints hoping to keep some legitimate votes from being counted.
Try reading the article (Score:3, Funny)
You might learn something
Re:Important to note... (Score:4, Informative)
Your post sounds like you're trying to advocate the "reasonable middle ground" or something, but since it contains at least one explicit lie, I suspect you may have a particular agenda. Though you may have just been misled by others with the same agenda.
First, for the true but misleading part of your post: it's true that both parties do this. All political parties always have and always will play dirty tricks to some degree. But that's hardly the "bigger point" if it's always true of everyone, because it ignores the matter of degree: not all political parties have always pulled the same amount of dirty tricks at all times in all locations. For the last few US elections, either the Republicans have pulled dirty tricks on a much larger and more systematic scale than the Democrats, or the Democrats are much better at hiding it. But the typical republican "voice of reason" response is to find some minor incidences of Democratic corruption and treat those as if they're equivalent -- or to give up on specific data and just repeat "Chicago!" over and over.
Now, for the explicit lie, which is actually an instance of Republican intimidation and corruption: Obama supporters did not go to the police to have dissenting voices intimidated in Missouri. Some state employees volunteered to work for the Obama campaign in their private capacity, that is, as citizens. They did not use their state powers to help Obama. State employees have been doing identical volunteer work for the McCain campaign. This is as it should be. No police or prosecutorial powers were abused, or even used, in this process. These were just citizens participating in the political campaign. That the governor could make this into an issue of Democrats hiring police squads to track down and suppress their opponents, and not be torn to shreds by his constituients for the obvious falsehood, is a travesty. Nonetheless, it's become a Republican talking point even though it has no basis in reality.
So, no, the bigger point is not that both parties do this. I wish the Democrats did it even less than they do, but that doesn't mean that both parties are somehow on the same ethical level right now.
Re:Don't worry, Fox is on it (Score:4, Informative)
They may even report on Republican dirty tricks, but you'd never hear the word "Republican" uttered during the story, or they could even "goof" and attribute them to Democrats.
That's what they did last year when that Republican congressweasel from Florida got in trouble for sexually harassing his male aides. First they reported him as being a Florida Democrat, then they just omitted his party affiliation when they were called on it.