Ohio voter interference

[opebo]

The GOP plans to challenge the authenticity of voters registrations in poor black neighborhoods!

http://nytimes.com/2004/10/23/politics/campaign/23vote.html?hp&ex=1098590400&en=b3506ec97533d07e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

This definitely opens a can of worms, but I suppose they may intimidate or prevent from voting a fair number of blacks.

[opebo]

I'm glad to know that you consider challenging ineligable[/i] voters to be "intimidation."  Maybe you want one person to vote for Kerry 3 or four times.

I should think determining the eligability of voters would be the job of election officials, not partison lawyers!

[opebo]

I'm glad to know that you consider challenging ineligable[/i] voters to be "intimidation."  Maybe you want one person to vote for Kerry 3 or four times.

I should think determining the eligability of voters would be the job of election officials, not partison lawyers!

They are poll watchers, which is what they do.  I believe in PA any registered voter can challenge the credentials of any other registered voter.

Opebo, you really seem to be in favor of voter fraud.

I would prefer it to people having to deal with vigilante posses confronting them while they attempt to vote.  I think a citizen has a right to expect to be confronted *only* by the duly appointed authorities.  By the same token I don't expect to be pulled over by just some ordinary citizen if I'm out speeding on the highway - that is what the police are for.

The likely result of all this challenging of one individual by another is a brawl or riot.

[opebo]

I'm glad to know that you consider challenging ineligable[/i] voters to be "intimidation."  Maybe you want one person to vote for Kerry 3 or four times.

I should think determining the eligability of voters would be the job of election officials, not partison lawyers!

They are poll watchers, which is what they do.  I believe in PA any registered voter can challenge the credentials of any other registered voter.

Opebo, you really seem to be in favor of voter fraud.

I would prefer it to people having to deal with vigilante posses confronting them while they attempt to vote.  I think a citizen has a right to expect to be confronted *only* by the duly appointed authorities.  By the same token I don't expect to be pulled over by just some ordinary citizen if I'm out speeding on the highway - that is what the police are for.

The likely result of all this challenging of one individual by another is a brawl or riot.

No it is not, as just pointed out.  I cannot walk into any poll in the US and challenge a voter, but, in my state, I certainly could, if a poll watcher and, possibly, if a registered voter.  You seem to not only favor fraud, but denying others their rights under the law.

I do not favor everyone having a right to inspect the actions of everyone else for legality.  Vigilantism is a recipe for loss of individual rights, rioting, and abuse.

[opebo]

I'm glad to know that you consider challenging ineligable[/i] voters to be "intimidation."  Maybe you want one person to vote for Kerry 3 or four times.

I should think determining the eligability of voters would be the job of election officials, not partison lawyers!

Unfortunately, some of the local election officials are turning a blind eye to fraudulent voter registrations.

If I walk into the polls on election day and see a 4'8", elderly Asian man claiming to be either of my next door neighbor, you are correct that I'm going to challenge it!  (My next door neighbor is a 5'7  African American woman of less than 50).

How on earth are YOU going to 'see' what someone else is doing?  Are you going to peer over the shoulder of every voter and look at his paperwork?  Perhaps lay a heavy hand on his shoulder and demand to know all about him?  I think citizens have a right to be protected against such intimidation by their fellows.  Only the election officials should be allowed to pry into a voters privacy, and even then only the minimum necessary.

[opebo]

So, opebo, in Columbus- where many more people are registered to vote than actually live there- you believe the GOP should allow the Democrats 30,000+ illegal/bogus votes?

There is no way for you to know how many people actually live in Columbus.  The Census is notoriously inaccurate, and is, after all, around four years old.  People move, things change.  I'm sure those new voters are almost all real.

[opebo]

So, opebo, in Columbus- where many more people are registered to vote than actually live there- you believe the GOP should allow the Democrats 30,000+ illegal/bogus votes?

There is no way for you to know how many people actually live in Columbus.  The Census is notoriously inaccurate, and is, after all, around four years old.  People move, things change.  I'm sure those new voters are almost all real.

So opebo, you favor only Democrat voter fraud?

Of course, at present I'm supporting the Democrats, so I do hope they commit fraud successfully.  However I doubt that much of what the GOP is making a fuss about is actually fraud. 

The point I'm making is a more general one about privacy and individual rights, and a preference for policing by trained officials and not vigilantes.  I do not relish the idea of a voter being interefered with by just anyone - sounds like a recipe for intimidation, brawling, and completely incapacitated polling stations - conveniently the ones in black neighborhoods.