[GeneV]

Another sign of the times--long lines for voting in Fla and OH, due to the cutback in early voting hours and days.

[gokenin]

Another sign of the times--long lines for voting in Fla and OH, due to the cutback in early voting hours and days.

Oh no that means there must be massive voter suppression here in Massachusetts we are only allowed to vote on one day unless we get an absentee ballot. What will we do ? Quick lets get the UN observers in here oh wait this is a blue state so everything must be alright never mind move along nothing to see here.

[les3547]

Oh no that means there must be massive voter suppression here in Massachusetts we are only allowed to vote on one day unless we get an absentee ballot. What will we do ? Quick lets get the UN observers in here oh wait this is a blue state so everything must be alright never mind move along nothing to see here.

To help us understand your sarcasm, possibly you could explain how measures that make it harder for Americans to exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot – particularly African-Americans, the elderly, students and people with disabilities – benefit the election process. Explain why it's good for voting that:

- Over thirty states considered laws that would require voters to present government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Studies suggest that up to 11 percent of American citizens lack such ID, and would be required to navigate the administrative burdens to obtain it or forego the right to vote entirely.

- Three additional states passed laws to require documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, though as many as 7 percent of American citizens do not have such proof.

- Seven states shortened early voting time frames, even though over 30 percent of all votes cast in the 2008 general election were cast before Election Day.

- Two state legislatures voted to repeal Election Day registration laws, though Election Day registration increases voter turnout by 10-12 percent.

- Two states passed legislation making it much more difficult for third-party organizations to register voters – so difficult that some voter registration organizations are leaving the states altogether.

Voter Suppression in America

Despite the frenzy of state legislation to counteract so-called voter fraud and to protect the integrity of our elections, proponents of such voter suppression legislation have failed to show that voter fraud is a problem anywhere in the country. Aside from the occasional unproven anecdote or baseless allegation, supporters of these laws simply cannot show that there is any need for them. Indeed, despite the Department of Justice’s 2002 “Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative” promising to vigorously prosecute allegations of voter fraud, the federal government obtained only 26 convictions or guilty pleas for fraud between 2002 and 2005. And other studies of voter fraud consistently find that it is exceedingly rare – a 2007 Demos study concluded that “voter fraud appears to be very rare” and a 2007 study by the Brennan Center found that “by any measure, voter fraud is extraordinarily rare.” The Voting Rights Project will continue to fight these laws that disenfranchise millions of eligible voters without any legitimate justification.

[seacapt]

You want to talk about real US voter suppression read this-
Obama Administration Has Failed To Enforce The Law Promoting Military Voting - Investors.com

---

Last edited by seacapt; 11-05-2012 at 11:12 AM.

[GeneV]

Oh no that means there must be massive voter suppression here in Massachusetts we are only allowed to vote on one day unless we get an absentee ballot. What will we do ? Quick lets get the UN observers in here oh wait this is a blue state so everything must be alright never mind move along nothing to see here.

Has your state cut back its hours for voting for this election? Has your state done anything to make voting more difficult than it was in the last election?

[les3547]

You want to talk about real US voter suppression read this-
Obama Administration Has Failed To Enforce The Law Promoting Military Voting - Investors.com

Another baseless charge. From Forbes magazine:

. . . As MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, a participant on Maher’s Friday night panel, was making an impassioned point about GOP efforts to suppress the vote in various states throughout the nation, his co-panelist—conservative talk radio host and one-time Mayor of San Diego, Roger Hedgecock—responded to the Matthews narrative by leveling a voter suppression charge of his own.

According to Hedgecock, it is not the GOP working hard to suppress the votes of key elements of the Democratic base, but rather it is President Obama who is guilty of disenfranchisement due to his efforts to deny the vote to our soldiers serving far from home—a voting block that Hedgecock would have us believe is decidedly unfriendly to the President.

. . . The talk show host declared for all to hear that President Obama was purposely subverting the voting process by seeing to it that military absentee ballots not be sent out in enough time to allow our soldiers to complete their votes and get them back to be counted by established deadlines.

