It looks increasingly like Rick Scott's win is illegitimate. If so, what do we do?

[True Blue Door]

DU user Hissyspit brought a very important Bill Moyers article to our attention illustrating some of the races where it looks like - or is close to looking like - vote suppression may have produced an illegitimate result. The most significant is the Florida Governor race, where it appears the margin of victory for Rick Scott is easily within the range of apparently disenfranchised voters.

If that proves to be the case, we need to emphasize what that means: It's not some mere technicality that taints the political mandate of a victor - it would mean that come inauguration day, Scott would be an unelected local tyrant whose acts carry no legal authority, but who is acting outside the law with the complicity of other officials. Meanwhile, it would also mean that his opponent, Charlie Crist, is the legitimate Governor-elect.

If, as time goes on, we find that Scott's official election was indeed illegitimate, what can we - and more importantly, Floridians - do with that information? One of the things that struck me about the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election was the obsequious willingness of Democrats - and not just officials, but Democrats in general - to just accept a lawless Supreme Court verdict and surrender both the truth, justice, and democracy in service to some mirage of social harmony. Al Gore's surrender was particularly disgraceful, and the fact that most Democrats apparently wanted it was the most disgraceful thing of all, so a decade and a half later we all should reasonably demand more of ourselves and our party than that.

The government of a state, particularly one as large as Florida, is no less important than that of the whole nation, and in fact has more direct impact on people's lives. If it proves out that Rick Scott defrauded the election through his vote suppression schemes, then Florida Democrats need to (a)say so loudly and publicly, (b)demand their officials say so and act accordingly, (c)support whatever court cases need to ensue, and (d)when The Five fascist revolutionaries on the US Supreme Court declare Scott the winner regardless of what evidence is presented to them, they need to have a plan beyond that for civil disobedience and state-level political Cold War. Charlie Crist will probably not be much help, but it should be sought and demanded anyway.

Now, what do I mean by point (d)? Simply, Democrats in the Florida legislature would refuse to recognize Scott's authority, as would Democrats on every political level of the nation, and as would Democrats in the Florida Executive branch. Those on the state and local level would find as many ways as possible to publicly demonstrate this refusal of recognition and cause highly organized and disruptive spectacles. They would issue one demand, and it would be an absolute one: Rick Scott resigns and a special election be held with all legitimate voters allowed to vote. If that sounds radical, it isn't - we just live in such a politically enfeebled era that basic American citizenship sounds extreme.

If Scott is found illegitimate and this doesn't happen, then there is no Florida Democratic Party and the rank and file members of whatever it is that calls itself that would need to create one immediately within the fake one and take the mentioned steps. The same could be said for any other state where the same thing happens. But, of course, I reiterate that it is not yet proven that Scott's alleged victory is illegitimate - just highly likely.

I'm actually very relieved that - notwithstanding major concerns about the North Carolina Senate seat - that it doesn't appear (preliminarily) that the Senate flip is illegitimate. Resisting an illegitimate legislature is a much more nebulous strategic question than resisting an illegitimate Executive leader. Opposing an unelected Governor is far simpler in terms of political strategy and tactics.

[Last_Stand]

1. If only...

the Democratic party had some kind of warning since the year 2000 that rethuglicans might utilize some kind of fraud and malfeasance to steal elections!

/liberal fist clench

[Cha]

2. I wish the very best of luck, True Blue Door!

[Lunabell]

3. If I were a rethuglican...

I would threaten to use my 2nd Amendment right,lol.

[BlueMTexpat]

4. Challenge every election where this is the

case!

[mariawr]

18. Challenge anyway. Put it in the record. nt

[simak]

5. Not seeing it.

States vary on whether/when felons can vote. Disagreeing with the inherent bias of this process does not mean the result of an election is "illegitimate".

Also, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with actual felons - real criminals and predators - being denied a vote.

And I sure as hell don't appreciate Democrats being reflexively associated with the felon vote. Do you?

I'm sure if you ask an innocent black man if he wants his vote back he'd tell you he'd rather not have been convicted in the first place.

I'm not soothed by giving the wrongly-convicted back their vote at the cost of letting the guilty vote too. And justice would be better served by keeping people from going to jail just because of their skin color in the first place.

