Forums | MacLife

Macskeeball wrote:

In all seriousness though, I don't have to register to a specific party, do I?

No - you don't.
I'm registered to a small third party out of protest to the California republican party stance on abortion.
But you don't have to be registered to any party.

In some states, you can only vote in the primaries for a party you are registered to - but that's the only possible drawback.

old, and voting.

now you kids get off my lawn!!!

Registered as a Democrat in 1976, changed it to Libertarian in 1980, and after the election the State of NC sent me a letter saying that I was being changed to Unaffiliated because the Libertarian Presidential candidate failed to reach a certain arbitrary amount of votes. It was nonsense obviously designed to shut out third parties and it pissed me off.

I said, fine if that's the way you want it and I've stayed unaffiliated ever since, even though I've voted Democratic from time to time.

The dirty tricks against new voters have started:

Young voters at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Penn. have already been targeted, with students reporting that flyers have been posted around campus warning that undercover police will be at the polls on Election Day looking to make arrests.

The flyer reads like a friendly letter to fellow students relaying a warning from an "Obama supporter": "He informed me that on the day of the election there will be undercover officers to execute warrants on those who come to vote based on the anticipated turnout," writes the anonymous student in the letter which was later posted on the Drexel College Democrats website. "He advised me if I had any outstanding warrants or traffic offenses I should clear them up prior to voting."

Political experts say the Drexel flyer is a classic example of voter suppression--a practice that involves scaring, angering, or confusing voters so that they stay at home on Election Day.

radarman wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

The dirty tricks against new voters have started:

Young voters at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Penn. have already been targeted, with students reporting that flyers have been posted around campus warning that undercover police will be at the polls on Election Day looking to make arrests.

The flyer reads like a friendly letter to fellow students relaying a warning from an "Obama supporter": "He informed me that on the day of the election there will be undercover officers to execute warrants on those who come to vote based on the anticipated turnout," writes the anonymous student in the letter which was later posted on the Drexel College Democrats website. "He advised me if I had any outstanding warrants or traffic offenses I should clear them up prior to voting."

Political experts say the Drexel flyer is a classic example of voter suppression--a practice that involves scaring, angering, or confusing voters so that they stay at home on Election Day.

This should only be a problem if you have outstanding warrants against you. If you do NOT have outstanding warrants, then what's the problem?

As for traffic offenses, as long as your court date is still pending, you have nothing to fear. If you blew your court date, and have a bench warrant against you, then see my previous point.

Yes, it stinks; but so do a lot of tactics cops use to serve warrants. My personal favorite is the tactic of saying the people in question won a prize, and arresting them when they come to claim it.

You missed the point: there will be NO police officers stationed at the polls (or at least no undercover police looking to arrest people). This is just one tactic used to confuse, dissuade and/or intimidate potential voters. Another such tactic used before was to have professionally-made flyers with official-looking state seals and such on them sent out "announcing" that the elections were being moved to the next day or the following Tuesday--these were arranged to arrive in mailboxes the day before the election.

Last edited by D'Eyncourt (2008-10-07 4:41 pm)

bratboy wrote:

radarman wrote:

This should only be a problem if you have outstanding warrants against you. If you do NOT have outstanding warrants, then what's the problem?

As for traffic offenses, as long as your court date is still pending, you have nothing to fear. If you blew your court date, and have a bench warrant against you, then see my previous point.

Yes, it stinks; but so do a lot of tactics cops use to serve warrants. My personal favorite is the tactic of saying the people in question won a prize, and arresting them when they come to claim it.

Hold up--seriously?

Hey, if you are ducking a warrant, you should probably be laying low anyway. Going to a polling place, where everyone has to produce identification, seems like an awesome way to catch people who are dodging warrants. They should just wait for you to finish voting before slapping on the handcuffs.

daemon wrote:

Some places revoke a right to vote (among other citizenship things, 'also') if you're convicted of a felony. Short of something like that anyone over 18 and registered has the franchise.

