So, in order to limit huge spammy threads, I propose we put all the "election shenanigans" stories that pop up here and discuss them as a whole, rather than individually.
All in all nothing surprising in these posts other than the giant Obama mural behind the polls. T-shirt with your favorite candidate on it? Nope, can't vote. nevermind the giant picture on the wall.
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Apparently a local polling assistant was telling people they could only vote for people in the party the are registered with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
YouTube video of malfunctioning voting machine. Most likely a software issue that can be remedied by restarting the machine; that, however, can't be done on election day. The machine should be taken out of service.
YouTube video of malfunctioning voting machine. Most likely a software issue that can be remedied by restarting the machine; that, however, can't be done on election day. The machine should be taken out of service.
Agreed, it may slow down the poll but I'm fairly certain everyone in line would rather their vote be recorded accurately and have to wait a bit longer.
Seems reasonable. Pretty much the only possible solution at this point. I'm a bit surprised (although not a ton, given its Philly) that it even made it this far.
They'd be armed. You just said that they would be armed. Which this sole man is not. You are escalating the scenario. Why are you doing that?
I don't know that they're not armed somewhere. In 2008, they werearmed with a baton. That's the same thing cops use - nothing to sneeze at.
In any event, armed or unarmed - I don't think ideological groups (be it the NBPP or the Michigan Militia or the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street or whoever) should be "standing guard" at polling places. It's an absolute affront to the democratic notions you claim to uphold.
You're putting words into people's mouths. Why are you doing that?
The argument has been presented numerous times: voter fraud is not an issue, it just doesn't happen. Well, it does.
I honestly don't care if there's voter ID. I guess I'd rather not have it. But if you guys are going to insinuate that Republicans have racist motivations in proposing it without evidence, then I'm going to doubt your motivations, too.
Quote from Tuss »
I suggest that you next time ask for excuses or justifications instead of differences. A couple of decades of at most minor impact on white American's voting decisions is not nearly as bad as a century and a half of outright murdering black Americans. That is the difference.
We're getting off topic here, so let's get back to it: why should a militant political group be allowed to "guard" a polling place?
They'd be armed. You just said that they would be armed. Which this sole man is not. You are escalating the scenario. Why are you doing that?
I don't know that they're not armed somewhere. In 2008, they werearmed with a baton. That's the same thing cops use - nothing to sneeze at.
In any event, armed or unarmed - I don't think ideological groups (be it the NBPP or the Michigan Militia or the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street or whoever) should be "standing guard" at polling places. It's an absolute affront to the democratic notions you claim to uphold.
Poll watchers have no legal distinction for weapon carry - there's no distinction between a polling place or any other for a normal legal carry weapon for a jurisdiction. Period.
And while that's all well and good ljoss - it's a platitude that could never really be attained - same guys dressed normally could be in khakis and button down white shirts and state "The Black Panther Party is glad to see you vote today" to each person walk through the door and there's nothing that could be done about it even if you banned the attire or whatever else. And the intimidation effect would be basically identical.
In fact, at my polling place here there's people campaigning for the Jacobs that are doing similarly - one with a goddam rifle strapped to his back.
No. I object to militant political groups being poll watchers. For thoroughly obvious reasons.
Perhaps I misunderstood. You said in the above post that you objected to "ideological groups" as poll watchers. But it's only "militant political" groups you have a problem with?
We're getting off topic here, so let's get back to it: why should a militant political group be allowed to "guard" a polling place?
How about a better question? What law is he breaking by doing so? Assuming he is being passive (the article would likely mention if he was actively harassing people), the absolute worst you could hit him with is what, loitering?
Or shall we pass a law that says no one can stand outside polling places for longer than X minutes? Should we limit it to just those who associate with people we don't like (NBPP?)?
No. I object to militant political groups being poll watchers. For thoroughly obvious reasons.
Perhaps I misunderstood. You said in the above post that you objected to "ideological groups" as poll watchers. But it's only "militant political" groups you have a problem with?