[nxylas]

6. What if that innocent black man wasn't convicted?

What if he just shares a name with someone who was? There have been documented cases of people being turned away from polling places for that reason, even if their middle name and/or date of birth differed from those of the actual felon.

[simak]

12. Was he refused a provisional ballot?

Just how recent were these documented cases? I'm under the impression that pretty much anybody can get a provisional ballot now if there's any doubt about their eligibility.

[nxylas]

14. The information is easily obtainable if you want it

Forgive me if I don't go to the effort of digging it up for the sake of someone who joined yesterday, has a post count of 2 at the time of writing this, and who probably won't be around long enough to read the reply.

[simak]

17. Thanks for the warm and helpful welcome. N/T

[NM_Birder]

20. lol, don't worry, it gets worse if you speak your own mind,

Big tent sales pitch, with a VERY narrow line of acceptability.

[Jamastiene]

25. Well, you are under the wrong impression.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/north-carolina-voting-rights-election-day

[simak]

29. Actually, that post seems to show that I was correct.

She says she asked for a provisional ballot. She doesn't say she wasn't given one.

Then she says provisional ballots don't count, which is not correct.

The voter is only disenfranchised if her ballot is thrown out during a recount. That did not happen here, and I would be amazed if it ever did. Courts are very liberal about accepting correctly cast ballots that are challenged on technical grounds like hers.

[Dr. Strange]

48. They are counted if the voter is eligible.

What if I have a problem? What is a Provisional Ballot?

If the election officials can not find your name on the list of registered voters when you go to vote, or if you encounter any other problem, you have the right to receive what is called a “Provisional Ballot.” You will have to fill out a form in addition to your ballot; the form helps the officials research your registration history. If your eligibility to vote is verified, your ballot will count like a regular ballot. You will be given a phone number and PIN number or a website to use to check the status of your Provisional Ballot and learn if it has been approved or rejected.

http://ncelectionconnection.com/voting-in-nc/#six

[True Blue Door]

7. I think you've misunderstood. This isn't strictly about felons.

It's about voters who have the right to vote being denied that right because they didn't have documentation on demand, or their documents were arbitrarily refused, or countless other Jim Crow 2 bullshit.

[simak]

15. Actually...

It seems to be about whether Scott benefited to the tune of some 65,000 votes by blocking felons from voting. Oddly, I could find a lot more than 65,000 eligible Democrats in Florida who just plain didn't vote this year.

And I'm thinking that if Rick Scott went to prison I still don't want him voting when he gets out. Even if it means we have to give every other person named Rick Scott a provisional ballot to ensure it.

Tell me Rick Scott was stuffing ballots, and you'll have my attention. In fact, that's what I was thinking I'd find when I saw the title of the OP.

Can we stop pretending that Charlie Crist was a good candidate now that the election is over? Rick Scott was weak, with high unfavorables. Any strong candidate would have routed him. I'm not counting on the felon vote to win the next election. A decent candidate can win Florida easily with the voters they have now.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. What do felons have to do with the topic here?

Moyer's article and Hissyfit's posts are talking about wide spread voter suppression.
Meaning people who WERE eligible to vote were prevented from doing so in several states.

[simak]

21. The Moyers article doesn't match this post.

You're saying this is about eligible (your word) voters.

But the article is more about tinkering with the definition of "eligible", wrt to whether felons can vote (in the Florida example. Other questions are raised about other states).

Note that Moyers isn't even suggesting that innocent voters are being disenfranchised in Florida - only that disenfranchised actual convicted felons could have helped Crist, I suppose.

And this thread questions whether this makes Scott's election illegitimate. Well, I kind of favor felons not being able to vote, though I am concerned that African Americans are disproportionately convicted of felonies.

EDIT
I re-read your last, and I guess you're saying they were eligible and now they're not (as opposed to saying eligible voters were turned away). My apologies. I find myself on the defensive here.

I simply don't think a tight race should be hinging on which way felons would vote, and I agree it's easier for me to feel this way since I don't think criminals should be allowed to vote.

