Decius wrote:

After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004.

Memeing this because it demands commentary. Rolling Stone often has good political articles, but for something this serious I dare say its the wrong forum. Partisan conservatives, most of whom have certainly never read Rolling Stone, are likely to laugh out loud at the idea that a Kennedy accused them of fraud in a rock and roll magazine. If, say, a law professor accused them of fraud in a dry academic journal, and the results were publicised elsewhere, that would be a very different thing.

In any event, a little bit of fraud might get you 1,000 votes here or 1,000 votes there. If you have enough local political power to pull it off, you can sustain a small margin this way. You can't convert a large margin. Can you produce 2 million votes?

In any event, I think the greatest injustice of our system is that a 2 million vote difference grants broad power to the nutjobs who make up each party's respective "base." America is moderate.

Yes, you can produce 2 million votes. RFK Jr is showing you where they found a couple hundred thousand in Ohio alone.

Just as important, saying this (Rolling Stone) is the wrong forum is probably the worst thought I've seen you make here. As Kennedy points out in this extensively footnoted piece, reports of this have been showing up everywhere, yet how much attention has anyone paid it? None. The law professors in their dry journals have been ignored. Maybe this will start the ball rolling.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Decius wrote:

After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004.

Memeing this because it demands commentary. Rolling Stone often has good political articles, but for something this serious I dare say its the wrong forum. Partisan conservatives, most of whom have certainly never read Rolling Stone, are likely to laugh out loud at the idea that a Kennedy accused them of fraud in a rock and roll magazine. If, say, a law professor accused them of fraud in a dry academic journal, and the results were publicised elsewhere, that would be a very different thing.

In any event, a little bit of fraud might get you 1,000 votes here or 1,000 votes there. If you have enough local political power to pull it off, you can sustain a small margin this way. You can't convert a large margin. Can you produce 2 million votes?

In any event, I think the greatest injustice of our system is that a 2 million vote difference grants broad power to the nutjobs who make up each party's respective "base." America is moderate.

Yes, you can produce 2 million votes. RFK Jr is showing you where they found a couple hundred thousand in Ohio alone.

Just as important, saying this (Rolling Stone) is the wrong forum is probably the worst thought I've seen you make here. As Kennedy points out in this extensively footnoted piece, reports of this have been showing up everywhere, yet how much attention has anyone paid it? None. The law professors in their dry journals have been ignored. Maybe this will start the ball rolling.

It probably won't, but I agree with your assertion that Rolling Stone is as valid a forum as any.

For one thing, it's not the partisan conservatives we need to convert, because they probably won't be. It's the middle of the road folks who don't follow closely and think that accusations of massive voter fraud are about as believable as alien abductions. To convince them, you need penetration, and you don't get that from scholarly journals.

k wrote:
For one thing, it's not the partisan conservatives we need to convert, because they probably won't be. It's the middle of the road folks who don't follow closely and think that accusations of massive voter fraud are about as believable as alien abductions. To convince them, you need penetration, and you don't get that from scholarly journals.

You don't understand my point. I'm not arguing that penetration comes from scholarly journals. I'm arguing that credibility comes from scholarly journals. Credibility does not come from analysis from partisan groups with an axe to grind, either. If there is a conclusion to be made here it ought to be made through formal analysis in a serious, peer reviewed context and those conclusions ought to be reported on, not expounded upon, in other places that have more reach. Furthermore, the middle of the road folks aren't reading Rolling Stone. The young are reading Rolling Stone. Their demographic is politically liberal and largely college aged. The purpose of this article is to preach to the choir. It will not reach nor be taken seriously by anyone who isn't already a died in a wool liberal.

Decius wrote:

You don't understand my point. I'm not arguing that penetration comes from scholarly journals. I'm arguing that credibility comes from scholarly journals. Credibility does not come from analysis from partisan groups with an axe to grind, either. If there is a conclusion to be made here it ought to be made through formal analysis in a serious, peer reviewed context and those conclusions ought to be reported on, not expounded upon, in other places that have more reach.

That's unfair. I both understand and disagree with your point. If the majority of people still believed in the credibility of authentic scholarly works, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. They don't. The only measures of credibility I see from the masses are (1) how prevalent a viewpoint or position is and (2) how well it fits in with the beliefs they already have. Respect for scholars is low these days. I don't argue that this fact should lead to us ignoring them. Scholars should continue to do what they must because someday people might start respecting them again, but in the meantime, they're not going to be the catalyst for change, unless in the foundational sense. Change is going to happen when people see a point being made in every publication they see, when the idea becomes so prevalent that it's credibility is assured because no idea could come to such prominence if it were without merit. I'm not talking only about Rolling Stone, because your arguments are probably mostly right in that specific case. I'm talking about all media, not single things in isolation. I'm saying that in the current climate penetration *IS* credibility. I find it sad and unfortunate, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's not the case.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Just as important, saying this (Rolling Stone) is the wrong forum is probably the worst thought I've seen you make here.