Yes. Either militant literally (as in NBPP or the Minutemen) or militant figuratively - loose cannons like mobs of OWS or Tea Party.
Quote from Illuvator Brightstar »
How about a better question? What law is he breaking by doing so? Assuming he is being passive (the article would likely mention if he was actively harassing people), the absolute worst you could hit him with is what, loitering?
Or shall we pass a law that says no one can stand outside polling places for longer than X minutes? Should we limit it to just those who associate with people we don't like (NBPP?)?
To use a previous example someone else mentioned - should we allow the KKK to stand watch? Law or no law, the answer is clear: of course not. The law may have a ton of gray areas, but I'm pretty sure that we all oppose voter intimidation. Right?
Yes. Either militant literally (as in NBPP or the Minutemen) or militant figuratively - loose cannons like mobs of OWS or Tea Party.
That seems like a poorly defined standard. Why shouldn't someone who counts themselves as a member of the Tea Party be allowed to observe voting?
It seems to me that a more sensible standard would be whether actual intimidation occurs. Having a visible weapon seems like actual intimidation. Mere presence with no implied threat does not.
ljossberir: A pipedream, it can never happen - until the if-when day of people voting from home via the internet that is provided to every household that exists in Star Trek and the like.
They should be carrying guns instead of batons, then instead of being told how intimidating they are being, they would be congratulated for exercising their rights.
Murals with pictures of politicians on them should be covered, but this is the sort of thing that there are problems with all the time. In a lot of towns, for instance, churches are the polling places, and they often times don't take down their religious posters or iconography.
We're getting off topic here, so let's get back to it: why should a militant political group be allowed to "guard" a polling place?
How about a better question? What law is he breaking by doing so? Assuming he is being passive (the article would likely mention if he was actively harassing people), the absolute worst you could hit him with is what, loitering?
Or shall we pass a law that says no one can stand outside polling places for longer than X minutes? Should we limit it to just those who associate with people we don't like (NBPP?)?
Umm, the law they would be violating (and the law they were charged with last time, and the law our hypothetical KKK member would certainly be charged under) would be voter intimidation. The argument, of course, being that it's not just his presence, but his presence in full uniform of the group he's representing, causes intimidation in voters.
We already have laws that prohibit intimidation of voters. the question becomes, is he intimidating voters? And thats what the court would need ot decide. But as for charging him, yes that can be done under current law.
Murals with pictures of politicians on them should be covered, but this is the sort of thing that there are problems with all the time. In a lot of towns, for instance, churches are the polling places, and they often times don't take down their religious posters or iconography.
Assuming the religious posters and iconography don't have a political message (in which case they would be required to be taken down) -- why would they be a problem?
The politician mural is exactly the same as the "political t-shirt" -- I think its silly that they are prohibited, but the line in the sand has been drawn and should be followed. The point with the murals is that there is no way the polling place officials didn't know that crossed the line.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here's the ones I'm aware of so far:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/6/black-panthers-again-patrolling-polls-philadelphia/
http://blogs.christianpost.com/alex-wire/photo-philadelphia-school-polling-site-adorned-with-obama-wall-mural-12943/
http://www.kpho.com/story/19990620/woman-arrested-for-attempting-to-vote-twice
All in all nothing surprising in these posts other than the giant Obama mural behind the polls. T-shirt with your favorite candidate on it? Nope, can't vote. nevermind the giant picture on the wall.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/06/oregon-election-worker-fired-for-altering-ballots-to-republican-straight-ticket/#.UJk5i1zAhxI.twitter
Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM&feature=youtu.be
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
I linked three things, one of them being a republican. What makes you think I was accusing the democrats of something?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/11/06/judge-orders-obama-mural-at-philly-polling-place-covered/
Agreed, it may slow down the poll but I'm fairly certain everyone in line would rather their vote be recorded accurately and have to wait a bit longer.