[F4lconF16]

36. I still hate the idea of felons losing the right to vote.

While in prison, yes. By committing crimes, you forfeit some of your rights. But the idea of prison should not be to punsih. It should be to provide a place to serve your time, and then more importantly, provide rehabilitation. The nordic model is much better than what we have here. Once you've served your time, that should be it. (Though clearly there are issues involving things like firearms, or becoming a police officer, that can't happen).

And I sure as hell don't appreciate Democrats being reflexively associated with the felon vote. Do you?

You know, for some odd reason I care more about people's rights than I do our image. If we stand up for people, then it won't matter.

I'm sure if you ask an innocent black man if he wants his vote back he'd tell you he'd rather not have been convicted in the first place.

I'm not sure how that helps. I'm sure he would too. That doesn't mean he doesn't also want to vote.

I'm not soothed by giving the wrongly-convicted back their vote at the cost of letting the guilty vote too. And justice would be better served by keeping people from going to jail just because of their skin color in the first place.

Let me get this straight: you're willing to deny other people's constitutionally protected rights because some people are criminals?

Edit to add that your attitudes towards this are almost exactly what was described in an article discussing the nordic prison systems. Your focus is not on rehabilitation, it's punishment. These punitive attitudes are exactly what leads to a black man being locked up for 15 years because of a single joint. Though you probably won't like me saying this, it's a very conservative attitude to have.

[simak]

78. We can agree to disagree.

"Let me get this straight: you're willing to deny other people's constitutionally protected rights because some people are criminals?"

I would not call that "getting it straight". I simply do not believe convicted felons need to vote. I do not believe they have a constitutional right to vote. It's forfeited.

Yes, I believe in punishment. I also do not believe anyone deserves fifteen years in the joint for possessing a joint. And I do not believe the two viewpoints are incompatible.

[Sancho]

8. Voter suppression is one issue...but....

the turn out is still only half of registered voters, so the GOTV didn't work.

Here's my observation for why we lost in Florida: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10452659

I'm so very disappointed.

[badtoworse]

9. We lost. It's time to accept that.

[True Blue Door]

37. It's time we accepted inconvenient facts - ones that DON'T involve surrendering.

[badtoworse]

42. It's time we accepted inconvenient facts: I couldn't have said it better myself.

Occam's Razor: The ideas we were selling didn't resonate outside of Progressive circles.

[True Blue Door]

43. That's not an inconvenient fact, or a fact at all. That's absolute Vichy bullshit.

And has no resemblance to Occam's Razor.

American voters generally vote for candidates and campaigns, not ideas. That's why we yo-yo between parties and issues, no matter how radical the juxtaposition is.

The inconvenient fact is (or looks increasingly likely to be) that at least Rick Scott's "victory" was illegitimate.

If you have nothing of value to add to that, don't comment.

[badtoworse]

50. OK, you've convinced me - it was stolen.

What other explanation could there be.

[True Blue Door]

60. I didn't say it was stolen. I said the facts appear to be leaning in that direction.

Why do you have a problem with acknowledging that?

[GGJohn]

56. And here you are again telling members what to do.

The inconvenient fact is that in FL, a very weak R?, I? D? Crist was put up as the Dem candidate and he lost, now, just because YOU deem it illegitimate doesn't make it so.

[True Blue Door]

59. The inconvenient fact is that you didn't read the Bill Moyers article.

Why are you desperate to insist that a Republican won? What is your agenda?

[GGJohn]

64. I did read the article, so I'll thank you to not tell me what I did or didn't do.

I don't have an agenda here except to call bullshit where I see it, and so far all I see is bullshit.

The elections are over, we got walloped, get over it and move to reverse this setback in 2016.

[True Blue Door]

66. So you're here to express yourself, not accomplish anything?

Thank you for your input. Now if you'll excuse us, reality is calling.

[GGJohn]

67. What I do IRL has little to do with what I do on the internet.

I don't need to justify myself to you or anyone else here, that's reality.

[HERVEPA]

52. Thank you Mr. Gore.

[Doctor_J]

10. nothing, like we always do

We've learned to accept fraudulent elections.

[deutsey]

16. If nothing happened in 2000

(with Jeb Bush's voter purge and the Supreme Court's obviously biased intervention), nothing will happen now, either

[Doctor_J]

30. That was Mark Crispin Miller's take at the time

The prevailing wisdom at the time was, "well, they got away with this one, they know we're onto them, they won't do it again". Prof. Miller said, "they now know that they can steal elections with impunity and it will just ramp up from here". Then came Max Cleland 2002 and Ohio 2004, and it just goes on. Amazing.

