So You Think You Can Vote?

Here’s a partial roundup of recently reported election fraud. Wee! (I’m not even touching on voting machine fraud here… I imagine it will be easier to spot post-election.)

Most of this information has been taken from the Brennan Center for Justice and the Voter Suppression Wiki, as well as msnbc.com and Commondreams.org

Oh, where to begin…

We don’t take kindly to strangers around here:

In Virginia, someone has been putting up flyers informing of a separate election date for Democrats, on Nov. 5th. In Kern County, California, a radio host also announced that Republicans are being urged to vote on November 4 and Democrats on November 5.

At Virginia Tech, students have been informed that if they're from out of state but vote locally, they'll risk losing their scholarships, health insurance, and cause their parents to pay more in taxes. Similarly, anonymous robocalls have warned that out-of-staters living in Virginia that vote in-state are committing an outright criminal offense.

Students in Virginia and in several other states have been denied registration when listing their dorm room addresses, even though these are completely valid.

An anonymous flier circulating at Drexel University in Pennsylvania – and in African-American neighborhoods in North and West Philadelphia - has been informing voters that undercover police officers will be hanging out at the polls to arrest people with outstanding warrants, or even traffic tickets... a nice touch was the text in the flier mentioning that this warning comes from "an Obama supporter."

Robert Balink, El Paso County Recorder and Republican Delegate, sent a letter to the president of Colorado College stating that if a student is a dependent of out-of-state parents, the student is not eligible to vote in Colorado. This has happened in other states as well.

South Carolina’s voter-registration site says students who want to register to vote at their college address must demonstrate “a present intention to remain in the community.”

Similarly, in Idaho and Tennessee, students cannot establish voting residency unless they have affirmative plans to remain in the state after graduation. Virginia and Indiana also make it difficult for students to establish residency.

Michigan and Tennessee require all first-time voters who registered by mail to vote in person; they cannot vote absentee. This makes it nearly impossible for college students (a great percentage of whom are young, first-time voters) to vote in their hometowns.


Boo!

New Mexico: two families reported visits by a private investigator inquiring about relatives that the state Republican Party alleges voted fraudulently in the June primary. Obviously, if two people report something, there are many more that haven’t.

In Ohio, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters recently requested, via subpoena, personal information for 40% of the voters who registered and immediately cast a ballot during the weeklong period in which Ohio allows same-day registration and voting. Could this guy’s last name be any more clear of his intentions?

Dozens of voters reported that a firm hired by the California Republican Party tricked them into registering with the GOP when signing a petition they believed to toughen penalties against child molesters.


Purging registered voters: No match, no vote, late purging practices, and so much more.

Several states have been illegally purging their voter rolls this year, including Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Nevada.

“Voter caging” is the practice of sending mail to addresses on the voter rolls, compiling a list of the mail – which is marked with a “do not forward” instruction - that is returned undelivered, and using that list to purge or challenge voters’ registrations on the grounds that the voters on the list do not legally reside at their registered addresses. Another favorite tactic is to simply purge voter rolls within 90 days of an election, which is against federal law.

Michigan has done both of these, illegally purging its voter rolls this year within 90 days of an election, and by sending out non-forwardable mailings to recently registered voters. But Michigan’s masterstroke of evil genius is in the current attempt to use home foreclosure lists to prevent voters registered at those addresses from voting. In addition to anybody who's unable to prove their current address at the polls, the threat of humiliation might also help deter many foreclosed homeowners and their families from even attempting to vote.

In Colorado, the Secretary of State admitted that at least 2,454 voters were purged illegally within 90 days of a federal election. Several thousand additional records were purged as potential "duplicates" within 90 days of the election, also in violation of federal law. Another several thousand were illegally purged based, again with the tactic of sending non-forwardable mailings to newly registered voters.

Georgia recently began using an unreliable matching process to purge the voter rolls of alleged non-citizens. The process they use misses naturalized citizens because it only checks the citizenship documents used to obtain driver's licenses, no matter how long ago, and those records are not updated when legal residents become naturalized.


These aren’t the voters you’re looking for:

The Department of Veterans' Affairs in Virginia denied voter registration access to residents and patients of its facilities, refusing to allow election officials or nonpartisan groups to offer voter registration services, and failing to provide such services itself.

Several states, including New Mexico and Florida, haven’t been providing voter registration services at social service agencies, as required by the federal Motor Voter law.


Felons can’t vote, even if they’re not:

In many states, felons can’t vote. In some, they can at least vote once they’ve gotten out of prison. I’m sure they’re told the former, when entering prison, but the latter fact might be overlooked. In any event, this is another source ripe for shenanigans. Personally, I think everyone should be allowed to vote. But then, I’m into the idea of democracy and due representation.

