posted on November 9, 2000 09:50:58 PM newDisenfranchise (verb) to take away power or opportunities, esp. the right to vote, from (a person or group).
I would love to have a nickel for every time I heard the term 'disenfranchise' on CNN in a 8 hour period. I have this vision of Congressman Robert Wexler murmuring over and over in his sleep...
Disenfranchised...
Disenfranchised...
Disenfranchised...
Disenfranchised... zzzzzz
The butterfly ballot has been used for years and years and all of sudden it has now been labeled the 'disenfranchise ballot'.
Isn't it amazing to think that a group of voters that can't manage to understand a ballot want to have a redo so they can choose the president for the rest of the US?
posted on November 10, 2000 07:07:14 AM new
These same people who are not "smart" enough to vote, are the same people who fight and die in our wars and pay taxes.
If they are prevented from voting because of they're not "smart" enough, then I hope you and yours will go to our wars in their stead, and pick up the tax burden, because if disenfranchised, they shouldn't be required to fight or pay taxes.
posted on November 10, 2000 08:52:23 AM new
How simple should voting be? Do we need cardboard cutouts of each candidate so that the voter can just point to the right picture and cast a vote?
The fact is that the ballots in question were not confusing at all. Anyone can follow an arrow. And if they can't, they could have asked for help.
This is an excuse to try to get a revote which will be far more damaging to our electoral system than a few voters being confused and "losing their vote". It was their choice to punch two holes instead of asking for help.
I can just imagine what must have been going through their minds:
"Hmmm... This sure is confusing. I have no idea what those little arrows are for. I think I'll vote for two candidates just to be safe".
You are so simple and repetitive that I wonder what would have happened had you been required to use the ballot in question. It certainly would not have been what you had become accustomed to, and I'm sure now from your posts that any new aspect or problem would have confused you beyond recovery.
posted on November 10, 2000 11:01:01 AM new
It is an election, not an IQ test. Again you argue form over substance.
If these people were unfairly prevented from making their choice for president, a revote is the only solution.
It is interesting that all these republicans now state that if you're not quick witted enough to cast a valid ballot in a prescribed manner, your vote doesn't count. Europe, the Pacific, and Asia have graves of American soldiers that would have mistaken those ballots, yet they were "smart" enough to die for their country, just not smart enough to cast a contrived "valid" vote ?
The substance of an election is for the peoples' will to be heard, not just the voices of those people who jump through the hoops in the prescribed manner.
Bush didn't win this election, and Gore sure didn't lose it.
posted on November 10, 2000 11:14:39 AM newBush didn't win this election, and Gore sure didn't lose it.
Thank you for your opinion. I'll give it all the consideration that it deserves, as I'm sure you will mine.
krs:
I'm sorry if it appears that I'm repeating myself. Simple and repetitive is a sign of being sure in your convictions. Constantly coming up with new theories and rumors is not a sign of being sure in your convictions. The facts don't change from post to post. Sorry.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 10, 2000 11:17 AM ]
posted on November 10, 2000 11:23:28 AM newIf these people were unfairly prevented from making their choice for president, a revote is the only solution.
These people were not unfairly prevented from making their choice for President. They walked into the same voting booth as everyone else who voted in their precints. They had the same opportunity to read the ballot and follow the directions. They had the same opportunity to ask for help to resolve any confusion. They obviously didn't take advantage of their opportunity to vote in a manner consistent with everyone else, the vast majority which had no trouble whatsoever.
How you can read anything more into this is beyond comprehension.
posted on November 10, 2000 11:28:40 AM new
You would think it would be plain common sense that you are not allowed to vote twice on one ballot. The ballots that were thrown out were thrown out due to double punching. The voters should have known better, and 96% of the voters managed to handle it. If those 19,000 voters had gone to a poll worker, and been denied a new ballot, it would be different. But, they finished voting and handed them in, and then cried foul afterwards. It just doesn't wash.
posted on November 10, 2000 11:32:27 AM new
When the people asked if they could re-cast their ballot thinking that their ballot was punched wrong and BEFORE they deposited it into the ballot box, they were told no- contrary to law.
There were also not enough poll workers to answer the questions. Most of the people that mis cast their ballots didn't even realize it.
Bush and his vulgar mob want the Whitehouse by any means.
They may get it, but it is a guaranteed failure before he even takes office.
posted on November 10, 2000 11:37:22 AM new
There is no way that all 19,000 voters were denied new ballots. All the poll workers can't be that misinformed and statistically it is impossible.
There are ballots thrown out in each election due to double votes. It is uninformed, uneducated, careless voters that mis-vote. You can't blame it on either candidate or poll workers. Each voter had the same chance to mark their ballot. 96% managed to mark it just once.
posted on November 11, 2000 09:37:42 AM new
If we use intelligence as a marker, where should we cut it off?
IQ 100 - nice average folks get to vote also
IQ 120 - fun folks who liven up cocktail parties
IQ 140 - getting up there in smarts - sometimes social skills are lacking
Or another measure? Only people who have never made the same mistake twice may vote? Only people who've never bounced a check due to a math error? Only people with combined SAT scores of 1400 or better? People who've never gotten a papercut on their tongues from licking an envelope?
Since we don't use any of those criteria, how about we just create ballots that the simplest of us can understand. And heck, since the population is getting older, how about some larger print? Would any of this be so hard?
To be intelligent and not have compassion for people less gifted or those infirmed by age is truly sad.
posted on November 11, 2000 10:21:28 AM new
Bush's mob? Well, I might be a member but I am certainly not vulgar. Perhaps risque on occasion.
Of course I could be part of Gore's gaggle. I truly regret that I am not vulgar enough to think of a derogatory adjective that begins with the letter G.
