Comments on: Have The People MUTED The Political Music? http://www.flyatnight.com/?p=698 If you don't speak the powerbrokers will feel free to continue to ignore you Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:44:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Kurt http://www.flyatnight.com/?p=698&cpage=1#comment-16309 Kurt Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:21:19 +0000 http://www.flyatnight.com/?p=698#comment-16309 I followed the links and the summary didn't fit. The disenfranchisement debate is something we can talk about once both sides are willing to define the term. The first step in honest elections is a true database of eligible voters and a verifiable method to assure only eligible voters cast ballots. Both sides of the political spectrum cry foul except in this last election. That gives credence to the idea that this is simply a political game. The problem is that elections are still very close and it doesn't take a statitically large disenfranchisement/fraud to cause damage (see 2000 when all of the Florida polls were not closed yet the MSM called the state). A little disenfrancisement here, a little fraud there? It is a system problem. What is going on with the voter ID laws is not the same as the referenced white suppression of the vote in the South and that is what I got from your post. You can disagree with voter ID laws but you can't compare them to the historical bad deeds of the South. That is skewed history. All eligible voters should be encouraged to register and VOTE. No TAX. No TEST. Yet we must verify then trust. Trust and no verification is not acceptable. There is more to this debate than the restrictions that you would like to put on it. Thanks for the spell check... I followed the links and the summary didn’t fit. The disenfranchisement debate is something we can talk about once both sides are willing to define the term. The first step in honest elections is a true database of eligible voters and a verifiable method to assure only eligible voters cast ballots.

Both sides of the political spectrum cry foul except in this last election. That gives credence to the idea that this is simply a political game. The problem is that elections are still very close and it doesn’t take a statitically large disenfranchisement/fraud to cause damage (see 2000 when all of the Florida polls were not closed yet the MSM called the state). A little disenfrancisement here, a little fraud there? It is a system problem.

What is going on with the voter ID laws is not the same as the referenced white suppression of the vote in the South and that is what I got from your post. You can disagree with voter ID laws but you can’t compare them to the historical bad deeds of the South. That is skewed history. All eligible voters should be encouraged to register and VOTE. No TAX. No TEST. Yet we must verify then trust. Trust and no verification is not acceptable.

There is more to this debate than the restrictions that you would like to put on it.

Thanks for the spell check…

]]> By: David Schraub http://www.flyatnight.com/?p=698&cpage=1#comment-16288 David Schraub Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:05:54 +0000 http://www.flyatnight.com/?p=698#comment-16288 If you bothered to follow the links (almost all of my TMV posts are brief pointers to a more fleshed out version at <a href="http://dsadevill.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">The Debate Link</a>--the full post is <a href="http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2007/04/ill-show-you-fraud.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>), you'd see that I indeed supported the claim with both primary (the 1935 Barbour article from the Mississippi Law Journal) and secondary (Michael J. Klarman's [Professor at UVA] authoritative book) historical sources. I also noted contemporary findings by voting rights expert Spencer Overton (George Washington Univ.) regarding the 1000:1 legitimate vote/fraudlent vote deterred ration for voter ID laws, and the fact that Indiana managed to justify its voter ID laws on anti-fraud grounds despite never having a prosecuted case of voter fraud in the century the law's been in existence. So whatever "just a big skewed (revisionist)" is (besides atrocious grammar), my post ain't. If you bothered to follow the links (almost all of my TMV posts are brief pointers to a more fleshed out version at The Debate Link–the full post is here), you’d see that I indeed supported the claim with both primary (the 1935 Barbour article from the Mississippi Law Journal) and secondary (Michael J. Klarman’s [Professor at UVA] authoritative book) historical sources. I also noted contemporary findings by voting rights expert Spencer Overton (George Washington Univ.) regarding the 1000:1 legitimate vote/fraudlent vote deterred ration for voter ID laws, and the fact that Indiana managed to justify its voter ID laws on anti-fraud grounds despite never having a prosecuted case of voter fraud in the century the law’s been in existence.

So whatever “just a big skewed (revisionist)” is (besides atrocious grammar), my post ain’t.

]]>