IMO things would have been much different if the "Brooks Bros rioters" had been mowed down with automatic weapons when they stormed the 2000 recall. By demonstrating that harsh penalties would be imposed on those stealing democracy, the FL dems could have changed the course of history. Revolutions are messy.

[True Blue Door]

38. "Will happen"...you talk as if you aren't involved in the process.

Like it's something the universe does to you.

[deutsey]

46. Nope, just the world-weary observation of someone who's been in the fight

for protecting voting rights since 2000.

I was saying if all we did to correct what happened in 2000 (voter purges, the obviously biased Bush v. Gore) and to make electronic ballots more transparent and independently accountable in 2004, it's hard for me to believe much will come of these reports about current voter suppression.

Greg Palast is doing some good investigations into the new Jim Crow efforts just as he did with Jeb Bush purging people from Florida's voter rolls. It's outrageous and I'm glad he's digging into it and that there's a record of it, but will he expose the illegitimacy of Scott's election and overturn it? Did his reporting (along with the efforts of many of us) do that to Bush/Cheney?

Have I given up? No. I'm just being realistic.

But more power to anyone who can make this underhanded voter suppression an issue that will grow legs.

[True Blue Door]

62. If you're world-weary, then take a break from politics.

You serve no one spewing mopey fatalism.

[deutsey]

80. Lol

You'd make a great school marm or self-appointed arbiter of finger-wagging.

[True Blue Door]

81. Right, I'm a scold because I don't buy into some mopey adolescent emo attitude.

[deutsey]

82. I have no idea who you are

Personally, based on this interaction, I don't really care to know you beyond this interaction.

I'm entitled to my views. As a member of this board since 2001, I'm entitled to express my views here (but that privilege applies to anyone here, regardless of how long they've been here, so I'm not special in that regard).

As such, you're free to post here and respond to my posts as I am to yours. Hence, the term "discussion board." But, frankly, I don't need or want, nor have I solicited, your busy-body advice and insulting, condescending attitude.

I'm sure that won't deter you from further believing that you just must, MUST! continue on your misguided mission to purify DU of sentiments that apparently don't fit your worldview. So keep posting away if it will give you some smug, holier-than-thou sense of satisfaction. I may respond further (or may just tire of this silliness and move on), but I guarantee you I won't take anything else you post here with any degree of seriousness.

So, knock yourself out.

[True Blue Door]

83. This isn't about you, or me.

Until you understand that, we'll keep talking past each other.

I'm only interested in doing my part for American democracy. If you can help me do that, I want to hear what you have to say.

[Katashi_itto]

11. Be real. Nothing will happen.

[True Blue Door]

39. Your comment is of zero value.

[Katashi_itto]

53. Tough, it's the truth.

[True Blue Door]

61. No, it's you doing nothing and demanding that others do nothing too.

[GGJohn]

71. Got a link that she is demanding that others do nothing?

Because I sure don't see her demanding that others do nothing.

[Katashi_itto]

76. Then go ahead and do something. I am not stopping you.

I look forward to hearing about how effective you were.

[True Blue Door]

79. Indeed, you are not stopping me. Just annoying me.

For no reason whatsoever.

[Katashi_itto]

84. Tough, I simply have a more realistic view of things.

[True Blue Door]

85. No, you don't.

You have a wildly distorted view of things, selectively aware of whatever rationalizes the attitude you've already chosen. If there were a constructive purpose to it, that would be justified. But there isn't.

[Calista241]

19. Every state has rules that govern who can vote.

Just because we disagree with the rules a particular state uses doesn't make the results of their elections illegitimate.

Thousands of elligible voters didn't show up to vote, and THAT is why we lost Florida. Perhaps if we didn't run a fucking fake former Republican for governor, that might have helped too.

Crist was happy as a Republican until he lost a Senate primary to Marco Rubio. Then he ran against Rubio for that seat as an Independent. Then he decided that sucked, so he switched parties again and ran for governor as a Democrat. Someone should have told him to pick a team and stay with it.

