And the dirty elections continue

[unixronin]

Seems the Macomb County, Michigan Republican Party is gathering a list of foreclosed homes prior to the November election.

Why?

Apparently so that they can deny the foreclosed-upon their votes, since some of them are no longer technically residents of the precinct.  "Mean-spirited" is putting it mildly.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:  The people running the political machines are scum of the worst kind.

---

Update:

It's been pointed out to me that this is far from an objective source.  I don't know anything about ACORN, which features prominently.  Biased source or not, I'm still disgusted by the dirty tricks that both [arties pull to either disqualify voters for the other party or invalidate their ballots by any means possible.  I clearly remember the 2000 campaign, and the Gore campaign lawyers distributing an inch-thick book to Democratic counting-room staff in Florida detailing all the possible ways to invalidate military absentee ballots on minor technicalities, because military absentee voters were expected to vote for Bush.

What the fuck happened to democracy and everyone being entitled to vote?  How do you get from that to "Use every dirty trick in the book to disenfranchise as many opposing voters as you possibly can"?

I personally won't be surprised if I wake up one day to find Congress has passed a new election law that, without actually saying so in so many words, makes it illegal to vote for any candidate who isn't either Democratic or Republican.  Call me cynical, but I suspect a major reason why it hasn't happened already is simply that they haven't figured out a way to get away with it.

Comments

[robbat2.livejournal.com]

You deny the possibility that people might still be living in their foreclosed homes either because they won't move out, or more commonly, because they have reached some agreement with the lenders. In which case both the address and the foreclosure status are correct.

[novel-tharkun.livejournal.com]

No voter registration form I've ever seen allows someone forcibly removed from domicile to claim homeless. Does that mean that someone who fails to obtain housing is legally unable to vote?

In fact, as shelters are transitory housing and can't be used for registration purposes (to my very limited understanding), it would appear that the answer is yes. So much for eliminating "land-owners" from the criteria. Just substituted land-holders.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

The general rule is, "if you sleep there and the US Mail can deliver a postcard to you there, you can register to vote from there." The homeless are allowed to vote; I don't see why transitory housing would be any different.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Rather amazingly (or not, considering their aim was to get people fired up at those 'orrible, 'orrible, racist republikkkans), the paper didn't ask what was actually going to be the status that will be checked.

people might still be living in their foreclosed homes either because they won't move out,

Then they're trespassers. They're living someone they have no right to. IANAL, and I don't know what that means in terms of voting. But that very act does raise the question that they, in fact (or someone in their name), are not living there. It's worth further investigation.

more commonly, because they have reached some agreement with the lenders.

Then there should be no problem. Just because a challenge is made does not mean that it will be *upheld*. That's why there are procedures for these sorts of things.

[robbat2.livejournal.com]

The act of being challenged is the source of the problem. Not that it may be upheld. Of those challenged, how many will just give up, or won't be able to pull whatever additional proof is required of them out in sufficient time? Or merely that they don't have the time to get the proof, as they need to get back to work (depends on electoral system).

The additional matter is that those challenged because of foreclosure will be of a certain demographic, combined with selective enforcement of the check in voting districts, and you've got a way to exclude some chunk of voters.

Not being familiar with the intricacies of the US or even the Canadian electoral systems, just wondering, is the actual voting held on a public holiday or not?

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

The act of being challenged is the source of the problem.

Yes, if abusive. But just like any other check it has to be available. You can't say that the confirmation of voting eligibility is by itself bad. (You're required to at least nominally do that in any election to someone.)

Of those challenged, how many will just give up, or won't be able to pull whatever additional proof is required of them out in sufficient time? Or merely that they don't have the time to get the proof, as they need to get back to work (depends on electoral system).

No, it's not a holiday.

But in the case of a disputed ballot, such as an observer claiming a problem, it wouldn't be solved there. A provisional ballot would be cast and set aside for later adjudication.

The additional matter is that those challenged because of foreclosure will be of a certain demographic,

That's an assumption currently unbacked by facts. (Other than they're in the demographic of "About to lose the house".) The housing crunch has been spread pretty decently through demographics.

combined with selective enforcement of the check in voting districts, and you've got a way to exclude some chunk of voters.

Nothing stops any other party from doing the exact same thing in any district, or even the government from correcting the polls automatically. (Other than the default, rabid screams of racism that invariably occur.)