Getting back to the original topic though, I still believe that criminals have lost the right to vote.  Remember, we elect more then just Presidents, Senators, and Mayors.  We vote for judges.  We vote for District Attorneys.  We vote for Sheriffs.  Depending on location, we vote for Chief Of Police.  Do we really want convicted felons to have a say in those who they may face at a future date?  I know I do not.  If nothing else, this is a good reason to keep things the way they are. Whether or not felons who have not paid their debts to society should be allowed to vote is one thing.  Once they've paid their fines and served their sentences, they should have the right to vote.  If we start forbidding people to vote based on prejudice against HOW they will vote, then I will lobby to disenfrancise southern white males, because I generally disagree with the way THEY vote.

And I read that article.  There is a lot that is NOT said there.  For example, Thomas Alvin Cooper.  They mention he is scheduled to be convicted in 2007, which is an obvious mistake.  However, they do not ask a simple question: is he a previously convicted felon?  I bet that he is, and there is simply a typo for the year.
The very fact you are willing to say this gives me the chills.  You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  That's what the Data collection company wanted to do, that's what the state of Florida paid them to do.  Choicepoint was paid to take that raw list and and make darn sure that every single name on that list was indeed a convicted felon.  Harris said "no."  She told them NOT to do the work the state already paid them for. They were happy with a bloated list of raw, uncorroberated, unsubstantiated data.  The company's work wasn't even halfway done.
Now, what you are saying, Mushroom, is Thomas Alvin is guilty by association.  That's like saying, well, he's black, so he probably DID do a felony, so let's disenfranchise him anyway.  Actually, that's what Harris's office did.  When there are eight or ten thousand unproven names like Alvin's is there a problem with official corrucption and election fraud?  You BET there IS!  Shame, shame, shame, and shame!

As far as Johnny Jackson Jr., that is a mistake.  But who cares that the conviction was in Texas.  If they WERE the same person, then he still can not vote in Florida.  Because it is Florida law that matters in Florida, not Texas law.
Nooooo, if you don't have a Florida felony record, you can vote in Florida.  It was illegal to disenfranchise Florida citizens who had been convicted of felonies in other states.

If people are put on the list by mistake, then it should be easily cleared up.  I love how people will scream about people who are excluded by mistake, and ignore illegal votes.  Illegal Aliens, Resident Aliens,dead people, people who double vote, convicts who vote under assumed names.  This is also an attempt to violate the voteing system.

If you're on Harris's list, and your black, you're not going to be able to clear it up.  If the cops even let you get to the polls, they're just going to say you're not registered.  Go home, boy.  And, yes voter fraud is voter fraud, so let's not elect people who commit it to the U.S. House of Representatives, thank you.

Whether or not felons who have not paid their debts to society should be allowed to vote is one thing.  Once they've paid their fines and served their sentences, they should have the right to vote.  If we start forbidding people to vote based on prejudice against HOW they will vote, then I will lobby to disenfrancise southern white males, because I generally disagree with the way THEY vote.


Now WHERE did I complain about how they MIGHT vote?  I simply asked if we wanted these people to vote for the people who MAY at a later date work to put them back in jail.  And please do not bring up race.  I did not say anything about it, and that is how you are born.

We are born the color we are, we do not choose it.  However, people DO choose to become criminals.  They violate the laws, so I have no pity for them when they loose some of the rights the rest of us enjoy.


The very fact you are willing to say this gives me the chills.  You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  That's what the Data collection company wanted to do, that's what the state of Florida paid them to do.  Choicepoint was paid to take that raw list and and make darn sure that every single name on that list was indeed a convicted felon.  Harris said "no."  She told them NOT to do the work the state already paid them for. They were happy with a bloated list of raw, uncorroberated, unsubstantiated data.  The company's work wasn't even halfway done.


Yes, I agree.  And Felons have been CONVICTED!  They are guilty.

As far as Katherine Harris, I thought she was a Democrat.  She also screamed about how people were discounted during the 2000 election.

Personally, I question the wisdom of a private company being given the names of voters and felons.  This is part of the governments job, and giving such information to a private company gives me the chills personally.  Then they release names and records to the public, that is even worse.  But nobody screams about that violation of privacy.


Now, what you are saying, Mushroom, is Thomas Alvin is guilty by association.  That's like saying, well, he's black, so he probably DID do a felony, so let's disenfranchise him anyway.


OK, now just stop right there!!!!!  *NOWHERE* did I say anything even remotely like that!  And don't you *DARE* try to even hint that I may be a raceist.