The charge immediately struck me as odd. So far as I knew, neither the President nor anyone else in the federal government has much of anything to say about the process of delivering absentee ballots beyond a few statutes that Congress has passed instructing the states on the timing of delivery for military absentee ballots.

Indeed, the process of absentee voting, for both civilians and military, is strictly the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of State serving in each of our 50 state governments.

. . . There would appear to be but two ways Obama could exercise his authority to interfere with military absentee voting. The first would involve muscling ‘friendlies” occupying the office of the Secretary of State in key swing states where denying the vote to those who might go against the President could produce meaningful results. The second would come via instructing the Department of Justice to hold back on enforcing the laws designed to protect and encourage voting by soldiers serving overseas.

The first option turns out to be a complete non-starter. In the most critical of swing states—Ohio, Florida and Virginia—the Secretary of State operations are, in each instance, firmly in the control of Republicans. And if we move on to the next level of key decider states—Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, and North Carolina—we find two Republicans and two Democrats holding down the job.

Therefore, it appears exceedingly difficult to support an argument that the President’s henchmen have been busy pushing around these state officials in the effort to convince them to violate election laws for the benefit of the Obama campaign.

However, playing games with state officials does not appear to be what Mr. Hedgecock had in mind. Rather, in making his accusations, Hedgecock appears to be skewing more towards the second option involving manipulation of the Justice Department, as touched upon in an article he wrote for the conservative magazine, “Human Events”, published in July under the title “Suppressing The Military Vote.”

In that piece, Hedgecock discusses the “Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act” (MOVE), passed in 2009 and signed into law by President Obama, which “requires states to mail absentee ballots at least 45 days before an election; use electronic delivery systems where possible; and require express mail delivery for returning absentee ballots.” This is a law that was created by Congress in response to concerns that the small number of absentee ballots cast by our soldiers engaged in foreign wars in 2008 was the result of the states failing to make ballots available to military voters in time to get their choices sent home to be counted.

So this must be it. Hedgecock must be making the point that the Justice Department has failed to push the states to follow through on this law in the effort to lessen the impact of military votes that would tally up against the President’s re-election. Worse still, Hedgecock must have evidence that the DOJ is dragging its feet at the express instructions of the President. Clearly, this must be the basis for Mr. Hedgecock’s very serious charge that the President of the United States is involved and directing voter suppression, yes?

Well…as it turns out, no.

Amazingly, while Hedgecock provides a very provocative title to his piece in “Human Events” —and later appears to use the article as a basis to charge the President with engaging in voter suppression during his appearance on national television—the very same article actually credits the Justice Department with becoming involved with the effort to enforce this law, if only because President Obama now believes that military voting habits are moving in his direction.

He writes, “Obama’s DOJ has become involved since surveys showed that the traditional Republican advantage with military voters could be changing. The New York Times reports that while military voters gave George Bush a 16 point advantage over John Kerry in 2004, and gave John McCain a ten point lead over Barack Obama in 2008, Obama has targeted military voters in 2012.”

So, did Roger Hedgecock simply get confused by Chris Matthews and, in the struggle to come up with some sort of defense, say the first thing that came to into his mind? Or did Mr. Hedgecock decide he could make a little noise for himself by accusing the President of the United States of voter suppression, completely forgetting that his own words argue against the very premise?

Either way, unless Mr. Hedgecock can present some sort of rational basis for his claim, it should not go unnoticed that the man has accused the President of either breaking the law or conspiring to break the law—a charge that is complete nonsense and well beyond the pale.

[jeffkrol]

Another baseless charge. From Forbes magazine:

OH NO not that liberal rag Forbes????

[seacapt]

OH NO not that liberal rag Forbes????

Remember the last time I posted from Forbes ?
Benghazi: Obama's Actions Amount To A Shameful Dereliction Of Duty - Forbes

[gokenin]

Has your state cut back its hours for voting for this election? Has your state done anything to make voting more difficult than it was in the last election?