Mike Hubbard, Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, sent a letter to the Alabama Commissioner of Corrections opposing and suspending a voter registration drive for prisoners. Alabama Law prohibits felons convicted of crimes of "moral turpitude" from voting, although the inmates being registered did not fall into this category, per an opinion issued by the State Attorney General in 2005.

Earlier this year, a county election administrator in Muscogee County, Georgia purged 700 people who were supposedly ineligible because of criminal convictions. The purge was highly inaccurate and included people who had never received even a parking ticket.


Don’t bother showing up, suckafish!

In Florida, some voters have been robocalled, stating that they have apparently "voted by phone already," in the hopes that voters will not actually hit the polls on Nov. 4th (or whenever). Go ahead, pick on the senile retirees.

Recently, the republican mayor's office in Indianapolis made 31 polling location changes and there has not been, nor will there be, an official announcement or mailing to the voters to inform them of these changes. Surprise: a lot of these location changes are in areas of the city with strong democratic followings. Other areas with the changes are of those with a low socio-economic status. Polls in Indiana are only open from 6am-6pm; due to the early closing time, people tend to want to vote in the morning, since it’s difficult to do so after work. Hopefully they’ll go early, and then decide to vote at their new station, in exchange for being late; those trying to squeak in before closing after work might well not have the time to get to their new polling location.


Fun with ballots:

In Rensselaer County, New York, absentee voters received ballots that listed the Democratic candidate as “Barack Osama.” The County Elections Office Commissioners claim it was a typo.

In a number of states, ballots have the option for a voter to check off a “straight ticket” option. Meaning, you can tick off a straight ticket vote for one party or another, and it counts as if you voted the party line in every election listed. But in many cases, election boards have decided that this doesn’t count for the election of president, and some also of judges. So if you don’t also check off your party’s candidate for president, you didn’t vote in that contest at all. This isn’t new: historically, this has caused a 1% "undervote" for President -- an estimated 35,800 votes in 2004. With many new voters this year, it could be higher.

In Ohio, Absentee Ballot Requests contained an extra box to check indicating whether or not you’re a registered voter; respondents who sent back the form without checking the box won’t receive absentee ballots. The Board of Elections found that, although ticking off the box was not listed in the form as being required information, returning the form without checking the box was tantamount to requesting a ballot without being a registered voter. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner offered to contact voters who forgot to check the box and allow them to correct the issue, but the Republicans – who sent out over one million of these forms - rejected the proposal (not sure who these “Republicans” were though… if they could reject something, I imagine it would have been a government official in a position above Brunner?).

In Colorado, 18,000 ballots weren’t mailed to voters in Denver. If voters don't get the last-minute mail sent out Monday (Oct 27) and return their ballots by Friday (Oct 31), their votes won't be counted. The Sequoia Voting System organization was behind this; they originally blamed it on the post office, but has since admitted blame.


Okay, that's it for now. But don't worry, there will be more! We still have almost a week left, and Election Day will be just like Christmas!

The People's Choice

From Phobrek's Blog

In torrenting some comics, I found that someone uploaded this classic old issue of Captain America from 1980, in which our hero faces the possibility of running for president. Thanks, anonymous donor!

Captain America has always been my favorite superhero... imagine me, an ultra-liberal socialist pinko bastard that is critical of most things American, idol-worshipping the man with the flag on his chest (and mighty shield). But most "real" patriots would consider Cap to be a pinko bastard himself, if they read the comic over the decades. Questioning authority... frequently at odds with the government... and OMFG he's got a Jewess for a girlfriend! Well, he did, until she died, and of course he'd dead now, too. But the comic remains brilliant nonetheless.

Anyway, click the pic above to go to a gallery including a scattered bunch of pages from that issue. Classic stuff! And enjoy this blast from the past:

OMFG, I might just vote for McCain!

Dear big O

The following is a letter I've actually sent (in email and by POST, if you can imagine) to Obama's campaign.

To: Senator Barack Obama and/or his campaign staff

From: Phobrek Taz, Worcester, Massachusetts

Date: June 4^th, 2008

NOTES:

I’m not actually crazy about boldfacing text, but I do it here to highlight the more important notes. Basically, if something isn’t boldfaced, someone wishing to skip over all my blather can just ignore it. Even though my writing and thoughts are simply a treasure to behold.

I imagine Senator Obama won’t be reading this himself, so if whoever’s reading this could add my name or vote (so to speak) on your tallies of comments that people make in such letters, I’d appreciate it.