NOWHERE does it say his race, and I could not care less.  What I am saying is that everything seems to match BUT his date of conviction.  If 4 out of 5 facts are right, I am more likely to go with the 4 that are right, and consider the 5th a mistake.  That is the case here.  If it is a mistake, it should be fixed.

Now I do not care if a felong is white, red, black, green, yellow, or purple.  I *NEVER* care about race.  Criminals (and good decent people) come in all races.  Race always has been a meaningless statistic to me.  So kindly stop throwing it in my face, and trying to make *ME* out to be a raceist.


Nooooo, if you don't have a Florida felony record, you can vote in Florida.  It was illegal to disenfranchise Florida citizens who had been convicted of felonies in other states.


Not true.  Just like if you loose your drivers license in Georgia, you can't go to ALabama and get one.  Because the form states "Have you ever lost your license".  I saw a Florida registration form last year.  It says "Have you ever been convicted of a felony".  It does not say "In Florida". 


If you're on Harris's list, and your black, you're not going to be able to clear it up.  If the cops even let you get to the polls, they're just going to say you're not registered.  Go home, boy.  And, yes voter fraud is voter fraud, so let's not elect people who commit it to the U.S. House of Representatives, thank you.


OK, now who is being raceist and bigoted?  That has never been proven to have happen in the last 2 decades that I am aware of.  This is Cuba.  There are no police at the polls in the United States.  If somebody is not on the roles, they simply are not given a ballot.  Plain and simple.  We are not talking about Jim Crow era here.

As a matter of fact, Jim Crowe is largely dead and gone.  That is my grandparent's generation and older.  Most people I know are deeply ashamed of that era.

And let's not forget who the major leader of Jom Croew laws was.  Yes, my good friend George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama.

Isn't that basically what the electoral college does?  They can vote for whomever they wish, regardless of what "we the people" say.


That depends on the state they are electors for.

Traditionally, they all vote as a block for whoever was the vote leader of that state.  But they are not required to vote that way.

In fact, when you vote you are not voting directly for the President, but for who will be your Elector.  Whichever party wins the state gets all the electors as a block.  They assemble in December and cast the official ballots for President and Vice President.

This was done in a day where communication was slow, often taking days or weeks to assemble the final totals in an election.  This allowed a state to have it's vote, then have several electors represent them in the National Ellection.

As for the fairness, it is just as fair as out Legislative process.  California gets more Electors then Idaho, because it has a larger population.  In just the same way, it gets more Representatives in the House. 

In fact, this system was set up in 1824, after a scandal denied Andrew Jackson the Presidency, even though he won the majority vote.  This scandal helped set up the current system.

In 1876, the Electoral College itself had to vote for Rutheford Hayes, even though Samual Tilden won the popular vote.  Hayes won the electors for the states of South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida.  But they refused to vote unless Reconstruction was lifted.  In a compromise, Federal Troops were pulled out, Reconstruction ended, and Hayes was elected President.

In 1888, incumbant Democratic President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, vut lost the Electoral College to Benjamin Harrison.  This happened because Cleveland won most of the states, but Harrison won the states with the largest population.  This changed 4 years later when Harrison was upset by Cleveland.  This allowed Grover Cleveland to be the only President to win 2 terms that were not consecutive.

The outcome in 2000 was not original.  I agree that the Electoral College was a good idea, who's time is past.  It was designed for a time when horseback was the fastest way to travel, and was the only practial system for a National Election in the early 1800's.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

OK, now just stop right there!!!!!   *NOWHERE* did I say anything even remotely like that!  And don't you *DARE* try to even hint that I may be a raceist.
I didn't say YOU were racist, I said your prejudice regarding the unverified felons list was akin to racism.

NOWHERE does it say his race, and I could not care less.  What I am saying is that everything seems to match BUT his date of conviction.  If 4 out of 5 facts are right, I am more likely to go with the 4 that are right, and consider the 5th a mistake.  That is the case here.  If it is a mistake, it should be fixed.
OHHHH, yes it does.  That "felons" list had every individual's race listed.  That's how Katherine Harris knew to exclude people guilty of being black.  Blacks will most likely vote Democrat.  The more blacks we can disenfranchise, the better it would be for Republicans

Now I do not care if a felong is white, red, black, green, yellow, or purple.  I *NEVER* care about race.  Criminals (and good decent people) come in all races.  Race always has been a meaningless statistic to me.  So kindly stop throwing it in my face, and trying to make *ME* out to be a raceist.
YOU never care about the race of criminals, but Harris and Jeb Bush sure do!



