SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian reports:
Georgia secretary of state and gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp improperly purged more than 340,000 voters from the state's registration rolls, an investigation charges.
Greg Palast, a journalist and the director of the Palast Investigative Fund, said an analysis he commissioned found 340,134 voters were removed from the rolls on the grounds that they had moved - but they actually still live at the address where they are registered.
"Their registration is cancelled. Not pending, not inactive – cancelled. If they show up to vote on 6 November, they will not be allowed to vote. That's wrong," Palast told reporters on a call on Friday. "We can prove they're still there. They should be allowed to vote."
[...] Palast and the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda filed a lawsuit against Kemp on Friday to force him to release additional records related to the state's removal of voters.
Under Georgia procedures, registered voters who have not cast ballots for three years are sent a notice asking them to confirm they still live at their address. If they don't return it, they are marked inactive. If they don't vote for two more general elections after that, they are removed from the rolls.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by archfeld on Tuesday October 23 2018, @10:12PM (33 children)
How can the current secretary of state also be a candidate and not have a conflict of interest ? If you are running for office you should automatically be recused from overseeing the same election.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 23 2018, @10:26PM
In the US, a conflict of interest is not something that actually stops people with power from doing what they want, that's how. As for elections specifically, nearly all secretaries of state in the US are partisan officials who can and do use the power of their office with the goal of giving themselves and/or their buddies a better chance to win. And they get away with it because they are in turn protected by said buddies (e.g. elected state supreme court judges) from the legal consequences of their actions.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @10:30PM (2 children)
Dude, this is the south, okay? The guy is probably his brother's father.
As far as conflict of interest goes, I don't see much effort to remedy that. That kind of stuff is business as usual. The voters don't seem to mind. They keep on reelecting these goofs. Let 'em do their thing.
(Score: 5, Informative) by stretch611 on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:48AM (1 child)
Well now there are potentially 340,000 votes against this asshat that will not even be considered. Makes it harder to not re-elect him.
In addition, Brian Kemp and his office are named in a lawsuit for:
- blocking 53,000 voter registration applications [11alive.com],
- Throwing out a disproportionate number of absentee ballots [11alive.com],
- election machine hacking under his watch [onlineathens.com] (and he refuse to upgrade the machines which lack a paper trail.
Note that his office can throw out absentee ballots on a whim [electoral-vote.com] without even needing to notify people that it was done or even allow them to appeal the decision.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @02:34AM
Yes, and the effort to counter any of this is too feeble to notice. The voters have to take their own initiative.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 23 2018, @11:16PM (18 children)
However, I am sure that these 340000 people will be overjoyed that they won't have to pay any taxes any more. No taxation without representation, after all - I think there's a war that proves that such principles hold.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday October 23 2018, @11:31PM (17 children)
The irony is if you believe the far fetched reports, he's implementing no representation without taxation, which ends up being about the same thing. The people de-registered are not known as a group to be net positive taxpayers, so refusal to participate in governmental activities would mostly result in ...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 23 2018, @11:43PM (16 children)
Winding up with a whole class of people disenfranchised. I'm sure nothing could go wrong there at all.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:13AM (4 children)
In general I unironically agree with you.
In specific, as regards Georgia, with a "winner takes all" election technology and the -R margin of victory being immensely larger than the small percentages seriously being claimed... all the noise just doesn't matter. As a thought experiment say the right capitulated and as some kind of racial reparation payment disenfranchised an equal number of white men; the margins are such that nothing would really change in Georgia. Tempest in a teacup and all that.
Combining your comment and mine, fundamentally we're just trash talking Georgia. Its not really that bad of a place, but whatevs.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:28AM (3 children)
It doesn't need to be a thought experiment, as it has been done before. It ends in violence.
You should read a history book once in a while.
Even better, the idiots that rule over you should.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:54AM (2 children)
Really? I'd be fascinated with an actual citation or example. It doesn't sound very realistic at all.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 24 2018, @01:14AM (1 child)
You could start with the revolutions of 1848 I suppose.
Most of those have remarkable similarities with the current setup in the US.
Looking at the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 might learn you a thing or two also.
Of course it might not too, because I am well aware of how your lot feel about Communists. Frankly, looking at the history of almost any European country from 1700 - 1945 or so would be useful.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:09PM
The Russian revolution established a democratic government under the Duma. Unfortunately, probably, it didn't last long enough to consolidate it's power and was overthrown by the Bolsheviks in essentially a coup. (There was a different Duma before the revolution. The word is just "assembly" in Russian, so it's not surprising that it was used for several different bodies.)