[el_bryanto]

28. The issue isn't those rules, it's how those rules were enforced

Several states are taking the attitude that they'd rather disenfranchise 100 voters rather than let 1 person who doesn't deserve to vote vote. If it can be shown that they disenfranchised enough eligible voters to swing the election, and if, as one suspects, they primarily targeted black and Hispanic voters, than there is grounds for a challenge.

It would be expensive to prove but worth it.

Bryant

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. You need to collect the names of actual people who were incorrectly disenfranchised

and get them all to state who they would have voted for. And when you've got close to 70,000 more who would have voted for Crist than Scott, then you can start saying Crist should be the true governor. Without that, it's just a suggestion that, perhaps, there would have been a lot more votes for Crist than Scott among them.

The Republicans, of course, knew that it would be incredibly difficult to turn back the effect of disenfranchisement. That's why they did it like that.

[Jamastiene]

27. Like this person.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/north-carolina-voting-rights-election-day

[Jamastiene]

23. About half of DU would want to do something about it.

The other half will just curse and blame the left for making it happen and say let it go.

The Democratic Party officials/leaders will be too busy bending over backwards, kissing Republican ass and say let it go.

So, nothing will get done about it, except endless arguments on DU between those of us who know the Republicans cheat and the rest who will say it is impossible for them to ever get away with it. Yes, there are some "pragmatic" DUers nowadays who do not even believe that 2000 was stolen, much less any of the other elections since them. They will eventually win by shouting us down and telling us to STFU.

So, nothing will get done about it.

[True Blue Door]

41. We need to stop predicting what other people will or won't do

and just do what we each need to do.

[el_bryanto]

24. It would be expensive to prove - but worth it. nt

[Bettie]

26. Nothing will be done

Rick Scott will continue to be governor, whether he was legitimately elected or not. In fact, he'll continue to be governor until he's looted enough from the state to make him happy.

Disenfranchised voters is simply a fact now.

SCOTUS is good with it.

The party in power (R) likes it.

The Dems in charge don't care, because they still get their money.

Yeah, I'm disillusioned with the whole process.

[onenote]

31. Pretty much impossible to prove that the Florida election was swung by the new eligibility rules

Short of showing that a number of eligible voters were turned away and that those voters all would have voted for Crist, how do you prove it? There are more than enough eligible voters who simply didn't show up at the polls to have swung the election. Courts can't decide cases based on conjecture.

[HockeyMom]

32. Scott's Voter Purge

Anyone remember? Two "illegals" made the news here locally a while ago. One was a 90 something year old WW2 Vet. born in the foreign country of NJ. The other was a woman in her 50s, who was a small business owner of 25 years in Florida, who was born in the foreign counry of Ohio. What did they have in common? They had Hispanic sounding surnames, which incidentially, weren't Spanish but Italian.

They were both told that they would have to appear in court to contest it. The woman said she would do just that. However, the poor old man said he was too old and sickly to go to court. He said he just plain would not vote. Disenfranchising our Veterans now too? I heard people volunteered to drive him and an attorney offered to help him pro bono. I never heard what happened to him.

How many others, who did not bother to complain, were "caught"? Did they have some computer program which was kicking out people with Hispanic sounding surnames and/or not born in the "country" of Florida?

This is the Fraud Governor of Florida. Think it just applies to his Medicare corruption?

[ChiciB1]

33. MANY OF US HERE IN FLORIDA ARE Wondering Too!

But Democratic Party here seems to have "issues" too! Something seems so very wrong here!

[Baitball Blogger]

34. I knew it wouldn't be difficult to find because they would have to go big

in order to beat the automatic recount percentage.

[mahina]

35. Gene Sharp's 198 Methods of Nonviolent Resistance and The Anti Coup

are available for download at the link in this earlier post.

Your post is the most important I've read in years. Thank you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251383184

[True Blue Door]

40. Thanks! Sounds like useful reading.

[Independent_Liberal]

44. If that's the case, I feel like his wasn't the only one illegitimate.

As far as what could be done, I heard Crist has lawyers looking into this, so an investigation could be underway. I don't know.

