Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (3204)	10/19/2006 6:28:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

You assert (and the author of the article you cite) assert it. I deny it. You claimed its uncontested, I point out that it is. Your assertions that it is true don't make it true, and your assertion that it was uncontested was a false assertion. That being said I am thinking one of the best solutions to the selective voter purges is to make day-of-election voter registration legal in all states, with a clear criteria of what documentation will be required to establish eligibility. Day of election registration may be a defense against voter purges, but it could make voter fraudulent voting harder to reduce or eliminate, and it could be logistically difficult. Documentation to establish eligibility might help, but serious requirements tend to be opposed by Democrats, and sometimes struck down by courts. Similarly rules requiring IDs to vote have been opposed and sometimes struck down. And to throw some of the crooked bastards in jail that are responsible for selective voter purges. First you have to establish that such selective voter purges took place. And not just a purge of the roles that purged more people on one side than the other, but a purge that purged a lot of properly eligible voters from one side, and none, or at least much fewer on the other. Purging ineligible voters isn't a crime, and its likely that a larger percentage of ineligible voters who are on the roles lean to the Democratic side. Because of that fact Republicans will try to be stricter and Democrats looser when controlling the voter roles. Neither action is necessarily committing a crime, or even doing anything wrong. Any system is going to disallow some legitimate voters and allow some illegitimate ones. The Democrats are willing to allow more illegitimate voters to avoid purging legitimate voters, the Republicans are willing to purge more legitimate voters in order to reduce the number of illegitimate votes. To an extent both sides might even be acting according to their principles but its obvious that each does support the action that favors them the most. When either party deliberately purges voters known to be legitimate voters, or when either party allows voters known to be illegitimate they are committing a crime, and harming the system, but most of the disputes aren't about such crimes but about how strict and tough the purges should be.

To: JBTFD who wrote (3204)	10/20/2006 10:37:39 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Your attacking a straw man. I didn't say that a point needs to be uncontested to be true, or to be worthy of consideration. I responded to your specific assertion that the point was uncontested. That assertion isn't true because your charge was indeed contested. And to throw some of the crooked bastards in jail that are responsible for selective voter purges. Depending on exactly what you mean by "selective", and if proven beyond all reasonable doubt, I agree. At the same time (and subject to the same standard of proof) we could throw in jail those who organize efforts to have ineligible people vote, or people vote more than once, or who pay for votes. nationalreview.com findarticles.com nationalreview.com