A New Low: Challenging the Votes of Former Homeowners

[Kade]

The Grand Oligarchy Party is going to use a list of foreclosure victims to challenge voters on election day.

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote

[torchbearer]

They don't want many people to vote... sorta like truth warrior.
Only their cronies shall have access to the voting machines, further pushing the majority of america out of the election process.

[acptulsa]

Nothing new here. And even though it certainly is adding insult to injury, I don't know that I consider it lower than using state troopers to keep poor people away from the polls in Florida in 2000.

[freelance]

Another Karl Rove production. Coming to a town near you.

[angelatc]

Nothing new here. And even though it certainly is adding insult to injury, I don't know that I consider it lower than using state troopers to keep poor people away from the polls in Florida in 2000.

It's not illegal, like having dead people vote in Chicago. Or having dogs vote in California.

Crying over this is retarded. Register at your new address or you can't vote. It's the law. I happen to believe in maintaining the integrity of the voter lists.

Politics aren't pretty. The idea isn't to lose with the most integrity. THe idea is to win. As long as they're working within the law, oh well. Sour grapes if the democrats aren't smart enough to use the tools at their disposal.

[acptulsa]

It's not illegal, like having dead people vote in Chicago. Or having dogs vote in California.

Crying over this is retarded. Register at your new address or you can't vote. It's the law. I happen to believe in maintaining the integrity of the voter lists.

Yes, I do too. But I don't believe in disenfrancising people who have just moved (and are willing to go to their old district to vote). And I sure smell a rat when people who have just undergone foreclosures bear the brunt of the thing.

[torchbearer]

Yes, I do too. But I don't believe in disenfrancising people who have just moved (and are willing to go to their old district to vote). And I sure smell a rat when people who have just undergone foreclosures bear the brunt of the thing.

as in.. the people who screwed up our monetary system don't want you to vote because you might vote against them.
Congressman inacts harmful legislation.. later, you are hurt by the effects of that legislation...
You want to vote the guy out of office... he says you can't vote.

[angelatc]

Yes, I do too. But I don't believe in disenfrancising people who have just moved (and are willing to go to their old district to vote). And I sure smell a rat when people who have just undergone foreclosures bear the brunt of the thing.

I just moved, and I'd be lying if I said that it didn't cross my mind to vote in both precincts. Of course I wouldn't do that, because I have ethics.

Lots of people don't. Especially people who believe in voting themselves a portion of income from other people.

[angelatc]

as in.. the people who screwed up our monetary system don't want you to vote because you might vote against them.
Congressman inacts harmful legislation.. later, you are hurt by the effects of that legislation...
You want to vote the guy out of office... he says you can't vote.

He says you can't vote if you don't live where you said you lived.

Obvious that lots of you haven't lived in Chicago.

[torchbearer]

He says you can't vote if you don't live where you said you lived.

Obvious that lots of you haven't lived in Chicago.

I live in Louisiana. We have more dead people vote than in Chicago. Our system is better at cheating.
Voter roles are never cleared.
People who were displaced from New Orleans by katrina.. and are living in other states, still can vote in new orleans. Which, the year of the event... I understand.
BUt them continuing to vote years later, haven't not moved back... is wrong.

So I see what you are saying.. But i see the dangers in excluding people who have foreclosed.
Politicians will try to escape retribution with election laws, and which they choose to enforce, when, and on who.

[tmosley]

It is mean, and it is cruel, though I would agree that it isn't illegal. Of course, the burden of proof should be with the challenger, and the vote should count until the person being challenged is proved to be ineligible.

Of course, that would make it practically impossible to invalidate people's votes, but that is probably the way it should be.

What would people here think of having voters pictures taken, and compared by computer (and the hits compared by humans to make sure that people don't vote more than once? The votes would be divorced from the pictures, and couldn't be rescinded, but the person committing voter fraud would go to jail.

[angelatc]

I live in Louisiana. We have more dead people vote than in Chicago. Our system is better at cheating.

I salute you, sir! (or something!) But yeah, you're right. Louisiana is also quite corrupt


Voter roles are never cleared.
People who were displaced from New Orleans by katrina.. and are living in other states, still can vote in new orleans. Which, the year of the event... I understand.
BUt them continuing to vote years later, haven't not moved back... is wrong.

So I see what you are saying.. But i see the dangers in excluding people who have foreclosed.
Politicians will try to escape retribution with election laws, and which they choose to enforce, when, and on who.

They're not excluding people who have been foreclosed on. They're verifying residency requirements based on a list of people who have most likely moved.

I don't think we can demand integrity in a system then get mad when the system runs checks on the system. And as for the checks being politically motivated? Well, duh. It's politics.

[angelatc]

It is mean, and it is cruel,.

It's cruel to require people to register to vote when they move? C'mon on!

[acptulsa]

It's cruel to require people to register to vote when they move? C'mon on!

I have indeed lived in Chicago. And I am not disagreeing with you at all, especially since you don't seem to want to disallow any leeway whatsoever. But you must admit that if they took lists of foreclosures and started out specifically to disenfranchise the people on them, this is way beyond sleazy, and they deserve to have it publicized.

[angelatc]

I have indeed lived in Chicago. And I am not disagreeing with you at all, especially since you don't seem to want to disallow any leeway whatsoever. But you must admit that if they took lists of foreclosures and started out specifically to disenfranchise the people on them, this is way beyond sleazy, and they deserve to have it publicized.

Heh. Yes, I am admittedly pretty black and white.

Why is it sleazy? Since when are we the touchy feely type? Would it be sleazy to question the eligibility of people using a list of names from the obituaries?

How about a list of address changes from the post office?

The last thing I know they did, which was using the names of soldiers overseas, knowing full well they wouldn't have time to respond prior to the deadline - now *that* was sleazy.

Picking up a list of people who happily took out loans they couldn't afford then refinanced those loans too, and then cried that the government should save them from the mean ol' bankers?

Sleazy is as sleazy does.