Re: OT:Thanksgiving



"HeyBub" <heybub@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13ktj1nf63hjo0e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Robert wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:26:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:49:03 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Without looking at the site, I presume it refers to the "Roe vs.
Wade" decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's
assumed) will have more abortions than Republican women therefore
the number of Democrats will slowly decline.

But that really doesn't work when you check the demographics. But
there are people who have strong enough convictions about abortion
that their political preferences move towards the party that gives
the most lip service to their side of this issue.

Well, yes it does fit the demographics.

Abortion should be generally available:
Conservative Repub - 17%
Liberal Dem - 60%
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150

It was estimated that there were 75,000 abortions in Florida in 1982
(45,000 by liberal dems and 12750 by conservative repubs, if the
above percentages apply - a difference of 32,250).

There are three kinds of people in the world:

1. Those who can do arithmetic.
2. Those who can't.

Now had those 75,000 gone to term, they would have been eligible to
vote in 2000. Of the calculated liberal plurality of 32,000, some
would have died, some moved away, some incarcerated, and so on. But
some would have voted.

If the "some" that voted exceeded 600, Al Gore would have been
president.

Most likely, half of the 75,000 would have become Republicans and
half, Democrats. The outcome would have been the same. But if say
1,000 more had become Democrats (because they were black and
hispanic), Jeb Bush would have simply disenfranchised 101,000 instead
of 100,000.

Bush had no control over the process. The Secretary of State (an elected
office) is solely responsible for the conduct of elections. The governor
is not in the loop.

"Most likely?" Hardly. Study after study shows that a) children follow the
political leanings of their parents by an eight-to-one margin; b) Youth
(the 18-year-olds in the above example) are typically more liberal than
their elders.

Secondly, the disenfranchisement to which you refer would have to take
place before the election. There have been few (if any) votes discarded
AFTER an election. (I can, however, think of several spectacular cases
where votes were ADDED after the polls closed - Consider Duvall County,
Texas that helped Lyndon Johnson carry his 1948 race by 87 votes, earning
him the moniker of "Landslide Lyndon" and the "found" ballots in Palm
Beach county in the 2000 election).



--- quotation ---

Over the past two years, with Republicans in charge of both the
governorship and the secretary of state's office, now under Harris,
the felon purge has accelerated. In May 2000, using a list provided
by DBT, Harris's office ordered counties to purge 8,000 Florida
voters who had committed felonies in Texas. In fact, none of the
group were charged with anything more than misdemeanors, a mistake
caught but never fully reversed. ChoicePoint DBT and Harris then sent
out "corrected" lists, including the names of 437 voters who indeed
had committed felonies in Texas. But this list too was in error,
since a Texas law enacted in 1997 permits felons to vote after doing
their time. In this case there was no attempt at all to correct the
error.

Whether Texas allowed felons to vote has no bearing on whether Florida
should allow felons to vote. In fact, a felon could be pardoned in Texas
but still ineligible to vote in Florida. No state allows another state to
define its sufferage requirements.

That amazes me, as noted elsewhere. I reckon this should be defined at
Federal level and it should be simple and to the point. (Texas already has
it right, apparently, but it is so fundmental, there should be no
exceptions). All of the machinations, flim-flam, and jiggery-pokery being
described or hinted at in this thread, could be eliminated with a single
Federal Law requiring that any citizen not in jail (and not certifiably
mentally ill) has the right to vote. End of story.


The wrongful purge of the Texas convicts was no one-of-a-kind mishap.
The secretary of state's office acknowledges that it also ordered the
removal of 714 names of Illinois felons and 990 from Ohio--states
that permit the vote even to those on probation or parole. According
to Florida's own laws, not a single person arriving in the state from
Ohio or Illinois should have been removed. Altogether DBT tagged for
the scrub nearly 3,000 felons who came from at least eight states
that automatically restore voting rights and who therefore arrived in
Florida with full citizenship.

Again, if these recent arrivals wanted to vote, they should repair to
their home state. No state is obliged to follow the voting requirements of
another. If, for example, someone commits an act that's a felony in Ohio,
but is only a misdemeanor in Florida, Florida may not let that person
vote. Conversely, if the offense in Ohio is only a minor offense, but a
felony in Florida, the conviction would not be a bar to voting in Florida.

Now this report you quote, from The Nation magazine (arguably the
country's most liberal publication next to the Daily Worker) is obviously
taking issue with the way things ARE, and that's okay. But the magazine
attempts to confuse the issue, blaming political chicanery what was really
long-standing law. In politics the rule is: do not attribute to malice
that which can be explained by incompetence.

:-) A very good rule that seems to hold world wide...

In my view, this silliness could have been prevented by having competent
programmers in Florida, especially the Secretary of State's office.

All of this kerfluffle, however, has been mooted in that Florida recently
changed the law and the state now allows felons to vote.

This single change dramatically increased the Democratic voter base.


Them's the breaks... :-)

The important thing is to get the process right.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Democrats Come Together To Tear Their Party in Half
    ... Leave it to the Democrats to make a hash of democracy. ... contested primary results in Florida and Michigan, ... Committee Chairman Howard Dean kicked off the session by suggesting ... "Count my vote or count me out." ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: P.O.W. card
    ... "Scott in Florida" ... I have said all along that I was going to vote as an American ... I am not suggesting that the medicine is better than the ailment, but the fact that medicine is required is at least in part, and a very large part if yo ask me, due to the direct actions of the Democrats. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... Wade" decision on abortion; and that as Democrat women (so it's ... the number of Democrats will slowly decline. ... It was estimated that there were 75,000 abortions in Florida in 1982 ... vote in 2000. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: OT: The Donald goes apeshit on the Idiot-in-Chief
    ... They lost because they are too gutless to stand by their ... their gutlessness fails to motivate those who might vote for them if they ... To the extent there are Democrats ... not the position on abortion. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
    ... the "Roe Effect" is the result of legalizing ... abortion. ... It is estimated that, in 1982, there were 50,000 abortions in Florida. ... that were not born in 1982 would have been eligible to vote in 2000. ...
    (alt.home.repair)