Comments on: The wrong man

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:25:47 +0000

q-- In 1998, Human Rights Watch's Sentencing Project wrote, "Using national conviction and corrections on data, we estimate that 3.9 million Americans, including 1.4 million black men, cannot vote because of felony convictions." From the same source "One-third of all disenfranchised ex-felons (436,900) are in Florida," which perhaps answers Giles' question about why we complain about it in Florida. By the way the governor of Rhode Island is a Republican. (And I just found out that the Democratic House Majority leader has come out of the closet--cool!)

By: andy

andy — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:12:38 +0000

Felons in Florida who have had their rights restored have to reregister to legally be able to vote—-maybe these people have not done that yet?

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 19:04:04 +0000

We definitely need you to keep the trolls in line, Zizka. You have the knack for it. Conservatives are genuinely superior debaters. I think they hone their skill in college, where they are a minority. (I’m pretty sure Giles is in college right now, for example.) What’s impressive is their laser-like focus. They themselves never get distracted; instead they focus on whatever will distract their opponents.

By: Phill

Phill — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 14:56:27 +0000

All the evidence points to Katherine Harris appointing Choicepoint to scrub the voter rolls to rig the vote. Remember that here the standard is that officials have to prove that they are honest. It has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Choicepoint bid was not just slightly higher, it was many times the cost of all the other bids. It has also been proven beyond all doubt that Katherine Harris had ties to the Choicepoint management. Choicepoint has also admitted that they made no attempt to verify the accuracy of the data they provided.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:05:38 +0000

Hi, McManus. Hi Walt. This place goes to hell when I’m not around. This story is, pretty much, 3+ years old. Palast covered it that long ago, and it’s developing (since obvious corrections were not made). There are really several issues: disenfranching felons by law in the first place; restoring rights of felons from states which restore felon rights who then move to Florida; the fact that the original list was innacurate so that many non-felons were denied the vote; and the question of whether this was deliberate or just one of those things. Given the probably-deliberate ignorance most of the commentators here, there’s not too much to say. For whatever reason, the nice folk at CT really seem to attract the riffraff. Palast’s “Best Democracy Money Can But” is a good place to start, even though it’s out of date now. The new news is that there apparently hasn’t been any effective determination to improve the situation. Give Giles the Green Herring award for trying to derail the discussion. Some of what he said would be interesting in a different context, but there are axes to be ground.

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 11:28:01 +0000

Yes, why worry about disenfranchising those who have the right to vote? I mean they are black and all so they are probably felons anyway, right giles? So sure most of the people who should be allowed to vote and are being blocked are overwhelmingly Democrats, but hey its just random right?

By: Giles

Giles — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 11:11:51 +0000

Ted – the reason I’m tarring the democrats on this one is twofold; firstly, I think Clintons prison policy was a scandal and this is one of the consequences. But secondly, if they were serious about ending this disenfranchiement, why not start in say Rhode Island where they have the power to change the policy at state level? Instead they complain in Florida – a split state that is likely to remain under republican control. Maybe they sincerely want to change the policy but are just a bit dim. Or maybe they are happy to leave the policy in place so they can carp about it for political gain whenever convinient.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 09:58:36 +0000

IIRC (no link, sorry, I’m lazy, STFW) Florida by default disenfranchises felons, who have to petition the state in order to be able to vote again. This isn’t generally the case in the U.S. They purged the rolls in 2000 using a privately generated list which was notoriously inaccurate, and this is generally considered to have been a significant part of that year’s election fiasco. Given our laws and our society, the purging disproportionately disenfranchised blacks and thus Democrats. Salon covered this in depth. Seek thither, or where you will, for further detail.

By: Loco

Loco — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 04:17:08 +0000

Giles is a bit right. Clinton continued with a policy of changing the US from the land of the Free to the land of the Imprisoned. Current statistics (midyear 2003): – 12 perc. of “black” males in their twenties in prison or jail. – 1.3 perc. of all males in prison or jail. – .715 perc of US citizens in prison or jail. – .48 perc. of US citizens serving a sentence of more than 1 year. Incredible. Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

By: John Doe

John Doe — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 02:13:43 +0000

I agree that far to many non-violent crimes are classified as felonies. However the number of legitimate voters denied voting rights is far less than the number of felons and foreigners illegally voting. Last time around Gore stole the election if four states and almost stole it with 6000 illegal votes in Florida. The Democrat party needs electoral fraud to be competitive, and will until the huge influx of Latinos makes them the permanent majority party.

By: mad bobman

mad bobman — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 00:24:34 +0000

bob mcm – you need to lay off the weed. It’s making you paranoid. Same goes for you doctorq.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 23:20:54 +0000

Oh, imagine some really weird, unpredictable event, like a bunch of Diebold machines or tabulators crashing and records of millions of votes disappearing forever(since there is no hardcopy). Since the Constitution really precludes revotes, we are stuck with a state picking electors, or maybe going so far into chaos that the election is thrown into Congress, where, son-of-a-gun, the Republicans have tight control of both chambers. Bush says he “knows” he is going to to be re-elected. Not thinks, hopes, plans, or believes in the American people. He has a certainty. So do I. So do Sebastian, Brett, gc, and giles. And we all understand quite well why we are certain, pre-emptive defensive moves aside. We should be planning for the next, incredibly worse, four years of Bush.

By: Doctorg

Doctorg — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:37:39 +0000

Hell yeah, I’ll say it: In both 2000 and now, these lists of “ineligible” voters are a planned, orchestrated attempt to kick as many potential Democratic voters off the rolls as possible. The tool employed by Katherine Harris last time around was a company called Choicepoint. Other contracting companies might have done it cheaper or more efficiently, but only Choicepoint had the correct political leanings to ensure the desired outcome. Reporter Greg Palast has already covered this extensively. Here’s a link: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2

By: cs

cs — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:09:10 +0000

I’m not exactly sure what giles is trying to say, but I think there is a point there to be made. Democrats in general have been very pro severe criminal penalties. And now that policy is somewhat coming back to bite the Democrats in the ass, since their electoral prospects might be better if it wasn’t for all those people in jail, or ineligible to vote. Granted, this doesn’t have anything directly to do with the issue of not allowing people to vote who legally should have that right, and it overgeneralizes about Democrats, some of whom are not so eager to support jail terms. And on the other hand, many Democrats probably think their electoral prospects would be even worse if they could be more easily portrayed as soft of crime. But still I think there is a point there.

By: q

Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:06:45 +0000

But anyone convicted of a felony in the US - or some states? – is ineligible to vote? Ever? (unless they get ‘clemency’ – and I’m not entirely sure what that means either?) Have I got that right? If so, I’m flabbergasted. How many people in the USA are denied the right to vote due to criminality? Anyone…?