It's an interesting question as to what kind of government would have evolved if the Bolshevik coup had failed, but AFAIK the evidence isn't very strong in any direction. Think of the US before the Articles of Confederation were adopted. A mix of chaos and demagoguery, with lots of politics. Only a bit more violent and extreme.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:18AM (9 children)
Given the side dish that the people being disenfranchised were supposedly being specifically targeted because they historically have individually not voted...
I'm just sayin... if you want to disenfranchise a class of people with minimal effort and fight, your best target selection is to disenfranchise the class of self selected people who don't vote, which makes the whole topic kind of comedic.
I mean, if they really want a fight, the -R party should disenfranchise only people who've voted in the last ten partisan primaries for the D party. That would at least be fun to watch, worth popping some popcorn for.
(Score: 4, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:34AM (2 children)
What a weird way to run a country. You should put some adults in charge instead.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:52AM (1 child)
Well, OK, I'm trying to make the point if you have a James Bond Villain trying to mess up elections, its more of an "Austin Powers" parody to try and "hack" the election by preventing known non-voters from voting. Thats not going to be very effective...
That would imply if the supposed villian's IQ is above room temperature, than maybe the whole squabble is made up fake news?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 24 2018, @01:09AM
Really?
OK then.
(Score: 2) by http on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:47AM (5 children)
Uh, no. Deregistering the voters means that no amount of campaigning, door-to-door, or socialmedia advertising can get them to vote.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by VLM on Wednesday October 24 2018, @01:10AM (4 children)
Well, yeah, so if hypothetically the victim of today's two minutes hate were a bad actor, you'd think he'd target the people active and most likely to vote, not least likely to vote.
I mean, when some rando on SN in mere minutes can plan an evil conspiracy better than the people supposedly involved in the conspiracy ... maybe the whole thing is just a conspiracy theory. It does seem to have great headlines and tweets and anything deeper than a rain puddle examination of the topic starts looking not so impressive.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Wednesday October 24 2018, @02:23AM (3 children)
Counter opinion: almost no voters change their minds about whom they will vote for. Elections are won and lost by getting "your" people out to vote (and by suppressing the voters who would vote for the opposition).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:28AM
Countering your broad overgeneralisation with my anecdata:
My entire family abandoned the Dems over the course of the last .... oh, decade or so. Some went republican, some went green, at least one went libertarian to my knowledge, but I can't think of a single close family member who will admit to even wanting the democrats in office.
So I guess I live in a family of party-changing freaks.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 24 2018, @11:03AM (1 child)
Well, OK, and which candidate is being hurt by suppressing people who historically have not voted?
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday October 25 2018, @02:58AM
The one who has pissed off these people enough that they would finally vote.
Here in Canada, the Conservatives pissed of the natives enough that many who had never voted actually went out and tried to vote. These natives generally did not recognize the Canadian government as they'd made treaties with the crown and many had not voted in generations, but they got pissed off enough that they voted, or tried to. Of course the Conservative party took advice from the American Republican party on how to repress votes. Need ID with a numbered street address, well most reservations don't have numbered street addresses so their ID wasn't good enough. Or like my wife, whose ID is in her maiden name, has always voted under her maiden name mysteriously had her voter registration change to her married name between checking the voter list the day before the election and showing up to vote.
This is problem with requiring ID to vote. Good idea when done impartially such as here for years, bad idea when a party is prepared to cheat.
(Score: 4, Touché) by http on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:50AM
Hopefully, it would also end up with a whole class of businesses disenfranchised. That would be worth it for the lulz alone.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by VLM on Tuesday October 23 2018, @11:23PM (9 children)
I suppose you could have states oversee each other's elections, but at some point the game of "who watches the watchers" gets pointless.
Some data that needs to be censored to keep the uninformed rage going, is WRT the supposed crook, he won his last election by 58% vs 42% and even the most rabid screechers high on their own holiness have not claimed he's disenfranchised more than, say, 8% of the states population.
So theoretically consider a dude who won 51/49 and disenfranchises 10% of the population, well, thats looking very crooked, there's obvious motivation to break the law there.
But a guy who won by sixteen points maybe risking felony by increasing the ratio to 24 points; it just doesn't add up as a plausible criminal act.
Its just "every white man is literally Hitler" rabble rousing as opposed to an actual story. Its just not plausible or realistic.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23 2018, @11:33PM
Stop your dog whistling bullshit. You've shown yourself many times before, but this is one example that shouldn't be a partisan issue yet that is all you can come up with.
You are one evil person.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:43AM (6 children)
The Australian Electoral Commission is an independent body that oversees voter registration, electorate boundaries, campaign rules, vote tallying etc. Politicians have no involvement or influence.
This Map [aec.gov.au] shows the electorate boundaries and results from 2016. As you can see, not a lot of gerrymandering here.