I would always used to get really irritated by folks who say stuff like "Nothing will happen" and "Nothing will be done" but I've wised up a bit to the point where I don't snap at those folks like I used to. That said, I still feel like those attitudes are why there's so many things we lose on. It's just because it comes off to me as "I'm too lazy to fight" or "I don't give a fuck. Let democracy die." You know, they too often sound like cop-outs. One difference is I don't let it bother me like it used to and I try not to be as in-your-face with my "Quit your whining and defeatism!" responses. I guess it could be because I just got tired of internet drama.

[True Blue Door]

45. I get where you're coming from.

Some people just don't understand the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy. And some do understand, and actively want nothing to be done so they can feel better about themselves for not participating.

I have little patience for stupidity, and even less patience for malingering from people who for some reason still want to pretend they're interested in political change.

People who come to a website called Democratic Underground just to say things like "Eh, nothing will happen. It's all hopeless. Nobody likes us. America sucks" are in desperate need of a psychological ass-kicking.

[Independent_Liberal]

49. One thing I've learned over the past couple years...

Is that it's much better for your mental health to slow down a bit, grab a moment of peaceful silence, breath deep, and then begin to re-focus your efforts. I feel it's helped me very much with my personal issues. Definitely something that would be helpful to the "doom and gloom" crowd.

[HockeyMom]

54. While I cannot do anything about the Congress,

I certainly did try about Rick Scott and Florida. Bye, bye. Made that decision from the minute I set foot here, but I did try my best to help you with my vote while here.

Good luck and best wishes that you can turn it around, politically.

[True Blue Door]

65. Definitely. I guess I just don't get the "Emo-crat" wing of our side of the spectrum.

Maybe I just fall too heavily into the testosterone-driven category of humanity. If there's a problem, fix it. If you can't fix it alone, do what you can and invite others to participate. If you still can't fix it immediately, then see if you can fix it long-term. If not that, then reexamine the problem and try to find solutions that address the root of the issue. If nothing ever comes of it, then nothing comes of it, but there's no point in allowing that to happen for lack of determination.

Nowhere in the process of problem-solving is the step "Declare the world doomed, proclaim all efforts to change things vain, and bitterly bitch at anyone who says otherwise." I don't understand why people would deliberately be so useless and annoying.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. If Rick Scott were to resign,

his Lt. Governor would become Governor.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. I'll take my chances.

Can't get much worse than Scott.

Of course, I previously thought it couldn't get any worse than Jeb Bush....and then along came Rick Scott.

Does anyone know anything about Carlos Lopez Cantera?

[marions ghost]

55. I like the concept of the Dems in the state legislature

refusing to accept Scott's authority if it can be shown that the votes suppressed made the difference. That's what would stop this sh*t.

[onenote]

57. How would that work?

First, there is the question of how it could be shown that the changes in the eligibility rules translated specifically into a vote total that would reverse the result of the election. As others have posted, seems like an impossible task to do without asking a court to engage in conjecture.

Second, what would it mean for Democrats in the state legislature to accept Scott's authority? What authority does he exercise with respect to the legislature that they would be rejecting and to what effect?

[marions ghost]

63. Suppressed votes

can be quantified and estimated. We've learned that at least. What you can do with it legally is another question.

IF it is shown that suppression efforts reduced Dem votes in comparison to the pattern in recent elections --then at that point--one avenue could be that the Dems in the legislature essentially "stop work" until disenfranchised voters are given the chance to vote.

Can you think of a better solution to end the voting fraud and suppression that is undermining this country? I mean a hardball solution.

Otherwise this will keep happening and nobody will trust an election that shows a clear pattern of suppression and fraud.

[GGJohn]

68. Interesting theory,

but can it be legally done? Has the FL SoS certified the results yet?

[marions ghost]

74. Don't know

I'm responding to the Bill Moyers article. But because I'm in NC, I have seen vote suppression tactics of many kinds for many years. NC and FL elections are similarly corrupt and bought.

[onenote]

69. But how does the Democrats "stopping work" stop anything?

The Florida Senate is 26/14 repub. The Florida house is 75/45. A quorum is a majority, meaning that the Democrats probably can't stop anything. And if they simply refuse to show up without the courts having made a ruling and concocted whatever remedy (assuming such a thing could happen which is unlikely), they would look foolish.

