>I think there are two separate issues. I agree with you that the Democrats are recruiting voters who would be unlikely to vote otherwise, and that it isn't necessarily an expression of the will of the people. (Stop the presses! -- I criticized the Democrats). But I think voter suppression is a very real issue, and we know which party is doing that. The Republicans have very specific, very targeted strategies for minimizing turnout in some areas. Fortunately, it isn't going to be enough to save them this time (evil cackle).

Yeah, but a lot of the "strategies for minimizing turnout" include things like asking all voters to produce identification to match registration records. I live in about the whitest, most Republican suburb in Ohio and I have to do that every time I vote, even though the old lady at the registration table was in Eastern Star with my mother for 40 years.

Treating voters differently based on arbitrary criteria is voter suppression. Asking voters to identify themselves at registration or at the polls to protect the integrity of the process discriminates against no one - except those who are voting in ways that are illegal.


>
>>>An editorial about Acorn:
>>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17fri1.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=acorn&st=cse&oref=slogin
>>
>>"The answer is for government to do a better job of registering people to vote."
>>
>>Or a more Hamiltonian arguement could be made that those who have an opinion about how the nation should be governed that they would like to express with a vote should not be impeded in their effort to register - the operative concept here being "effort to register" This "reaching out" is not an effort at empowerment, it is an effort to recruit pre-selected sympathetic voters.
>>
>>I understand the idea of making registration as accessible as possible, but "recruiting" voters with workers who are filling quotas is political action more geared to Democratic goals than democratic goals.
>>
>>Don't blame them for that - just the hypocrisy of claiming those who cry foul are seeking "voter supression".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Tracy,
>>>>
>>>>Nothing occurs in a vacuum, especially during the presidential race. You can bet the EC is connected to the Obama camp and this is just more dirty tricks. It's right up there with those nutty ACORNs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>The location I voted at is on CNN right now for a McCain Rally (spurred by the Republican party I understand) incident...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What vote is that ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>and what incident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nick
>>>>>
>>>>>Presidential Election. We have early voting. There was a rally at the voting place today by McCain supporters. I wouldn't have known if I hadn't had CNN on in the background while I'm working. The republic party was protesting the cumberland county board of elections because we had voting on a Sunday for the first time ever this time and it was not publicized. The only place they publicized the Sunday voting was on stage at Obama's speech so no one except those who attended or watched the speech online knew about Sunday voting. I looked online for voting places for early voting (and instructions) and saw the schedule. They added the sunday (only one sunday and it was last sunday) on the Monday following. Interesting. Trying to cover their butts obviously. I think it wasn't done specifically for Dems but rather to keep the turnout lower than it would be otherwise. Lazy folks. They could state they had Sunday voting and there was a low turnout so no reason to ever have it again. (Just my opinion) Problem was that it was busy because it was announced on stage right before Obama's speech here.