Nope same regulation you can vote between 7 am until 8 pm and you could have requested an absentee ballot if you wanted to vote early or not going to be here. Still don't have to show any I.D. Can get the ballots in multiple languages as well.

[GeneV]

So, let me understand how this voter suppression by Democrats works. First, they use one of their precious opportunities to pass bills in the few months where they have a super majority (when some say the President should have been focused solely on the economy) to pass a bill making it easier for military personnel to vote. And then somehow, when the military does not get its act together to have this completely implemented, it is because the President is suppressing votes? This program did not exist at all before President Obama and the Pelosi/Reid congress, so how have they "suppressed" votes?

[GeneV]

Nope same regulation you can vote between 7 am until 8 pm and you could have requested an absentee ballot if you wanted to vote early or not going to be here. Still don't have to show any I.D. Can get the ballots in multiple languages as well.

Thne I don't seen the parallel or the reason for the sarcasm. If, say, after the 2010 election colored the Mass. Senate delegation purple, the governor had started monkeying with voting rules, I'd be right there wondering about this one, too.

[gokenin]

Thne I don't seen the parallel or the reason for the sarcasm. If, say, after the 2010 election colored the Mass. Senate delegation purple, the governor had started monkeying with voting rules, I'd be right there wondering about this one, too.

My original comment was aimed at your comment about states reducing the time that someone can vote early I simply stated that here we have to vote on one day and one day only unless you go and get an absentee ballot. So since I can't vote weeks or even a month in advance I must be suppressed but as usual you don't seem to catch the sarcasm. (SARCASTIC COMMENT COMING )It doesn't matter any way no matter what the voters say about the election it's going to decided by courts anyway so the average citizens votes don't really matter at all. (SARCASTIC COMMENT THERE) in case you couldn't figure that one out

[seacapt]

Another baseless charge. From Forbes magazine:

Regardless of your assertation , the fact is that only a few more than half of the Installation Voter Assistance Offices mandated were actually installed.
States which did not comply with Millitary Absentee Ballot regs were not fined.

I'll also offer a bit of "you won't hear this stuff in the news"
I recently got an email from a career member of the US Air Force and good friend of the family. He is currently stuck at an Army FOB in northern Afghanistan.There are also NATO troops and Afghanis there. Normal millitary proceedure would dictate an outer perimeter , kill zone and inner perimeter. This base (for political reasons) only has a single fence which locals sell hash through. It is not patrolled and only monittored by electronics and a single tower which is manned by Afghanis. A couple weeks back terrorists in police uniforms strolled right in and killed 2 of the Brits there. Our troops there are frequently without toilet paper , razor blades , soap, shampoo and over the counter medicines.
AND NO HE DIDN'T GET TO VOTE THIS YEAR!

[GeneV]

My original comment was aimed at your comment about states reducing the time that someone can vote early I simply stated that here we have to vote on one day and one day only unless you go and get an absentee ballot.....

For sarcasm to be funny or to work, the parallel has to be there. Taking away rights from voters really does send a different message from their never having had them. However, your state does need to get with the program with early voting. It is hard to remember the last time we had to stand in a line here.

[ivanvernon]

Well, I watch FOX news and read the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. I do not find any of these news sources to purvey obviously incorrect news stories, although their pieces identified as opinion clearly are biased toward one side or the other. However, the NYT has a very clear and definite liberal leaning in terms of what stories they report, and which ones they neglect to report, and they maintain a polite and professional demeanor in their reporting. I also make a point of reading conservative as well as liberal columnists on line. My overall attempt is to understand issues from both liberal and conservative standpoints. Sometimes I consciously seek out additional facts beyond those reported by one or more of the media to help me decide whether a particular story is misleading or pretty much accurate. Some of those who speak out against one medum or the other seem to be reacting more to the opinion pieces than to the actual news reporting. The main bias in the news departments appears to be in which stories they report and which ones they omit to report.