[marions ghost]

72. That's the problem--

the courts don't remedy it even when they acknowledge it.

So what are you left with? How do we address this abuse that is undermining the electoral process and disenfranchising DEMOCRATS? (Republicans are NOT being disenfranchised. Republicans are NOT targeted for these tactics).

If the Dems refuse to show up it would definitely slow things in the legislature and put pressure on the state to allow the disenfranchised to vote. Those victimized in this fraud could have a chance to be counted. This lack of justice and oversight has repercussions for the legal system in general.

If you don't think this could help, what could? Because this is a huge problem.

[onenote]

75. It is a problem. But an even bigger problem is people choosing not to vote

We need to have candidates and campaigns that get people to want to get to the polls. The number of voters impacted by the change in eligibility standards is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of voters who simply stayed home. Indeed, even with the change, more people voted overall in the 2014 governor's race than in the 2010 governor's race (and the Democratic candidate got more votes in 2014 than in 2010, as did the republican candidate, which will put a further crimp in convincing a court to overturn the election).

The fact is that 5.5 million votes were cast between Scott and Crist. In 2012, in the presidential election, around 8 million votes were cast, 4.5 million for Obama. That's a lot of voters that sit on their hands, not because they can't vote, but because they choose not to.

[marions ghost]

77. When it comes down to these critical counts

you DO need to address disenfranchisement and suppression. The comparison with those who stay home doesn't work when you're talking about people being disenfranchised--which means they wanted to vote. You're reducing people to statistics, and you wouldn't like it if your vote was not counted for any reason and especially if you saw that it could have been critical.

Of course you also need to look at why people choose not to vote. But one is not more important than another. They are related. We have an anxious climate in this country, especially in the south --the fear that your vote may not be counted is out there.

Until we get honest elections, it's hard to analyze them.

[onenote]

86. Ultimately it is still all about getting people to want to vote.

Let's use Florida as an example. In terms of certain types of vote suppressing activities, Florida actually isn't at the extremes. Photo ID is requested (and can be satisfied by a fairly wide range of items, including student IDs) and you're not barred from voting if you don't have an ID. You cast a provisional ballot, sign your name and if the signature matches that on your registration, the vote is counted. Its more restrictive than many states, but less restrictive than several of the newer mandatory photo ID laws. Same with early voting: Florida is better than some, worse than others (including the dozen or so states that don't allow early voting at all). It is unlikely that a court would overturn either the Florida ID law or the early voting rules because to do so would be to effectively set national standards that all states have to follow and that isn't going to happen. Where Florida stands out in terms of restricting votes (and which was featured in the Moyers piece that started off this thread) is its policy of not allowing convicted felons to vote. Taking at face value the reports that indicate that around one in five African American in Florida is a convicted felon, and that the impact of the restriction falls disproportionately on African Americans, establishing a legal basis for challenging their requirement (althoug, again, courts likely will be reluctant to set a national standard for how all states have to handle ex- felon voters). The problem is that while the impact is disprortionate, it would be difficult to prove that it has impacted the outcome of any election. That is because, in absolute numbers, there probably are close to two white ex felons that can't vote under the Florida law for every African American. And, with the exception of the 2012 presidential election, African Americans vote turnout is, on a percentage basis, usually lower than white turnout. Some of that is due to suppression efforts, but it appears to be the case pretty much across the board, even in states with the least restrictive voting rules. And where they allowed to vote, the turnout of ex-felons is less than that of non-ex-felons. All of this taken together establishes two things: (1) its nigh near impossible to prove the outcome of an election was swayed by the rules in place in Florida (even if you assume that every African American ex felon that voted would have voted for Crist and only half of the white ex felons would have voted for Scott -- percentages that do not reflect the actual turnout results) and (ii) it really does come down to turnout -- when we can mount a campaign and offer candidates that motivate voters to come out and support our candidates -- African American voters, ex felon voters, white voters -- we win. If we don't, we lose.

[Blue Owl]

58. Smoke 'em if ya Gollum

n/t

[Zorra]

70. Ask

the Third Way Congressman Alan Grayson what he thinks possible constructive avenues of redress would be.

[marions ghost]

73. Good idea

---