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.

RE: Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen?