Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditThere were two good pieces of news for an engaged electorate in the last few days.
On Friday, Missouri efforts to pass a constitutional amendment that would require voters to bring proof of citizenship to the polls failed to make it to a final vote. Activists opposing the measure estimated that it would have stopped more than 200,000 citizens from voting.
Today, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a bill that that would have required photo identification to vote. As she rightly said, the bill was allegedly designed to solve a problem that doesnt' exist."
There are serious challenges facing states as they try to count votes accurately, design easily comprehensible ballots, and create a workable bureacracy to make the most profoundly important democratic act as simple as possible--in a constantly moving and very diverse population. It is critical for states to keep good records, and invest in good administration procedures.
However, the efforts to require identification at the polls are cynical, undemocratic shams. The last thing we need, at this point, is for voters to feel scared, humiliated, or uncertain about whether they belong at the polls.
One difficulty with these laws is that on first blush, they sound fine--what's wrong with requiring proof of citizenship?--and that the people most likely to pass them (and judge them in the courts) are also the people least likely to be daunted by trying to find a birth certificate or Social Security card. Another is that they combine with ex-felon voting restrictions to create a culture in which being a voter starts to seem like something surrounded by a web of hurdles, something daunting instead of something automatic. A third is that bureacratic hurdles costs time and money, both of which are in short supply among poor populations.
As Sebelius says, no problem is being solved with these efforts. There are no devious political entrepreneurs doing serial poll-impersonations in order to change elections. I'm proud of Sebelius and the Missouri legislature for pushing back against the disenfranchisement wave, and proud of the great work by dozens of activists in both states to make thousands of phone calls to legislators.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrick Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Wonkette
>>>What's America coming to?
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/19/2008 <<<
HAPP,
Let's focus on getting "most" Americans to the polls first before discouraging others!
With turn-out still below 50%, focusing on "impediments" to voting seems wrong-headed. Why can't 80-90% of eligible Americans vote like they do in other advanced (and even some not so advanced) countries?
Improve turn-out first, then we can talk about imaginary campaigns to hijack democracy in America!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/19/2008 @ 3:52pm
Here is a novel idea to increase voter turn-out...how about a $300 tax deduction for every American who votes?
Posted by Metteyya at 05/19/2008 @ 3:56pm
Mettya,
I bet most American would do it for a $3.00 deduction (or credit as the case may be)
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/19/2008 @ 4:08pm
besides .. isn't this all kind of redundant as one must show ID to register to vote? Hence a voter reg should suffice as ID, or any ID in lieu of the voter reg card .. as there is a list of registered voters on site anyway.
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/19/2008 @ 4:14pm
Always curious....WHEN we get universal health care run by the Fed...
will you need to show an ID at SOME point in the process of going to your local Federal Hospital or doctor?
If so...isn't that a "imposition" on the poor and elderly?
If not...how do you plan on stopping fraud, waste, and abuse?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 4:51pm
This constant parading of objections by the left to providing ID to vote suggests a real question.
Why do those on the left not care whether that person voting is actually the registered voter and that they are indeed a citizen?
Perhaps it is due to their globalist, one world philosophy and open border mentality.
They have no real disagreement with ID to buy alcohol or cigarettes (in fact these were often liberal pieces of legislation).
They insist on background checks to buy a gun or rifle.
Yet demonstrating that you are actually you and have a right to vote is discrimination in their minds.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008 @ 4:55pm
Under the current rules, Democrats have been far more successful at stealing elections that republicans. (President 1960, SD Senate 2000, WA governor 2006.)
Fraud gives them more political power. It's as simple as that.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/19/2008 @ 6:19pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/19/2008
MBB, you know, you're getting to be REAL predictable.
First it's a "Dems are bad...here's an example or two".
Then somebody posts how some Republicans did the same thing, even worse.
Then you post "Oh, sure. I'm not saying both sides don't do it" and act all bipartisan...
until the next post on how "Dems are bad...here's an example or two" and the process starts all over again.
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 7:52pm
Fraud gives them more political power. It's as simple as that.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/19/2008 | ignore this person
.
Darin, you are partisan to the point of self-delusion.
It's as simple as that.
Posted by Lillian at 05/19/2008 @ 8:05pm
This is really scary, but I do think lvliberty1 has a point here. To quote HAPPY3: 'what's America coming to?'
Look, there's no point in having rules about who gets to vote and who doesn't, without the means to enforce those rules. I'm not saying that having to bring your ID to the polls isn't silly - it most certainly is - but given the somewhat retarded nature of America's democratic infrastructure it may be just about the only way to ensure that those who show up to vote are actually American citizens. Otherwise, what's to stop me from registering to vote in the United States and showing up at an American polling station next November? My English is fluent, my American accent flawless. I'd stand a decent chance, I think, if taken at face value.
I have never registered to vote. I never had to. My birth was registered, and I've been in the system ever since. I was automatically registered to vote after I turned 18. Some weeks prior to every election, the city of Amsterdam sends me a card which I have to bring with me to the polling station. I trade it in for a ballot sheet and that's that. That's the way it's done in The Netherlands and in every other Western European country. It's so simple, really. Why can't the United States, which always prides itself on being the greatest democracy in the world, develop some kind of system for automatic voter registration, and take it from there?
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 05/19/2008 @ 8:46pm
Mask, I assume when there is universal health care there will be a "card" to ID those with universal versus those who are covered at work. A non-issue...
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/19/2008 @ 9:08pm
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/19/2008
Okay, so why couldn't we ask for THAT ID at voting time...and it not be "vote suppression"?
Again, if the IDs are free (yes, a caveat that I will throw out my argument if it isn't supplied for free)....what's the problem?
But I'll tell you this is LOUSY politics and plays right into the hands of the Right (as noted by our right-wing posters) into the idea of LEFT-wing voter fraud and "dead guys voting in Chicago".
Especially since the Left is so fond of "free stuff" anyway and they're not saying "No, we'll support the voter ID as long as the IDs are free and easy to access" instead of "No IDs ever!!!!" (a la Joan Crawford) that they're saying now.
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 9:55pm
That's the way it's done in The Netherlands and in every other Western European country.
by hamsterdam69
ditto.
show up with card.
pick up pencil.
mark x.
stick in box.
pretty complicated, huh?
Monday, May 19, 2008 10:18:09 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 10:11pm
Exactly, on the idea that if you are gonna require identification, then it must be free. There should be no problem with that if people who want such a rule are truly concerned with making sure people voting are citizens. Of course, that will require identification to get the identification, so I am sure we can count on the Republican party to try and set strict limits on that, maybe an RNC membership card.
As to the idea mentioned above that the Washington State election was rigged by Democrats, where is the proof? I live out here, and Gregoire is foul (as is Rossi, her opponent last election and this one, I think), but nary a shred of evidence has been shown that the election was rigged. Conspiracy, hidden, no doubt.
Posted by onthehelm at 05/19/2008 @ 10:22pm
Maybe George Soros could be convinced to fund a project to identify every eligible voter and assist them in getting a voter ID that all states could agree on. Nobody should be disenfranchised because their life is not the tidy Ozzie and Harriet vision that so many Republicans see when they look in the mirror. Believe it or not, there are Americans who don't have birth certificates or some of the ID's that Ozzie and Harriet have neatly filed away! I think a project to provide free voter ID's to all Americans would be a great exercise in spreading democracy here at home. No doubt there would be Republicans who would object to it, as this " voter fraud " bogeyman has had the blessing of Bush's Justice Department, which has gone from prosecuting civil rights violations to suppressing civil rights.
Posted by waters at 05/19/2008 @ 10:26pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008
Wait....you lost me.
What was I supposed to do with the pencil?
There's a BOX?!! Nobody said anything about a BOX!!!!
I CAN'T DO IT!!! I just can't! (sobbing)
Posted by Benchrest at 05/19/2008 @ 11:11pm
Benchrest
yep. you gotta fold the paper, too.
and then humans (YES, HUMANS) count them.
newfangled.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:25pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008
...fold...the...paper...
fold the paper?!
Oh, now that's just CRAZY talk!
Now you listen to me MISTER!!
You can spout off about them pencils and BOXES and such, but you want me to do what to the WHAT?
There comes a point where you gotta DRAW THE LINE, and as soon as I figure out how, I'M GONNA DO IT!!! So...THERE!!
Posted by Benchrest at 05/19/2008 @ 11:52pm
Benchrest
live hard, die bold!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:53pm
I just think it's hilarious that people worry about voter ID's when anyone intelligent knows that if you want to truely cook the books on votes you have to have someone on the insides. We then equip our oh so easy to to hack diebold systems with a paper trail luckily. And our in many ways easier to hack touch screen systems with no paper trail and no one complains. You can teach any lay person to hack one of those systems with 5 minutes alone in a voting booth yet no one complains.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2008 @ 12:39am
MBB, you know, you're getting to be REAL predictable.
First it's a "Dems are bad... Then you post "Oh, sure. I'm not saying both sides don't do it" and act all bipartisan... until the next post on how "Dems are bad...
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008
Your chronology is missing something on this topic. I've posted the three prominent examples of Dem's stealing elections a couple times, but I don't recall conceding that Republicans do the same thing. I am unaware of any Republican stealing an election through fraud. I concede Bush won in 2000 perfectly legally, but on essentially a legal technicality.
So on the issue of election fraud you're missing the part where I say Republicans do it too. Can you supply some?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 08:10am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/19/2008
MBB, here we go again...on a thread that has NOTHING to do with it, but so be it...
if "marriage is about children", then DEFEND that and tell us why you think infertile couples and seniors shouldn't be allowed to be married.
Or don't, and move to ANOTHER rationalization and pretend like you didn't make the first claim....
your choice of course.
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008
This was your response from yesterday, but the topic goes back beyond that. This topic is actually related to the voter fraud topic.
In order to treat people fairly, governments need written rules. The rules are based on principles that try to achieve a certain result that can be objectively determined, but ultimately, it is the written rules that govern.
So we have written rules about who can vote: US Citizen, age of majority, not a convicted felon, mentally competent, currently alive, etc. So we have procedures to enforce those rules so that eligible citizens can vote (true positive) and ineligible non-citizens can't vote (true negative). But no set of rules can perfectly bifurcate the population in to true positives (eligible) and true negatives (ineligible). You will always get some false positives (ineligible allowed to vote) and false negatives (eligible not allowed to vote).
In the judicial system we say better 10 guilty men go free (false negative) than 1 innocent man be sent to jail (false positive). Democrats agree with this sentiment (reversed) in voting because the false positives (illegal aliens vote Dem) help them and the false negatives (the poor not allowed to vote Dem) hurt them. Republicans think it should be 1 to 1.
Now let's talk about marriage. Marriage laws suffer from the same dilemma that voting laws do. We want to encourage "proper" marriages (true positive) and prohibit improper marriages (true negative) without getting too many false positives or false negatives. So how do you know which are proper and which aren't? Well, you need to understand the function of marriage to know which are proper and which aren't. It is my understanding that most state marriage laws were written in the 1930's and 1940's. Remember, this is before contraceptives, before fertility tests, and before and scientific research had been done on the prevalence of birth defects in the children of blood relatives. (There was a widely held belief that birth defects were common in the children of blood relatives). There was also a widely held belief that the primary function of marriage was to create a stable environment for the "production" and raising of children. So they wrote some rules: Age of majority with some exceptions for women already pregnant or parents' permission (immature kids don't make a stable home for raising children.) No blood relatives (varied a little from state to state on cousins; siblings always out.) Not already married (no bigamy not a stable home). And man and women.
Did this create some false negatives? Sure, some people even young ones were unable to have kids. But what was the cost of these false negatives? People assumed young people getting married would have kids and if they didn't, they were pitied for being barren. It's not like there were fertility tests to prove one way or the other. Did it cause some false negatives? Sure, maybe some cousins could have had a happier life when they married others and got divorced, and they would have had health children, but again, there is no reason to assume that there was thousands or even hundreds of cases like this.
So this is the environment that created marriage laws. They were based on the state's compelling interest in having a next generation of healthy, emotionally well adjusted citizens to continue the society as the current generation aged (and to pay social security taxes for their grandparents and parents (SS Act 1935).
Okay, our technology and society have changed in the last three or four generations and our marriage laws need to be changed to keep up. That is the job of the legislature, not arrogant judges.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 08:50am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008
Okay, MBB...long discussion, but still misses the obvious point...
if we accept your "false negatives"....then why not accept the "false negatives" of homosexuals marrying?
They're not even close to a majority, but a significant minority...atleast as large as infertile couples and seniors combined.
So...why not accept them, if you're willing to "accept a few false negatives"?
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 09:13am
A number of problems with the Voter ID requirement:
Hamsterdam, this was actually a pretty crappy democracy for a significant proportion of its population up until 40 or so years ago, and we still have issues with voter intimidation in people of color communities around the country, usually by off-duty white cops working for a Guiliani-type nominee.
Many poor people, urban AND rural, do not have certified copies of their birth certificates, and it costs money to get them from their state of birth. Many younger folks also don't have certified birth certificates. Hell, many citizens, period, don't have a certified copy of their birth certificate, so even if it's not a financial burden for 80% of us to get one, it's just another bureaucratic hurdle placed in front of exercising one of our fundamental civil rights.
A surprising number of people do not drive, believe it or not, and therefore do not have driver's licenses.
Some of us, left, center and I WOULD HOPE RIGHT, still cherish some sliver of personal liberty - don't you just love it when a Commie Pinko Red Trotskyist like me throws around such concepts - and, while we may have Social Security Cards, and have registered for the Draft (thank you, Jimmy Carter!), and been registered voters for decades, we really resent having to register ourselves into what will pretty much become a national database system allowing the state and corporate America to track us and invade our privacy even more so than they do now. It especially stuns me that someone like lvliberty1, who seems somewhat acquainted with the history of Conservativism, jumps on the bandwagon for a universal state-level ID card when conservatives like him cried bloody murder over the idea of the Social Security Card and System being turned into just such a tool.
I can see it now, in my paranoid fantasies: Your not so friendly cop or highway patrolman asks to see your Driver's License or Voter ID card and writes you a ticket or takes you into custody if you don't have it on you. All in the name of security.
And all of this to solve a problem that has not been recently documented, unlike the actual cases of absentee ballot fraud, by Dems and Repubs alike, that occur pretty much every election cycle! Gods, I hope the GOP gets sent packing this fall, even if it is by another set of bourgeois politician lapdogs.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2008 @ 11:11am
"...we really resent having to register ourselves into what will pretty much become a national database system allowing the state and corporate America to track us and invade our privacy even more so than they do now."---Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2008
But, CKA...what if you "have to present your National Health Security card, when you go to the hospital or doctor"....
and the Fed needs to keep a "national database" for MEDICAL RECORDS to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the federalized health care system?!?!???!?
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 11:28am
if we accept your "false negatives"....then why not accept the "false negatives" of homosexuals marrying?
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008
I am willing to accept them. I've written a dozen times at least that I support legislatures changing the law to explicitly permit homosexual marriages because I think it will benefit the children of homosexuals.
What gets me all worked up is judges saying the state has never had a compelling interest in marriage as an institution that benefits children. Arrogant, activist judges see marriage as primarily a selfish institution that individuals enter for their own gratification and social recognition. And they have to adopt that view if they are to achieve their goal of determining male-female only is unconstitutionally discriminatory. But it ignores decades if not millennia of what marriage has been. That is judicial activism. They are imposing a change that the population is starting to embrace because they are too impatient to allow the electorate to do it through their legislatures. To me, that does real damage to our Constitution when judges believe they are god-like in their ability to dictate to the population.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008
So you got no problem with "gay marriage"....
you're just fighting a....judicial interpretation?!?!?!?
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 1:20pm
Mask, are you kidding? I've written consistently on the issue for over a year hear. I've always said I'd support and initiative to change the law. I've always railed against arrogant judges in these posts. I've always talked about marriage's benefits for children.
And now you pretend not to believe me? Why don't you scroll through that massive database of posts you save and find one post of mine that is an abberation.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008
No, I just find it odd that you'd get all incensed over the LEGAL PRECEDENCE, and not the issue itself.
Kind of like saying "I am firmly pro-choice, but I have fifteen paragraphs on why Roe v. Wade is bad law."
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 2:26pm
Kind of like saying "I am firmly pro-choice, but I have fifteen paragraphs on why Roe v. Wade is bad law."
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008
Doesn't that describe you? Don't you agree that Roe v. Wade was a legal travesty?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 4:42pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008
no
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 7:31pm
I am unaware of any Republican stealing an election through fraud.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn it
.
Darin, a quick cut and paste from the "Voter Intimidation" thread the other day...
.
In fact the three most high profile election thefts were all Democrat.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/13/2008 | ignore this person
.
Actually, this kind of statement displays a SERIOUS delusion based on a complete ignorance of history. In 1876, Republican candidate Hayes, with the help of Republican President Grant, quite literally stole the election right out from under the Democratic candidate, Tilden in what was probably, up until 2000, the most infamous stolen election in history (certainly more universally acknowledged as such than the JFK election.)
"The last time a Presidential election was stolen in broad daylight was in 1876."
http://davekopel.org/Misc/OpEds/1876-Election.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_J._Tilden
.
Then of course, we have the 2000 and 2004 elections. The most blatant being Ohio 2004.
http://www.votermarch.org/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041129/corn
.
And please, let's not forget the 1980 election, with GW the 1st using his CIA buddies to stike a deal with the Iranians in the infamous "October Surprise". The 1980's also had several elections (many in Texas - surprise again) 'dirty tricked' by the young Karl Rove.
http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/cheat3.html
I could EASILY go on...and on....and on. But seriously, anyone who pretends that the notion of 'stealing elections' doesn't apply to Republicans, has taken 'partisanship' WELL beyond 'delusional'.
Posted by Lillian at 05/14/2008 | ignore this person | warn it
.
But by all means, hang on to your delusions.
Posted by Lillian at 05/20/2008 @ 8:42pm
OK to photo ID
if
Election Day registration OK too
Posted by winyahn at 05/21/2008 @ 07:13am
BTW Obama's Iowa speech was superb. What a patriot!
Posted by winyahn at 05/21/2008 @ 07:27am
Thank you, Lillian. I was unaware of that piece of history from 1876. I am now aware of one Republican stolen election from 132 years ago.
Now, as to voter intimidation, that's an interesting charge, since it can never be proven, only alledged. Personally I don't get it, but I think I missed the thread you are speaking of.
I have to interject, though, that the only voter interferance from recent elections that I'm aware of is the case in Milwakee where Democrats slashed the tires of Republican transportation vans. They were convicted.
Regarding 2000, again, a legal technicality is still legal, so not stolen. And 2004 in ohio is complete fantasy as there is no way 160,000 votes were stolen.
In Texas, (and everywhere else) dirty politics is still legal, and thus not stolen, only of questionable ethics. My favorite story in this one is where the Republican whipped up anti-gay hesteria by pointing out that the Dem's sister was a well known thespian. (The voters were too stupid to know that meant actress and assumed it meant gay.)
Again, its still legal to play to ignorance, so doesn't count as stolen.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/21/2008 @ 08:34am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/21/2008
Actually the "redneck speech" ("sister was a thespian in NY", etc.)....
was a hoax created by a reporter.
George Smather never delivered or used such a speech against Claude Pepper.
(BTW, both were Democrats...it was a primary fight)
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2008 @ 09:11am
I have to interject, though, that the only voter interferance from recent elections that I'm aware of...
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/21/2008 | ignore this person | warn it
.
Sorry Darin, if that's the ONLY case of "voter interference" from recent elections that you are aware of...
...then you aren't even trying.
Like I said, I could go on and on (and on and on) posting examples - but really - YOU should do it!
Google 'voter intimidation' - I got 231,000 hits...with this one at the top...
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368
Here's one the FBI investigated...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15603344/
The term 'voter suppression' got 376,000 hits...
http://ohvotesuppression.blogspot.com/
Or, you could try reading this book...
http://www.stealingdemocracy.com/
Posted by Lillian at 05/21/2008 @ 10:00am
Now Darin, let's also take a look at one of your examples...the Washington gubernatorial election. YOu claim it as an outright 'stolen'election, as if this is an incontravertable fact. Yes, I wonder if you even know the facts regarding what happened? Do you know, or are you just going by what Rush said?
As long as you are doing some research, here...try reading...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004
Fact is, the election WASN'T stolen. The initial recount was absolutely mandatory under the law. The second recount was requested by the Dems, again, according to the election law in Washington. As happens in EVERY recount, additonal ballots were found and counted (no votes were ever switched or eliminated) including the ballot cast by the King County Council Chairman, Larry Phillips, which was WRONGLY put into the 'don't count' pile, not because of any problem with with the ballot, but because the computer didn't have a scanned image of his signature (which was later found to be clearly written on his voter registration card.)
The Repubs have complained bitterly...but have lost EVERY legal challenge they have ever mounted...because their is simply no evidence that the election was stolen.
So, why do YOU count that as a stolen election Darin?
Posted by Lillian at 05/21/2008 @ 10:55am
As long as you're researching Darin, take another look at the Ohio 2004 thing. I sense from you a genuine concern about 'fair' elections, but can't quite align that with your casual dismissal of Ohio 2004 as just 'fantasy'.
Did you even know that 2 election workers in Ohio were sentenced to 18 months in prison for RIGGING the recount in Ohio?
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070313/NEWS24/703130 29
Did you even know that that the mechanisms and records that are supposed to provide the checks and balances for the vote counting process have been 'inadvertently' destroyed?
Check here for a partial list of issues...
http://ohioelection2004.com/evidence.htm
Or here...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0710/S00300.htm
Seriously Darin, whatever you beleive about 'funny business' in Chicago in the election in 1960, PALES in comparison with what happened the state of Ohio in 2004!
Posted by Lillian at 05/21/2008 @ 12:56pm
Care to investigate what happened in New Mexico in 2004, a state Bush carried by some 8,000 votes?
http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/files/NewM exico2004ElectionDataReport-v2.pdf
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00067.htm
Posted by Lillian at 05/21/2008 @ 1:07pm