Not true.  Just like if you loose your drivers license in Georgia, you can't go to ALabama and get one.  Because the form states "Have you ever lost your license".  I saw a Florida registration form last year.  It says "Have you ever been convicted of a felony".  It does not say "In Florida". 
You may be right.  I'll have to check again.  Are you sure the felon disenfranchisement law in Florida includes felonies committed in other states?



OK, now who is being raceist and bigoted?  That has never been proven to have happen in the last 2 decades that I am aware of.  This is Cuba.  There are no police at the polls in the United States.  If somebody is not on the roles, they simply are not given a ballot.  Plain and simple.  We are not talking about Jim Crow era here.
This Jim Crow kind of intimidation at the polls does happen in the South.  It is well-documented.  And it did happen in Florida in 2000.  There were roadblocks stopping African Americans and turning them back.  Gore just didn't have the cajones to make this an issue.  Shame on him.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20040701/ltmsho040702.gif




;D




Cat

Isn't that basically what the electoral college does?  They can vote for whomever they wish, regardless of what "we the people" say.


Technically (legallly) you are right.  Electors can vote for whomever they choose.  James Madison (the Federalist # 10) thought they would be the good, wise, disinterested patriots that would put factious interests aside.  The 2 party system, which he and the others did not forsee and would not approve but which was inevitable, rendered this right meaningless.  Each party puts up its list of electors, who are alway staunch party people.  The likelyhood of any of them voting for the other guy at the Electoral  Collage is on a par with a snow ball not melting in hell, or in Florida.  In fact, there may have been only one case where something like that happened - the Hayes - Tilden 1876 election, which R.B. Hayes (a Republican) probably stole, and without the Supreme Court's intervention. 

I didn't say YOU were racist, I said your prejudice regarding the unverified felons list was akin to racism.


That is such a fine line that even somebody as subtle as I am has problems telling one from the other.  I have no prejudice against the list, you do.  I am willing to accept it as it is, you are the one that is prejudiced against it.


OHHHH, yes it does.  That "felons" list had every individual's race listed.  That's how Katherine Harris knew to exclude people guilty of being black.  Blacks will most likely vote Democrat.  The more blacks we can disenfranchise, the better it would be for Republicans


Well then screw it.  You seem obsessed around the concept that Republicans want to disenfranchise people.  You are so obsessed with it, you ignore all history and go on with opinion claiming it is fact.  

Lets ignore the FACT that Reconstruction was enacted by REPUBLICANS to force Southern states to allow blacks to vote.  Lets ignore the FACT that it worked until 1876, when DEMOCRATS forced it's repeal, which started the Jim Crowe era.  Lets ignore the FACT that Democratic Governor of Alabama George Wallace is the one that caused some of the worst atrocities in civil rights history.

To make it even more muddy, guess who had the endorsement of the NAACP for Governor in 1958?  That's right, George Wallace.


YOU never care about the race of criminals, but Harris and Jeb Bush sure do!


I don't care about the race of anybody.  But to me, criminals are criminals.  If they are not allowed to vote, then they are not allowed to vote.  PERIOD.  Red, Yellow, White, Black, does not matter to me in the least.


You may be right.  I'll have to check again.  Are you sure the felon disenfranchisement law in Florida includes felonies committed in other states?


Yes, I just asked again, and did some fast checking.  The form only asks if you had a felony conviction, not WHERE.


This Jim Crow kind of intimidation at the polls does happen in the South.  It is well-documented.  And it did happen in Florida in 2000.  There were roadblocks stopping African Americans and turning them back.   Gore just didn't have the cajones to make this an issue.  Shame on him.


Roadblocks that stopped blacks from voting in 2000?  Prove this please.  I live in Alabama, less then 20 miles from Florida.  I have not heard of this, and neither has anybody else that I know of.

You seem to have this picture of the South as it was 30+ years ago, not as it is today.  If roadblocks really happened, I am shocked that none of the Police have been brought up on Federal Civil Rights charges.  If this is true, why have we not heard of it?

I remember some people talking right after the election, but all were proven to be false.  Just the same way that people claimed that what Bush did was akin to Reconstruction.  Never mind that Reconstruction GAVE blacks the power to vote, and it's repeal took it away.

Please verify at least some facts before saying things like that.  All it does it make you look like Michael Moore.

:)