Dear Senator Obama,

Congratulations! I’ve been rooting for you, and desperately want you to become the next president of the United States. And thank you – to you and all the people involved – for running a campaign that has genuinely inspired and excited people, unlike any other in my lifetime (I’m 38).

You’ve been my clear favorite over Hillary Clinton, and while so many felt she should have conceded, I’m actually content that she stayed in it. Somehow, for once, voters in every state actually got to have a say in these primaries (I think the Michigan/Florida debacle was handled as well as was possible). I think that this should be a talking point:

I’m glad we saw this process through to the end. To many, this process may seem unfair… in its scheduling of all of our states - and territories - causing them to have more – or less – impact on the results; and for the earlier states being able to create a perceived trend, that may feel limiting to those that come later. In 2004, the latter TWENTY-SIX primaries became largely moot, as candidate Senator Kerry became the presumptive nominee just after “Super Tuesday,” March 2nd. But this year, every state counted, even after the controversy surrounding Michigan and Florida, because: Senator Hillary Clinton stayed in the race, despite the badgering of the media, and the pundits… and she gave the people in every state and every territory the opportunity to have their vote counted… to have it mean something.

The important ideas here are:

To get people to understand that you desire due equity for all, regardless of their candidate, location, even their party. Right now, being inclusive is vital. You want absolutely everyone on board your train.

To, likewise, reach out to the Hillary supporters in particular, in a way even congratulating them, and her, for having the strength of will to never give up, and to make the full primary process mean something. People (understandably) love it when you tell them that they did the right thing, resisting the media’s demands that they do otherwise.

The most important thing of all, in my opinion, is to reconcile w/Hillary and her supporters. One way to do this is to return her support: as everyone knows, she will now do her duty by supporting the Democratic candidate, but this doesn’t mean that it can’t go two ways. This talking point would be especially useful if you do not choose her as your running mate. Talking point:

I know that this is easier to say, now that this process is over, but while I know Senator Clinton will be supportive of myself and our party’s campaign for the presidency, that doesn’t mean that the support needn’t go both ways. Senator Clinton is (insert compliments here). Her interests, her perspectives, are clearly shared by half of those who voted in our primaries, and her (and our other candidates’) causes must also be supported, and adopted, and reflected as well as possible, in our campaign, and in our future administration. To not do so, would be to deny so many of our supporters a continued meaning to the votes that they have cast in these past few months. These voices must continue to be heard, and heeded, for to not do so would disempower, and disenfranchise, our own people.

This kind of talking point would be something to use when you announce your Veep. If it’s Hillary, you’d use it to lead up to your announcement; if you pick someone else, you’d make a point of saying this afterward. Not on that same day, but very soon afterward.

However, I actually think that you should choose to take on Hillary as the Veep. I didn’t think this for the longest time, because I felt like you shouldn’t have to, just because so many are suggesting it, and I personally believe that she’s been somewhat “co-opted” in her eight years since leaving the White House. A specific example is that she was such a champion of health care reform as First Lady, and then ended up having to succumb to the industry in order to get elected. She had to play ball. I don’t particularly blame her, as this is how government usually works. She could either play ball and get elected, or not get elected at all (not just because of this one example, but because of the overall, corrupt process).

You, however, have been more able to maintain your integrity, and you haven’t had nearly as much time to become tainted by this process either; and people know it. I’m sure it’s been tried, to push you into undesired directions, and I am sure that these influences will continue to try to manipulate you and everyone else in government, forevermore. It’s a sad part of the process. But you are our best hope of operating against that machine.

That said, lately I’ve come to believe that you actually should pick up Hillary as Veep. I’m very wary of both her and Bubba, but if they can be reined in, they could be very important in getting things done. They’ve got clout.

But much more importantly: in the end, even after you became the presumptive-presumptive-nominee, Hillary supporters were still coming out in droves, down to the very last primaries. That’s incredible. The upshot is: half of the party and its voters are passionate about getting her into the White House. Not a small chunk; not a third; HALF. They will not be easily appeased.

So many have said that if their candidate didn’t get the nomination, they’d either vote Republican, or not at all. This of course is bullshit, most of the time. When a candidate is still very much in the running, most supporters will make this silly ultimatum in an (ineffective) attempt at coercing others into switching sides. Regardless, they don’t want to say anything that suggests that their candidate will lose. If they don’t end up backing the Democratic candidate for the presidency, they’re either mentally disaffected, or are actually Republicans (same thing).

