Originally posted by Noxrepere
Wouldn't that have been a problem in prior elections rather than just, coincidentally, the 2000 presidential election?
Like I said, I'm not sure about the accuracy of that name complaint. I believe registering to vote requires more than just your name.
Also, that seems a little odd that those 10's of thousands of people would not only happen to have the same names as convicted felons and as such, not be allowed to vote according to what you said about the names, but also, coincidentally, be predominantly black and poor, and would have voted considerably more for Gore.
Exactly. You would think all those unlikely cooincidences muight make some people suspicious
It was implemented by a senior republican (wish i could remember her name) who went on to run Bush's campaign. It was implemented in a grossly unfair and uneven way. It was implemented just before the presidential elections.
You probably did need more ID to prove your identity when you went to vote... but it was no use proving your id if your name had already been taken off the voting register by that republican task force.
1. It wasn't implemented uniformly across all the counties in the state.
2. Black people are more likely to vote democrat.
3. Unfortunately, most black people grow up in poorer areas, are more likely to have criminal records and are more likely to have been tagged as being criminals when they infact merely shared a name.
It's one of those things where no actual step could be considered "fixing" the election, but taken as a whole there does definately seem to be a smell of something suspicious in terms of biasing the voting population.