About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Quote of the Day | Main | Maybe this pachyderm needs a low-carb diet »

October 31, 2004



Sure. Democrats' efforts to keep Nader off the ballot in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio are just about respect for the law. That's all. They have nothing to do with denying would-be Nader voters the opportunity to vote for Nader. Because that'd be, you know -- undemocratic. And we all know the Democrats are the true party of democracy!


Get real, man. If you think either party isn't dirty as hell -- and hasn't always been so -- you're either naive or completely unhinged.

...and what about the NAACP worker who was paying people with crack cocaine to register voters? I'm sure that was a Republican trick, too.


I'd also highly suggest this week's "This American Life" for dicussion on the subject. The second piece is about voter fraud and says that both parties are at fault and have done bad things--but makes what I think is a compelling case that Democratic misdeeds have been far less egregious than Republican misdeeds (like actually shredding ballots and refusing to register people who said they intended to vote for Kerry).

Tung Yin

There are too many "Matt"s who comment! (j/k)

Just to be clear, the first Matt is not the same as the second Matt. The first Matt is (I believe) Matt Rustler from Stop the Bleating!. The second Matt is one of the bloggers at A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago.


Matt: I'm not familiar with it. Is there a link?


Yes. Sorry 'bout that. I have updated my handle to ease idenficiation.



Well, you know what I meant.


I also can't resist asking: Were the Democrats the party of democracy when the Daley machine (and its analogue in Texas) stole the 1960 election for the other JFK? Not that that's directly relevant to this election; I'm just trying to figure out precisely when the Democrats' concern for the popular will supposedly began to outweigh their appetite for power. Because if that has happened, it must be a relatively recent phenomenon.

Kevin Jon Heller

"Democrats' efforts to keep Nader off the ballot in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio are just about respect for the law. That's all. They have nothing to do with denying would-be Nader voters the opportunity to vote for Nader."

Yeah, ensuring that Nader supporters don't commite massive signature fraud (upwards of 66% in Pennsylvania, according to a judge there) is anti-democratic.

You do have to admire the selflessness of the Republicans, though, in spending so much time and money rounding up (and often inventing) signatures for Nader. Such committment to democracy!

And if you think the occasional Democratic misdeed as the party tries to register new voters is equivalent to the Republicans' systematic attempts to disenfranchise the poor, the young, and minorities through every dirty trick in the book, it's you who is seriously unhinghed.


Ah, "ensuring that Nader supporters don't commit massive signature fraud" isn't anti-democratic, but trying to ensure that Democrats don't commit massive vote fraud in Ohio is anti-democratic. I see. Or is your argument just that the Democrats are less anti-democratic than the Republicans? Either way, it's reassuring! Pot, meet kettle.

And for the record, I've seen no evidence that Republican dirty tricksters are targeting any of the folks that you mention for any reason other than that they're predominantly Democratic. So I don't see how their dirty tricks are any "dirtier" than the Democrats' similar efforts to disenfrancise white, middle-class, middle-age Republicans. Or don't their votes count in your vision of democracy?

The comments to this entry are closed.