So before you throw your hands up and say it's all too hard, consider an independent body. Oh wait, this is the US we're talking about - there's no such thing as an independent body there. Sorry.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 24 2018, @01:06AM (4 children)
The USA is too multicultural, or AUS doesn't have enough identity politics, to pull it off.
In the USA both housing location and politics are mostly racial; for example historically far over 90% of africans vote for only one party in the USA. Essentially everyone except very young urbanite college kids live in mostly homogeneous ethnic neighborhoods. That compounds with identity politics to result in some breathtaking gerrymandering.
My limited understanding of AUS politics is your party structure is vaguely socioeconomic class based, like wealthy and white collar vs blue collar, more or less. It would be interesting to hear if that is correct. I'm well aware my one liner could not possibly contain all possible intrigue although I believe in good faith (possibly incorrectly) that it's an accurate ultra-short summary of AUS politics. As such I would not be surprised to hear gerrymandering is not an issue.
(Score: 4, Informative) by deimtee on Wednesday October 24 2018, @01:57AM
It used to be that way. Labour was for the proles, Liberal was for the rich bastards, National Party was country voters. Historically the Libs and Nats had similar policies and combined into the LNP (aka The Coalition), which put them about on par with Labour.
The most major of the minor parties was the Australian Democrats, who tried to get the balance of power in the upper house with the very Australian slogan "keep the bastards honest".
However, with the decline of unions the working class element is slowly being purged from Labour, and they are drifting to the right. The LNP, in an effort to differentiate are also drifting further right on some stuff that doesn't matter. Economically the two parties are almost indistinguishable.
This is leading to the rise of many small parties, who get voted for by people pissed off with both main parties. Since we have preference voting, you can vote for anyone you like without 'throwing your vote away'. Rising parties include the Greens (lefties) and One Nation (further right than the mains). The Pirate Party and Sex Party (both libertarianesque) have also made respectable showings in some elections.
I am now one of the growing group of people who routinely puts the two major parties at the bottom of the list in the probably futile hope that throwing more parties and independents into parliament will slow the bastards down a bit.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @02:00AM
Yep, they voted Republican, the party of Mr. Lincoln, until the dixiecrats joined the Republicans during the '60s civil rights movement.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday October 24 2018, @02:00AM
Racial politics is much less prevalent here, but there are definitely the equivalent of 'red' and 'blue' suburbs, states etc.
The major parties in Australia are Labor (working class, pro union, left wing) and the Liberal/National coalition (pro-business, socially more conservative particularly in the past 10-15 years, right wing though probably still to the left of the US DNC). The only other significant party are the Greens (environment and social justice, 'far left'). There is also minor representation nationally from One Nation (anti-immigration, 'far right'), Family First (bring back the 1950's, 'far right') and a few independents.
The two major parties would love to bury the Greens, as they have been growing in popularity and have managed to win seats. Labor in particular is worried because the Greens are eating into their base more than anyone else. The Greens have won a few federal seats which could have been prevented if the incumbents had the ability to gerrymander.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MostCynical on Wednesday October 24 2018, @02:41AM
there has been major gerrymandering at the State level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjelkemander [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_state_election,_1968 [wikipedia.org]
but very little at National/Federal level.
the process [funnelback.com] is quite a-political.
Australia still has a reasonably independent government bureaucracy, and, while Heads Of Departments are appointed by the government of the day (to varying [theguardian.com] levels of influence and attempts at partisan or non-partisan appointments), there is still a strong sense of serving the people (Public Service), not the government.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday October 25 2018, @03:23AM
Canada likewise has Elections Canada which does the same thing as an independent body. The only resident citizens who can't vote are the head and deputy of Elections Canada. When the Conservatives got their majority election before last, first thing they started was neutering Elections Canada. Things like no longer being able to encourage people to vote, including no more volunteers everywhere registering voters. Power to investigate fraud and similar shit taken away and so on. If they'd stayed in government, I'd hate to see how things would have gone, same with if they get another majority.
Another thing the right is doing here is pushing for voting in (and out) Judges, as they really don't like most civil rights and Judges kept ruling against them, including striking down laws. Ended up with the PM fighting with the head of the Supreme Court when they tried to appoint an unqualified Judge.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Wednesday October 24 2018, @06:16PM
Why would you need the feds ? Just someone who isn't one of the candidates in the election. Elect or appoint a replacement for the duration of the election. Isn't there a Deputy Secretary of State or some such person ? I wasn't able to tell from the article if the removal of the voters was according to the long term rules or in violation of those rules which does have a huge impact on the story. They have a set procedure in place which seems more than generous and if it was followed it makes this story a non-event. If that procedure was violated then it should be a malfeasance of office or criminal issue at the very least.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge