Hey, there! Log in / Register
Hypocrite: Minister who complains about turnout hasn't voted since 1997
By adamg on Fri, 09/27/2013 - 9:25am
Adrian Walker tweets that the Rev. Eugene Rivers, who screamed from the front page of the Herald that blacks are to blame for Tuesday's results, hasn't voted in well over a decade. And this alleged active backer of Charlotte Golar Richie didn't vote Tuesday, either, yet has the gall to blame backers of other minority candidates for her loss.
Speaking of religion and beams in thine eyes, Howie Carr rants today about alleged Irish bashing at the Globe, yet doesn't mention that the Rivers screed ended with a complaint about how we're going to end up with "a white Irish man" as mayor. But maybe he's just like most people and doesn't read the Herald anymore.
Meanwhile, the Dorchester Reporter is frustrated with the low turnout Tuesday:
To the 70 percent - more than a quarter-million people - who are on the voting rolls but didn’t darken the voting booth on Tuesday: What the hell is wrong with you?
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Technology can solve this
Technology can solve this problem by making the process of voting simpler. Allow online voting so voters do not need to go to a polling place but can vote from their phone via a voting app; it will only take a minute to vote and more voters will participate. Plus, allow more than 1 day for the voting process.
Because
Showing up to a predetermined location and filling in a circle is ever so hard........ The Guy is a clown!
It can be harder
For those with unpredictable travel schedules. One must apply for an absentee ballot, which must be received by the election department prior to noon on the day before the election, receive the absentee ballot via mail (at a potentially unpredictable mailing location), and return the absentee ballot. Alternatively, one could apply for and vote on an absentee ballot at city hall in the two weeks prior to the election. An unpredictable travel schedule is not an excuse not to vote, but it's certainly harder than "showing up to a predetermined location and filling in a circle," anon.
If you can't
handle using the USPS maybe you shouldn't be voting!
He was'nt traveling
So whats you point!
well actually
States that have extended the voting time frame to a week or 7 days, and made absentee ballots more accessible, have had better turnout rates.
So.......
How exactly does the process remain anonymous, secure and reliable? Keep in mind, each person only gets one vote (try not to laugh at that). The only way to manage one vote per person would be to create an ID, PIN, or some other identifier. There goes the anonymity. There is certainly no software system in the world impervious to being compromised. And reliable? Well, we've all seen Windows crash, and crash, and crash, and crash...
So, how is the current voting process so
anonymous and secure if the names and addresses of those who actually showed up to vote, and (for primaries) what political party they were forced to align themselves with in order to exercise their constitutional rights, are considered public records availalbe for anyone to see?
Your ballot remains anonymous.
.
More privacy
You can go to a town clerk to research whether a person voted. That is public record.
However, elections officials at a polling place are forbidden from telling anyone whether someone has voted, before polls close. Typically, someone asks whether a spouse or child has voted yet. The inspector or clerk at the check-in table is not allowed to say.
Whether you are registered and whether you voted is public record.
True.
Any of us can find out if a person has voted. Although, we have no way of knowing who or what they voted for. Unless of course they were the only person who voted (doesn't that sound like a horrible comedy?).
Why bother asking?
When I check in, if I want to know if my spouse has voted yet, I just look at the booklet as the person checks off my name. They have it lying flat on the table.
Say I choose not to vote
(which might be for one of several legitimate reasons - like illness for one)? Why should my personal decision become part of the public record for anyone and everyone to find out about?
and, for the record, I haven't missed a single election (local, state, or Federal) in the 30+ years I've been a registered voter
I know in many states (I'm
I know in many states (I'm not sure of Mass.) there is a process known as "permissive referendum" where citizens can petition local governments to place important spending and policy decisions on a ballot for public referendum. Typically, the benchmark for these petitions is getting a specific percentage of voters - who voted in the last election - to sign on.
Most people are surprised at what is open to the public. For example, if I knew your name, I could simply go on the Secretary of State's Website and find any property you own, or have owned. How much you purchased/sold it for and how much you have left on you mortgage. Property assessments/tax records are also among the many things available to the public.
Ultimately, the act of voting - like buying property and taking out a debt to purchase it - is a public process and thus, a record of that process is generated for public consumption.
One big, messy, grumpy family
Lots of stuff that affects the commonweal and in our case commonwealth, are public record, just because they affect us all. There's your property taxes and how much you paid for your house, for example. In Boston's case, those data are online...for everybody.
How much is your property tax? How much is your property valued at? How much did you contract to buy it for? How many square feet is your house, your lot? All of that is there for anyone to see.
For voting, we have no idea how someone marked a ballot nor any way to find out. If the elections officers (warden, clerk and inspectors) do their jobs right, even they should not know what ovals you smeared. Even the scanner is set to report the errors on its little screen when a scan fails, so the officers can glance at it and see things like overvoting, without looking at the ballot itself. That should be private.
It as silly as saying you can't take photographs of my house or bushes as it is to say you have no right to know whether I voted. What's public should be accessible and is. Done and done.
There are very legitimate reasons
to know who owns specific properties and the taxes they pay (or aren't paying) on said properties. And there are also legitimate reasons to know what percentage of registered voters actually voted in an election.
However, I been scratching my head and still can't think of one legitimate reason (and lame justifications like "but it's a public process" don't qualify) that the "who chose not to vote" issue has to be micro-managed to the level of naming specific individuals.
Not quite. While your choices on the ballot
remain anonymous. In a primary election, the party ballot you are forced to choose becomes part of the public record.
Not really
The number of Dems, Republicans and when applicable Green-Rainbow and such do become public record. These are not attached to the individual voter.
The elections officers (warden, clerk and inspectors) mark the check-in book in a primary for each voter. Those enrolled in a party get that party's ballot. Those who are unenrolled (over half of MA voters) choose a ballot. The officer records that choice by writing the initials of the party. At Elections in City Hall, those marks first no longer change the party enrollment and have not for many years, but are available for statistical purposes only. They are not recorded per voter. There is no record of which unenrolled voter chose which ballot.
Yes, I fully understand that
obtaining a ballot of a specific party no longer changes a voter's "unenrolled" status. However, the check mark as to ballot type each individual "unenrolled" voter takes still appears besides the voter's name and address on the sheets the poll workers use to verify your eligibility - this is on both the check-in and check-out sheets. As I stated, all this information is retained and becomes part of the public record. So somebody could indeed figure out what party specific individuals voted for.
And none of this discussion addresses my principal objections to this outdated process. Why is it still deemed necessary to provide separate "party-specific" ballots for a primary election? And how does this practice actually benefit the actual voters?
In responding to these questions, be aware I will not consider answers like "Well, that's the way the process has always worked - why change it?" or "but one candidate is running unopposed in their party" to be acceptable.
No coercion
No one has to pick a political party to register. You have the option of selecting one or one of those 25 political designations that are not parties. If you are enrolled in one and want to be unenrolled, just send in a voter reg card to make that change. You can get one at your polling place, from your town clerk, or by an online request.
The only time party choice comes into play is for primaries, which are for those signed up for the parties running candidates and for the unenrolled voters. It's odd how many object to choosing a party ballot, even after the legal limits are explained a few times. How odd also that so many enrolled and unenrolled voters want a final-style ballot, with all the candidates from every party on them. They don't get the concept of party primary voting. Meh.
The objections to having to choose
a party affiliation (even itf it's "temporary") in order to receive a ballot should be fairly obvious. A ballot is intended to be totally secret and the final choices on said ballot are to be made by the voter and only that voter. Yet, the voter's choices are being arbitrarily restricted before they even enter the ballot box because of this nonsense that an "unenrolled" voter must declare a party - which, BTW, becomes part of the public record and is also obvious to others in the polling place (i.e. a voter's friends and neighbors) by the COLOR of the ballot they are handed.
Placing all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, on a single primary ballot - with the clear instruction "VOTE FOR ONE ONLY" - maximizes the choices for all voters (which would also benefit all candidates). It's also more efficient to adminster, because you no longer have the need to go through the "how many ballots for each party do we need to print out" and intrusive "what ballot would you like" questions poll workers ask of "unenrolled" candidates. As this approach doesn't prevent party loyalists from voting their "all one party" choices, how does anybody lose by ditching the current system?
Australian ballot...
...which is what we use in the U.S. is an innovation that provides for secrecy on the ballot choices. It is not also some mystical and magic cloak that prohibits all observers from seeing whether the elector shows at a polling place or chooses a specific party ballot for a primary. Those would be in some mythical world of invisibility.
What the party primary system does provide is that all unenrolled (again over half of MA voters) can influence one party's outcome in a given primary, and all enrolled party members can choose candidates, and that partisan voters enrolled in other parties cannot influence the outcome. That's well worth the extra ballots and limiting the irrationally "entitled" voters to picking candidates for all parties at once.
There's an attraction to being unenrolled in being able in primaries to influence a given party's nominees. Pinkos or wingers would likely love to choose the lamest candidate for the party they hate. Primaries limit that possibility.
The idea that somehow you should have every option laid before you in a party primary seems akin to feeling entitled to park in the fire lane by a store or cinema. Instead, you get the choice among various parties' nominees come general election.
And why shouldn't a voter have the right
to choose among all available candidates in a primary election, regardless of which party any individual candidates are actually affiliated with.
Let's consider the case of a primary election that involves multiple races on different levels (local and statewide) - which is a fairly common occurrence. Suppose an informed "unenrolled" voter decides they want to support Candidate X for the local race and Candidate Y for the statewide race. However, Candidate X and Candidate Y belong to different political parties. With the present system, you are denying the voter the right to truly choose the candidate of their choice for each race, which could make a noticeable difference in the outcome of the primary.
The fact is that the current "choose a party" system for primaries is based on the outdated notion that the average voter will choose candidates based strictly along party lines.
And I'll repeat what I said in a previous response. Tell us how restricting the number of available choices based on party affiliation (as opposed to a candidate's positions) actually benefits the individual voters or encourages more people to participate in the electoral process.
And why shouldn't party members be able to choose their people?
This open system, as opposed to our halfway system, is a recipe for trouble.
Let's assume that in Massachusetts there is an equal division between the parties. Not so, but for the sake of my argument, let's say. Also, let's assume that all of the candidates for governor are who we know. What would keep Baker's people from having their supporters vote for the weakest Democrat? The GOP did something close in 2008 for President.
I like our system, but given between the extremes, I would pick closed primary over open.
I agree....
Primaries are one of the ways political parties select the candidates they will put forwards as THEIR candidates in partisan elections. Why should people who are not willing to identify themselves as associated with the party making the selection of its candidate have any voice in selecting the candidate.
Preventing negative
No one claims that the party primary system encourages more participation beyond party enrolees and the unenrolled. The idea instead is to prevent abuse by those enrolled in other parties goofing on a party's potential nominees. Unlike a preliminary, the primary is specifically to winnow various parties' nominees.
Everybody gets a shot at the party nominees and anyone else qualifying by signature for the ballot come the final. Those enrolled in other parties just don't get to play around with a party's slate in the primary.
You could ask your state rep and senator to file legislation that changes that. They are not likely to be the least bit sympathetic.
Nope!
I do tech for a living, after the fiasco with DIEBOLD voting machines in other states a few years ago, I don't want technology anywhere near voting. Too much error for corruption and altering votes. Not enough checking and verification that the votes are valid. (Not saying it doesn't happen today but technology would make it far more easier)
No way, subject to too many
No way, subject to too many avenues of manipulation and abuse . But really, the right to vote , and people cant find the time or place. Through history, American soldiers have shed their blood all over the world, to insure our way of life continues. Guadalcanal , Normandy beach ,Inchon , and all the others. Just get off your ass and get to the voting booth, sheesh !
Void / Dup
Void / Dup See above ^
Typical
Eugene Rivers has only ever cared about getting attention for himself. He wants to be the Boston version of Jesse Jackson at the height of his popularity, but has never put in the time and work to attain influence in the community as Jackson, whatever he might have done later, absolutely did at the beginning of his career. Meanwhile, there are minority clergy in this city who actually have the respect of their communities but don't get quoted in the paper because they're busy, you know, ministering to their flocks and are far less reliable when it comes to making inflammatory comments. Rivers is nowhere to be found unless there's a member of the press present to take pictures of his "concern" face and dramatic hand gestures.
True that.
Wyatt's votes also matched his campaign efforts. Too many of the candidates worried more about human races, than the mayors race.
"influence in the community as Jackson"
What through fear mongering and racist tirades.
Has Rush Limbaugh taken to voting?
He has stated he doesn't cast ballots. Has he cast any lately? The Rush who wants Obama to fail and works to ensure that outcome.
Jim Lehrer declines to vote. He claims that way he can be less partisan, and be more impartial in his journalism.
I am not a Rivers supporter. Especially after he wanted to petition the Republican coalition to have a seat at the table circa 2001. A seat at that table is to help a going out of business sale to end government.
I was here when Mel King became the frontrunner and the city rallied behind Ray "ROAR: Return Our Alienated Rights" Flynn to elect him Mayor. Mayor Flynn realized the dream of his lifetime when "He was later appointed United States Ambassador to the Holy See (1993–1997) by President Bill Clinton."
Talk about discouraging.
The most common refrain that I have heard as to why turnout was so pathetically low was that "it was so difficult to choose between 12 candidates".
So you decided not to choose at all? Really?
Why do I think that these same people do not have any problem choosing a new whiz-bang electronic device from many more than 12 options?
C'mon people, get with the program - there are millions or billions of people around the world who would consider themselves incredibly fortunate to have 12 (or even more than one) choices in an election. Do you not understand that you forfeit your right to complain about things that can be affected by elected officials (and that's a lot of things) when you fail to vote?
Maybe that's precisely the problem - that people don't understand that. Perhaps an outgoing politician (or police commissioner) can dish out some tough love by showing up in a downtrodden neighborhood and saying "hey, here's a tip. For the last x years, I didn't give a flying Philadelphia about you because you rendered yourself irrelevant by not participating in the political process. Now tell me, how has that worked out for you?"
(Note to the crazies who will misinterpret what I just wrote - I am not suggesting that either Menino or Davis actually felt that way. I am merely saying that perhaps it would be a useful tool, particularly since whatever is being done now to get people to vote is remarkably ineffective).
Where do I start?
Part of the blame for Rivers' status as the "let's get a quote and picture of a black clergy person shaking his fist at the black community" lies with the press. Isn't there anyone else in the Rolodex? Here's the dirty little secret about us. We're not all the same. We work, go to school, raise our kids and, like everyone else, are formed by our own individual experiences. It's absurd to think we're only influenced by our common skin color and its' variations. But, it's really popular to find someone black to harangue other blacks.
Like, this phony concern on the right with "black on black" crime. People murder people all the time. Does a white murderer back out of killing his victim because they share the same skin color? No. But, part of the impetus of crime is opportunity. Boston is a highly segregated city. No matter what people tell you about "neighborhoods", Blacks and Latinos live where they live due to redlining back in the "good old days". So people of color who are criminals target their neighbors. Crime is mostly INTRARACIAL, not INTERRACIAL. Where is the concern about "white on white" crime or "Asian on Asian" crime?
But, it's a good tool to batter blacks in the media. And, the press will always find blacks willing to go along with the charade.
Black on black crime
Do us all a favor - pull up murder stats for Boston or any other large diverse city and see how many murders are white on white vs black on black, you might be unpleasantly surprised. Obviously, it will be all white on white in some 100% white hick town in Kentucky, but any diverse city will be mostly black on black gang violence, with a few domestic disputes/crazies/druggies accounting for the rest.
You totally missed my point.
My point isn't that blacks don't murder. My point is the idea of black on black crime as some sort of phenomenon that shouldn't happen is a fallacy. Crime happens and again it occurs mostly within racial groups because of proximity. If I live in Roxbury and I am a murderer, chances are my victim will be black. The phrase "black on black" crime is ridiculous because it's not an anomaly that blacks commit violence against blacks. It's a certaintly just like whites will attack/kill whites. Pundits bring on these commentators who tsk-tsk blacks as a whole (the non-criminals among us) like it's our fault as a group for the actions of a few. How would you like to be judged by the actions of a criminal just because he's the same color as you. Everyone loves to preach individuality until it no longer serves the narrative of smearing an entire race of people who go about their day-to day lives.
Nope
It's not the fact that blacks murder other blacks that is concerning - as you have stated, killers kill those in close proximity, nothing strange about it. The fact that blacks are killing each other at a much higher rate than anyone else, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. Something is definitely wrong when 13% of the population are responsible for over 50% of all murders.
How about here?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-...
But then again, those pesky FBI stats must have been compiled by racist Fox news, right?
Go out and vote? But that
Go out and vote? But that would interfere with my TV viewing that evening! You can see the bind I'm in...
Wow! Embarrassing!
Wow! Embarrassing!
Make voting mandatory
Voting should be required for all persons over 18.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
HYPOCRITE!
HYPOCRITE!
Wow!
I read the good reverend's column. He's sounds like a bigot.
Replace Head of Elections Division & elect new State Secretary
Replace the Head of the Elections Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a more up to date Head of the Elections Division and elect a more up to date Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
.