Voting Integrity

[bjd392]

There are several nationwide issues that can lead to some concerns over this year's elections. Unlike one American Asylum thread that expresses concerns over political parties or candidates, this one takes from the concerns the deceitful news thread.

Here are some of the concerns which (to many of us) seem to violate common sense (and even some laws).

-Failures to meet timelines to distribute absentee ballots, especially with overseas military voters.
-Cases of reverse discrimination voter intimidation.
-Voter eligibility issues:
* Felons and other convicts
* Proof of citizenship
* Cases of "dead voters"
-Canvassing poll places
-Door to door canvassing by illegal immigrants
-Eligibility of the CANDIDATES!


2010 seems to have a lot of media attention as a year in which the vote actually matters. Even though activists from many sides have their agendas, a common sensed intelligent voter shouldn't need to hear the collective psycho-babble in order to make a decision. But putting aside the Democratic or Republican, or Liberal or Conservative view, the one thing I'm concerned about is the huge potential for fraudulent voting this year. For some of the states that were granted 1-day extensions, I'm fearing another controversial repeat of Florida's issue.

[matapule]

Re: Voting Integrity

Here are some of the concerns which (to many of us) seem to violate common sense (and even some laws).

I think most people share those concerns plus several other concerns you didn't mention.

I'm fearing another controversial repeat of Florida's issue.

You mean that the Republicans will be handed the election again by the Supreme Court?

[bjd392]

Re: Voting Integrity

I was hoping to see what other concerns (strictly voting-related, not party-related) that I missed. There's no way those are the only things.

Although a video of some vote counter complaining that there were paper tabs on the ballot stubs (that could easily be pulled off) that nullified that person's vote, comes to mind.

Re: Florida
No, not some belief the Supreme Court will hand over anything, considering a few changed seats; the thought that it would even have to come to that situation again.

[matapule]

Re: Voting Integrity

I was hoping to see what other concerns (strictly voting-related, not party-related) that I missed. There's no way those are the only things.

Here's one to start with, negative campaign ads by both parties. For example, 2 days ago, Matt Lauer challenged both Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman (candidates for CA govenor)to stop the negative campaign. Jerry Brown said he would pull all his negative ads if Whitman agreed to do the same. She refused to do so. This was at the National Women's Conference. If you haven't seen the video, I'll be happy to link it for you. How can you have an honest vote if the voting pool is polluted by dishonest, negative ads?

That alone should be enough for not voting for Whitman. But that is just an example. I don't want to hijack this thread to debating CA politics.

Another concern is the Electoral College rather than a popular vote. I posted a thread two years ago about this. I favor a popular vote. However, the general response from the HT ohana seemed to favor the Electoral College. So be it.

Then there is the concern of potential hacking of electronic voting machines. It can be done.

I could go on, but it is lunch time and I'm hungry. !Buen provecho!

[Ron Whitfield]

You mean that the Republicans will be handed the election again by the Supreme Court?

Only if it's still a righty majority...

[bjd392]

Re: Voting Integrity

When it comes to negative ads, the ones that seem most prevalent nowadays are the deep smearing, personal attacking, selective-sound-byte edited 60 seconds of garbage that clog airwaves. Those certainly should go away, as well as the people who create them.

The negative ads that are more effective really should be based on office history or things deemed unsuccessful. I don't mind hearing an ad that says, "X voted NO on (a measure I support)" or "Y signed a bill that sent $100 million to this wasted project." In many states, the ones that ring true are the negative ads that say, "Z has been in office for 25 years, and this state is still in trouble." So in that case, those would be some of the negative ads that should still run on the air.

Regardless, a biased 30-60 second blurb meant to anger people shouldn't be the sole influence on a voter's decision.

[anapuni808]

Re: Voting Integrity

my own personal opinion is that the folks who are influenced by negative ads are the voters that are not well-informed nor are they very intelligent voters. That is why the ads are so prevalent - there are so many who either don't bother or don't know how, to become better informed so they can make a good decision at the polls. I also think that the negative ads cause a lot of voter apathy which in turn results in a low voter turnout. People become discouraged and just stay home on election day.