Not all states permanently revoke your rights after a felony conviction, but most suspend those rights while you are serving your sentence.

Frankly, I think that's right. If you are serving a sentence for a serious crime, you should have your rights restricted. I do not, however; agree with permanently stripping people of rights. It's hard enough to restart your life with the label 'felon' without piling on.

radarman wrote:

Hey, if you are ducking a warrant, you should probably be laying low anyway.

That's hardly the point.  You may find it hard to believe, but many people are often unaware of the status of old parking/traffic tickets or the existence of warrants.  The police will not be running checks on voters at the polls, in any event.

This is a transparent attempt to suppress voter turnout.  One of many we'll see.

bratboy wrote:

radarman wrote:

Hey, if you are ducking a warrant, you should probably be laying low anyway.

That's hardly the point.  You may find it hard to believe, but many people are often unaware of the status of old parking/traffic tickets or the existence of warrants.  The police will not be running checks on voters at the polls, in any event.

This is a transparent attempt to suppress voter turnout.  One of many we'll see.

How can you be unaware of a traffic ticket? You are required to sign them, and they have the court date printed on them. If you didn't go to court, and you didn't pay the fine, then you have a bench warrant against you. That's not too hard to figure out.

Parking tickets, which you don't sign and which have zero confirmation of payment, are a different story. It is quite possible for the parking violation to be incorrect, or even missing. (I was sent a parking ticket by a car rental place on a vehicle that had received the ticket from a previous renter)

So, I might could see not realizing you had an outstanding parking fine, but traffic tickets? Not really.

radarman wrote:

How can you be unaware of a traffic ticket? You are required to sign them, and they have the court date printed on them. If you didn't go to court, and you didn't pay the fine, then you have a bench warrant against you. That's not too hard to figure out.

Parking tickets, which you don't sign and which have zero confirmation of payment, are a different story. It is quite possible for the parking violation to be incorrect, or even missing. (I was sent a parking ticket by a car rental place on a vehicle that had received the ticket from a previous renter)

So, I might could see not realizing you had an outstanding parking fine, but traffic tickets? Not really.

Perhaps they thought they paid it, or they can't remember the disposition of the case, or they can't remember if they followed up appropriately, or they're unsure if they've paid past parking tickets, or maybe they mistakenly think they have a warrant (it happens).  I used to work in a traffic court, and trust me none of these scenarios are unusual.

In any event (even if there is a warrant and they know about it), it's wrong to attempt scare people away from the polls by falsely threatening arrest.

As an aside--do you know how often people have outstanding warrants or tickets that were actually issued to someone else who had falsely identified themselves to police, or used a stolen ID?  Probably much more often than you'd think.

More vote suppression efforts by the republican party in Montana.

The state Republican Party this week challenged the eligibility of 6,000 registered Montana voters in seven counties historically considered Democratic strongholds.

...

Nothing proves this more clearly than some of the people who’ve shown up on their challenge list. Consider Army 1st Lt. Kevin Furey of Helena, a former Montana state representative.

    Furey got the news just days before he will ship off to Kuwait and then Iraq for his second tour of duty.

    “It is ironic that at the same time I am about to return to Iraq to help build a democracy that my own right to vote is being challenged at home for partisan purposes. These challenges are a blatant and offensive attempt to suppress the rights of voters,” Furey said in a telephone interview from Chicago, where he was on leave visiting his ailing grandmother.

Link.

radarman wrote:

Going to a polling place, where everyone has to produce identification....

Umm, no. You just state your name and they check the list. I've never had to show ID at the polls.

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

radarman wrote:

Going to a polling place, where everyone has to produce identification....

Umm, no. You just state your name and they check the list. I've never had to show ID at the polls.

Me neither - though I think we should, with the provision of a signature and thumb print scan in the event that the voter has lost or forgotten his or her identification.

THUMBPRINT?!! Joking, right?