NEWS: Poll-challengers Banned in Ohio

POLITICS: Poll-challengers Banned in Ohio

Two federal judges ruled early Monday morning to ban thousands of poll-challengers across Ohio. The GOP is promising to appeal the decisions but it's nice to see efforts to disenfranchise voters getting the smackdown for now.

So does this mean doctashock gets to vote after all?

Mr. Roehm, take off that brown shirt and stay home.

They're not even trying to hide their bullshit anymore, are they?

when you do it totally overtly, then it's more legal then when you do it all sneaky-like.. like the theft of the 2000 election from al gore.

ok, i've had about as much of this "stole the election" bullshit as I can take. Let's not forget that it was AL GORE that filed the first lawsuit to challenge the election results in Florida. He called Bush to concede the election then, shortly there after, changed his mind and filed suit to challenge the elections.

PLUS with all those liberal media fuckers out there counting, recounting and recounting again the results, none were able to say at the end that Al Gore actually won Florida. All they can say is "he won the popular vote". Clinton NEVER won he popular vote but did you hear anyone from the right bitching about stolen elections?! Hell no.

Make no mistake about it kiddies. It was Al Gore that changed the way elections are held. Al Gore ensured that every election will end up in a law suit by the looser.

Ahhh..;"disenfranchise" ...the left's new code word for when
a Democrat doesn't get to vote. Only the Republicans
are up to tricks in Ohio ..noone got in trouble a few weeks
ago for being paid in crack cocaine to register new
voters,. curiously enough, that gentleman was affiliated
w/ the NAACP..last time I looked, the NAACP wasn't clamoring for Bush's re-election.
And then there's the matter of the counties in Ohio where
recently more people have registered to vote then there
are eligible voters in the county. Oddly enough, most of
the election offices in those counties are run by.. you
guessed it.. Democrats.
But I am glad that people like Michael Jordan, George
Foreman and Mary Poppins have registered to vote lately in Ohio.
Lest they become "disenfranchised" ,you know?


[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 7:45PM]

Remember the Chicago election motto "vote early, vote often".

election results
you might want to check the facts before you get up on your soap box dude. below are the popular vote totals for the candidates in the 1992 and 1996 elections if you don't bother to check the link

1992 William J. Clinton 44,909,889
George H. Bush 39,104,545
H. Ross Perot 19,742,267

1996 William J. Clinton 47,402,357
Robert J. Dole 39,198,755
H. Ross Perot 8,085,402

Where on earth do you get this? Clinton won the popular vote in both 1992 and 1996.

1992
Clinton: 44,908,254
Bush: 39,102,343

1996
Clinton: 47,402,357
Dole: 39,198,755

haha got it first. woot woot.

just kidding.

1992:
Clinton got 44,909,889. People that voted against Clinton 58,846,812.
Last I checked that is less than half. Not the popular vote.

1996:
Clinton got 47,402,357. People that voted agsinst Clinton 47,284,157. Clinton only got the polular vote by 118,200 votes.

In both cases, that isn't a mandate from the public.


>steps back up on the soap box<

Now, prove me wrong on the Flordia issue.

This is completely false. Bush filed the first lawsuit.

The election results I got from the Federal Election Commission breaks down like this:

Clinton: 47,402,357
Dole: 39,198,755
Perot: 8,085,402
Everyone else running: 9,679,522

He won by 1,475,920. He barely got the popluar vote. You got me on 1996.

nevermind, you've already conceded that point.

[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 by Hylian]

By that measure, no one got the popular vote.

Ah, Epistemology. You're arguing that your definition is superior than what others read, because you look at different things. I don't need to argue it - Clinton still won more popular votes than any of his opponents. Now, if you could've merged Perot into the Republican's votes...it would be a different story.

Oh, we can start with the bad tickets in Florida for Gore. How many people voted incorrectly for Buchanan, when they voted for Gore? Were there any complaints about that? (Google search "Buchanan Gore florida vote".)

We can continue with the program of removing people from voters lists because they're similar to felons names. And, maybe leaving a deliberate gap in a group that is more likely to vote Republican.

As far as legal challenges to votes, I'm sure Gore wasn't the first politician to put a lawsuit in for recounts. I don't get worked up on throwaway comments.

On a seperate post...
Disenfranchised. What does it mean? On a real basis, it means when the system (whatever it is) has decided that you're not equal, and deserving of less (or nothing).
[On a practical note, literal definition is deprived of the rights of citizenry, especially the right to vote.]

It's possible to be disenfranchised and be Republican (or Republican-leaning). Based on information from Florida, where the Hispanic vote leans to that side, I'm guessing there will be some. Is it done on purpose?

Systematic disenfrancisement is inflicted on the poor and not-connected. This "code word of the left" is not necessarily a vote for the Democrats. It is a vote for the people, by the people. Yes, it's more of a lefty concept. Does it make it less real?

scooter11 is correct. The Bush team filed the first lawsuit to stop the recount.

But facts never seem to phase the Busheviks... the administration and their media poodles keep repeating the lies until well-meaning people like Meteu believe it.

[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 by sportdeath]

"Voter fraud" isn't new.

Hmmmm....let's look at the numbers again.

1992
Clinton: 44,908,254
Bush: 39,102,343
ok...Clinton got 5,805,911 more votes than Bush. He wins.

1996
Clinton: 47,402,357
Dole: 39,198,755
And he got ,8203,602 more votes here. He wins.

GW Bush 50,456,002
Gore 50,999,897
Look...Gore got 543,895 more votes. He wins. Oh...wait. Nope.

Save me the civics lesson. I am well aware of the electoral college process.

And neither is vote suppression. It's got a proud legacy, going all the way back to Reconstruction.

You really have no idea how the American electoral system works, do you?

Listen to the episode of This American Life that aired on Saturday. TAL One of the segments (the 2nd one, I believe) mentioned your example, You're comparing a few individual cases to several widespread ones.

(The show entitled "Swing Set")

[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 by BillHaverchuck]

I think he's confusing the concept of winning the popular vote with the concept of winning a majority.

Funny he should mention mandates though, considering who's running for re-election...

Yes, but back then it was the Democrats supressing the black vote... Blacks voted republican back then, because Lincoln, a Republican, "freed" them.

[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 by euphplayer]