So, you're saying that a Rock and Roll magazine is the best forum for this discussion? Mike, have you ever voted for a Republican?

You're not going to get a Republican controlled federal government and Republican controlled state election officials to reform their election system by calling them crooks in a Rock and Roll Magazine.

The law professors in their dry journals have been ignored.

There are serious questions raised in all of these references about the reliability of our voting system. There is certainly a lot of fraud going on, and where its actually located it needs to be prosecuted. Its also a reality that poor people are going to have more trouble with voting, because they're poor, and they move more frequently, and their local governments suck and lack resources, and they are more likely to get confused about ballots or the registration process. While this is a problem and it ought to be identified and addressed, calling it in all cases a grand conspiracy of the GOP is not reasonable.

The Overseas Voter Registration problems are also significant. However, the majority of those who failed to vote, per this study, failed because they didn't get their registrations in on time. Are Democrats more likely to procrastinate? Many others couldn't vote because they received their ballots late. This is under the control of various local agencies. The worst offenders appear to be Colorado, Georgia, Mass, and Michigan. These aren't exactly battleground states.

The New Mexico data is also troubling. However, the report referenced here comes from a partisan progressive group with an overt political agenda.

And then there is Ohio. I have to say that the House report referenced here paints a pretty damning picture of Kenneth Blackwell. Perhaps there is some political value in encouraging people to oppose his bid for the Governor's office.

Decius wrote:
There are serious questions raised in all of these references about the reliability of our voting system. There is certainly a lot of fraud going on, and where its actually located it needs to be prosecuted.

Interestingly, repubs always bring up voter fraud like it is on the side of the voters. The GA house passed an awful bill earlier this year based on "voter fraud" when it later turned out that there had not been one instance of voter fraud in the past 20 years. The threats that politicians bring up about too MANY people voting seems to me both suspect in intent and also based on absolutely ZERO facts.
I don't think thats what you are referring to here, however. (Right?)

Its also a reality that poor people are going to have more trouble with voting, because they're poor, and they move more frequently..

Wait, poor people move more frequently? I'd say young people move more frequently. But either way, is there anything to back up this statement?

and their local governments suck and lack resources

Um, all local governments suck and lack resources. And all local governments govern over a certain amount of poor people. (Even like, the O.C.). Is there any evidence to suggest that this problem occurred all over the U.S. in poor areas? Or was it just in Ohio? Did poor repub counties (like we have so many of here in GA) experience massive voting problems? How many resources does it require to pull off an election, one of the primary functions of any local government?

and they are more likely to get confused about ballots or the registration process

I assume this is a reference to lack of decent education in poor areas, but again, do you have anything to back this up? Is there a link between education and voter turn-out?[insert bitchy remark about republicans] Are poor people really less likely to register to vote than other groups? I mean, taking out the people that are disenfranchised through criminal activity? B/c it seems to me that Kennedy is suggesting that they registered and came out in large numbers, understood the process, but were turned away because of arcane and ambigous policies that were designed to make it especially cumbersome to vote.

I'm just not sure that blaming the poors is a valid position in this case.

Rorschach wrote:
The threats that politicians bring up about too MANY people voting seems to me both suspect in intent and also based on absolutely ZERO facts.

I don't think thats what you are referring to here, however. (Right?)

No, I'm referring to things like this, and this. (Yes, the first link is Red and the second one is Blue.)

Wait, poor people move more frequently? I'd say young people move more frequently. But either way, is there anything to back up this statement?

Its the specific conclusion made in one of the references used in this Rolling Stone piece:

We estimate that simply changing residence exposes voters to a 6% chance of being disenfranchised. Youth, the poor, and minorities are disproportionately affected... As noted in national studies, those Americans who move more frequently are more likely to be subject to registration errors (and also provisional ballot rejection). These include youth, those who rent rather than own homes, African Americans and Hispanics, and the poor. In Cuyahoga County, we estimate that each move brings about a 6% chance of disenfranchisement through registration error. The national data on groups that move more frequently is consistent with our findings of a nearly twofold rate of provisional ballot rejection in precincts with over 90% black populations compared to those that are 10% black
or less.

Um, all local governments suck and lack resources. And all local governments govern over a certain amount of poor people. (Even like, the O.C.)

Have you ever been to the O.C.? I know you haven't been to Marsha Blackburn's district. These governments actually do have more money then relatively poorer communities in the same region. Money is not evenly distributed across municipalities in the United States. Municipalities raise money through property taxes. Wealthy ones usually have better schools and better infrastructure, which, in turn, makes them more attractive, which raises the property costs, which results in greater revenue.

The example poorer community I link above isn't organized as it's own municipality because it can't exist on its own on the basis of it's own property taxes and needs subsidy from the rest of the city. The results are abundantly clear in terms of the infrastructure in the city, and any resident of Nashville will tell you that. No, the people who work in the government there don't have the same budgets for operating things like elections, as well as schools, ... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]