Seems reasonable. Pretty much the only possible solution at this point. I'm a bit surprised (although not a ton, given its Philly) that it even made it this far.
she early voted then tried to vote at a polling station. she was arrested.
another person was caught filling in missing votes on ballots.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Hey look, existing laws preventing voter fraud without requiring people to buy state issued ID's.
Cool, let's get the Michigan Militia out there with baseball bats. Turnabout is fair play, right?
"No one commits voter fraud! So why would we need laws to correct this problem if it doesn't exist?"
[Someone gets caught committing voter fraud]
"See, our existing laws are sufficient to catch anyone who commits voter fraud!"
[Scratches head]
ok, step back a second and imagine this: A person shows up wearing full KKK regalia. And does nothing other than open doors for people.
Is that voter intimidation?
How is this different?
No, instead they have a history of intimidating majorities. Which makes it A-OK
I don't know that they're not armed somewhere. In 2008, they were armed with a baton. That's the same thing cops use - nothing to sneeze at.
In any event, armed or unarmed - I don't think ideological groups (be it the NBPP or the Michigan Militia or the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street or whoever) should be "standing guard" at polling places. It's an absolute affront to the democratic notions you claim to uphold.
The argument has been presented numerous times: voter fraud is not an issue, it just doesn't happen. Well, it does.
I honestly don't care if there's voter ID. I guess I'd rather not have it. But if you guys are going to insinuate that Republicans have racist motivations in proposing it without evidence, then I'm going to doubt your motivations, too.
We're getting off topic here, so let's get back to it: why should a militant political group be allowed to "guard" a polling place?
So, do you object to all poll watchers?
No. I object to militant political groups being poll watchers. For thoroughly obvious reasons.
And while that's all well and good ljoss - it's a platitude that could never really be attained - same guys dressed normally could be in khakis and button down white shirts and state "The Black Panther Party is glad to see you vote today" to each person walk through the door and there's nothing that could be done about it even if you banned the attire or whatever else. And the intimidation effect would be basically identical.
In fact, at my polling place here there's people campaigning for the Jacobs that are doing similarly - one with a goddam rifle strapped to his back.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Perhaps I misunderstood. You said in the above post that you objected to "ideological groups" as poll watchers. But it's only "militant political" groups you have a problem with?
How about a better question? What law is he breaking by doing so? Assuming he is being passive (the article would likely mention if he was actively harassing people), the absolute worst you could hit him with is what, loitering?
Or shall we pass a law that says no one can stand outside polling places for longer than X minutes? Should we limit it to just those who associate with people we don't like (NBPP?)?
Yes. Either militant literally (as in NBPP or the Minutemen) or militant figuratively - loose cannons like mobs of OWS or Tea Party.
To use a previous example someone else mentioned - should we allow the KKK to stand watch? Law or no law, the answer is clear: of course not. The law may have a ton of gray areas, but I'm pretty sure that we all oppose voter intimidation. Right?
That seems like a poorly defined standard. Why shouldn't someone who counts themselves as a member of the Tea Party be allowed to observe voting?
It seems to me that a more sensible standard would be whether actual intimidation occurs. Having a visible weapon seems like actual intimidation. Mere presence with no implied threat does not.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Murals with pictures of politicians on them should be covered, but this is the sort of thing that there are problems with all the time. In a lot of towns, for instance, churches are the polling places, and they often times don't take down their religious posters or iconography.
Umm, the law they would be violating (and the law they were charged with last time, and the law our hypothetical KKK member would certainly be charged under) would be voter intimidation. The argument, of course, being that it's not just his presence, but his presence in full uniform of the group he's representing, causes intimidation in voters.
We already have laws that prohibit intimidation of voters. the question becomes, is he intimidating voters? And thats what the court would need ot decide. But as for charging him, yes that can be done under current law.
Assuming the religious posters and iconography don't have a political message (in which case they would be required to be taken down) -- why would they be a problem?
The politician mural is exactly the same as the "political t-shirt" -- I think its silly that they are prohibited, but the line in the sand has been drawn and should be followed. The point with the murals is that there is no way the polling place officials didn't know that crossed the line.