Florida's voter purge

quote:

---

If you didn't see the annual request to update, or didn't receive your card before election day, would that automatically alert you to the fact that you'd been purged from the rolls?

---

Yes.

The electoral rolls and election procedures in the US seem rather creaky. And any moves to reform stir up partisan political resistance. Improving voter ID might exclude illegal immigrants for example. Scraping off felons allows the casual deletion of an ethnic group.

But what's really striking is the shouting about racism in a particular minor interference with the electoral process but acceptance of the fact that 1/3 of black men in Florida are convicted felons.

The presidential election this year is going to be interesting. I think Kerry is rather unappealing, he's definitely no Clinton, and absolutely not a JFK (another President who indubitably stole his election, probably to all our benefit) and Bush isn't exactly stellar. Not a choice I'd like to make.

Paul

Easy decision: vote for Bush, vote for WW3.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
The electoral rolls and election procedures in the US seem rather creaky.

---

No argument here.

quote:

---

But what's really striking is the shouting about racism in a particular minor interference with the electoral process but acceptance of the fact that 1/3 of black men in Florida are convicted felons.

---

Minor? The purge arguably handed GWB the presidency (with a little help from the Supreme Court).

I have no idea if the figures about black men are correct. However, where do felons typically come from? In many societies, the poor and desperate provide a disproportionate number of athletes, entertainers and criminals - for similar reasons. And while the African-American community is, in many ways, vibrant, creative, proud and strong, it has also been on the wrong end of systemic racism for centuries. That's one of the best ways of breeding crime that we've come up with yet.

quote:

---

I think Kerry is rather unappealing, he's definitely no Clinton, and absolutely not a JFK

---

Again, no argument here. But at least he's no GWB either.

It will be interesting to see how the latest Al-Qaeda threat plays out. Do we actually trust anything Ashcroft says? If there is an attack, what will be the political consequences? What about if the government/FBI/CIA claim to foil an attack?

Davie

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
But what's really striking is the shouting about racism in a particular minor interference with the electoral process but acceptance of the fact that 1/3 of black men in Florida are convicted felons.

---

Interesting. Also lacking in sophistication and historical knowledge. Anyway, do tell who accepts the high percentage of black convicted felons.

"Have you any links to evidence of Democrat led electoral fraud?"

Actually Alex, Southern Democratic legislators had historically succeeded in finding ways to exclude Blacks from voting in what you might call institutionalized voter fraud. Although the 15th Amendment of 1870 made it impossible for them to prohibit blacks from voting outright, various Democrat-controlled southern states passed laws requiring voters to be literate, instituting poll taxes, or automatically registering voters who had family members voting before the U.S. Civil War (all of these things increased the proportion of white voters, obviously). Before Lyndon Johnson's Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed these kinds of tactics, black southern voting rates had fallen to pathetic levels -- 7% of all black adults in the case of Mississippi.

Ironically, southern Democrats today now tend to oppose measures that would minimize voter fraud precisely because they are afraid that doing so would decrease the proportion of black voters.* So for example, in Alabama last year there was a huge fight over whether I.D.s should be required at voting stations. Prior to last year, I.D.s were not required -- rather perversely, since it made fraud easy and widespread. Many Alabama state Democratic legislators vigorously opposed the change, fearing it would weaken their base of black voters. I realize this is astonishing for a variety of reasons, but it's true.

Eric

*I should mention that for various reasons the southern black vote shifted from pro-Republican in the post-Civil War south (Lincoln's party was Republican), to largely pro-Democrat in the post-WWII south.

Excellent post, Eric.

quote:

---

Anyway, do tell who accepts the high percentage of black convicted felons.

---

People like Greg Palast. Perhaps even the ACLU. People who characterise the purge as racist. Perhaps because it cannot be blamed on Republicans?

One thing that's clear is that the US isn't going to get a great President in November, and the UK isn't going to be getting a great Prime Minister next year. This is rather a shame as we sit and watch the world fall to bits.

Paul

Having read a few of the Palast bits I agree that he comes off as Moore-esque.

The purge on its own isn't racist (when not including convenient additions and strictly following state law). It's the lifetime disenfranchisement law that is racist. If you or someone else can explain how it isn't, I'll listen.

Also, if you could explain how saying the purge and/or disenfranchisement laws are racist is accepting large percentages of black felons by default, enlighten us. One can be solved with the swipe of a pen, the other by turning the society upside down over the course of generations.

On November I tend to agree, but "great" presidents are a rare breed.

Concern about 'lifetime disenfranchisement' being racist is like fiddling while Rome burns. If you return the vote to convicted felons then you don't touch the racism inherent in the judicial system, or the pressure that generates black criminals. I think you actually reinforce it.

Paul

I'm not convinced, but to each his own.