But in the end, there is only one vital thing that must happen: there must not be a Republican in the White House. That has got to be the primary goal; everything else is of secondary importance. Taking on Hillary as Veep is the one move that will give you a huge increase in your chances of winning. To not do this is to risk losing a lot of votes. Hillary truly does attract voters of specific demographics, different from yours, in large numbers. These people often seem like more conservative voters than you and your supporters (so I believe), and they really are the ones that might possibly end up voting for McCain. That cannot happen.

Besides appealing to the needed demographics, the Clintons (as a pair) do have their legacy. To some (myself included) that legacy isn’t necessarily very appealing, but everything is relative. The facts are: the Clinton Era came right before this tragic, devastating eight years of Bush tossing our country (and others) into the proverbial shitter. There is an attraction to returning to better times, to undoing these eight years, and the Clinton Era is connected to that for many people. Bush has driven every aspect of the United States into the ground, after inheriting what people see as being the (tainted but forgivable) Clinton legacy (whether they realize they see it as this or not). Taking on Hillary will give comfort to those that fared better (read: almost everyone) before this current administration took over, while you – at the helm – will still clearly signal a brand new day that will build off of a recognizable, perhaps even nostalgic, foundation.

Last, but important nonetheless, and also in the name of inclusion: so many people have remarked that this year’s field of candidates for the Democratic nomination has been a surprisingly excellent collection of people. While people have only been supporting you or Hillary for the last few weeks, there were others who received support and represent voters’ interests. Most people that support other candidates end up not voting for them, because the candidate’s status of “unelectable” means that they’re throwing their vote away. You are my choice of candidate, but my first choice would have been Dennis Kucinich, who has some notably different positions. Many people end up wishing their favorite candidate, or a particular platform plank, would be included in the plans and directives of the eventual nominee, and they are far greater than the number of votes reflected as the amount actually cast for these “unelectables.”

Based on this thinking, I think it would be wise to give real consideration to using one or more of these candidates in your administration, whether it be an appropriate cabinet position, or something else of a substantial nature. If you found that using a previous candidate was appropriate for one position or another, that would be another excellent move of inclusion. For instance, Bill Richardson would make an excellent Secretary of State, in my opinion. Besides exciting his supporters, such an appointment would also appeal to those who like him and his ideas, and his general demographic support, even though they ended up voting for and/or supporting some other candidate. I know many people that are big fans of both Richardson and Kucinich, who ended up voting for you over Hillary, even before it fell down to just the two of you.

Besides the appeal to various supporters, there plainly are some excellent people in that original field of candidates, that would be appropriate for positions even if they’d never been a part of the primaries. One other factor: people know these candidates. They’ve been all over TV, during their campaigns as well as the endless debates. The public likes being able to identify and understand the top people in the administration; I think that the public is developing an increasing recognition of the other major players, mostly meaning the main cabinet/advisors, UN ambassador, etc. Using such a person to occupy a space in your administration will increase inclusion (obviously, this has become my mantra), and show that their perspectives and causes are being sincerely represented for them at the highest levels. Obviously, there are other well-known players that would be popular and appreciated at various posts: an example that most easily comes to mind is the fantastic Richard Clarke, for instance.

I’ve only ever written a couple of letters to politicians – my senators, Kennedy and Kerry – but today, I have been so driven to write this letter, even knowing it will probably not make its way into the thinking of you or your campaign. But if it does, then this is the most important letter I’ve ever written. And I thank whomever for actually reading my long-winded notes.

Yours truly,

Phobrek Taz

Worcester, Massachusetts

John loves Barack

I just watched CNN's clip of John Kerry stumping in South Carolina for Barack Obama, giving his endorsement in an emphatic and lively manner. If only the dumbass had had this kind of fire four years ago! Once Obama took the stage and thanked Kerry, he went on to espouse the former candidate's virtues, and so again I had to wonder, what if someone stumped for him in that dramatic, charismatic way Obama has about him? Obama defended Kerry better than he had when he was running back in '04. Well, I guess anyone defending Kerry back then would have done a better job, seeing as how the weakling just rolled over and died, not even trying to de-bunk the blatant smear attacks against him.

I honestly have no real preference at this point, when it comes to Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. I just want one of them to run and beat whatever sacrificial turkey the GOP offers us; any of them will be a big step forward. And once in there, I want whoever it is to appoint the mighty mouse DK (Dennis Kucinich) to a cabinet position. Get this fantastic guy into a place where he can do some good, because he's brilliant and would be great for the country. And this way we can also keep his wife in the spotlight (cough... okay, I mentioned DK, so by law I have to make note of his hot wife).