Want To Vote In GOP Primary? Then Sign The Loyalty Oath!

[babylonsister]

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=6072

Want To Vote In GOP Primary? Then Sign The Loyalty Oath!
Posted by Mark on December 28, 2011 at 11:07 am.



Republicans nationwide have been waging a war on voting aimed at disenfranchising millions of Americans. This coordinated campaign of voter suppression is directed specifically at senior citizens, minorities, students, and the disabled. These are constituencies that right-wing supporters of these tactics (i.e. the Koch brothers) view as Democratic leaning voters. However, once you enter this realm of election engineering, it isn’t long before the same practices are applied to anyone the engineers seek to control.

So it isn’t surprising to learn that the Virginia Republican Party has implemented a rule that will require voters in the primary election to sign a Republican loyalty oath pledging to support the eventual GOP nominee or be prohibited from voting in the primary.

Once again Republicans demonstrate their commitment to upending the American ideals of democracy. This rule is not only un-American, it is unenforceable. We have a little thing in this country we call a “secret ballot,” so there would be no way to know for whom a primary voter cast their vote in the general election. Consequently, this gimmick was strictly designed to intimidate people who go to the polls to exercise their rights.

These martinets of party virtue somehow got the idea that they can force people to vote for a candidate in the general election that they do not support. And since only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have qualified for the ballot in Virginia, this rule would require Paul supporters to vote for Romney, or vice versa, a scenario that many supporters of either candidate would find objectionable.

This is the all-too-foreseeable consequence of a philosophy that permits the sort of voter manipulation that Republicans have been engaging in. It is a creeping infringement on liberties that free nations ought to reject. And it is the ideological companion to the phony assertions of voter fraud (which the right has been unable to certify), and the positioning of legal obstacles to voting (ID cards), that is corrupting our electoral processes.

[Kahuna]

1. Old McDonnell must want to be Myth's V.P. pick really bad.

There are just no words for such a move. Rove probably gave him the idea.

[SixthSense]

2. What a laugh

Gingrich lives in McLean VA and has already make statements that would preclude him from taking that oath. Guess he can't vote for himself, anyway, but that's pretty hilarious that this would prevent him from casting that vote.

[FSogol]

3. Back in the 1990s, the GOP wanted their primary voters to sign

a pledge stating that they would not vote in any other state primary. They were afraid that liberal Democrats would show up and screw up their prefered front runner's (Bob Dole?) chances. Funny thing was that the Democrats at the time didn't even have a primary, they still ran a caucus.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. I thought the GOP was against "voter intimidation"

Given the fit they threw about the Black Panthers during the 2008 election. Maybe their brand of intimidation is just "better"?

[MineralMan]

5. Too bizarre! Republicans just can't seem to stop

shooting themselves in the foot, or maybe somewhere even more delicate.

This is probably to try to keep Democrats from voting in their primary. Silly rabbits.

[SpiralHawk]

6. It's really suspicious that the Iowa Republicon caucus vote counting will be secret

Republicon occultism is diametrically opposed to The American Way.

[freshwest]

10. You're not the only one who's noticed GOP occultism:

&feature=channel_video_title

[SpiralHawk]

13. "Smirk." - The Bush Family Skull & Boner Bunch (R)

[freshwest]

15. The glory of recall. The Morgans? Pirates. Can't forget the Bush-Moon connection, either, LOL!

[Enrique]

7. they have to support the eventual nominee?

is there an exception if Mitt Romney is the nominee?

what if they gave a primary and no one showed up?

[yellowcanine]

8. How does that work in practice, exactly? No secret ballot anymore?

[freshwest]

9. Only one thing off in the OP. That their voters would find it objectionable to vote for Paul/Romney.

If they are going to vote GOP in the first place, they are voting for theocratic corporatist party so the name at the top of the list doesn't matter.

That and they are voting against the: liberation theology christian/atheist/muslim, sharia law promoting/baby killing/welfare queen loving, socialist/bankster lover, black/white/racist, warmongering/surrender monkey in the White House. Did I mention he's a Democrat?

That's all they need to vote for Republicans.

[maggiesfarmer]

11. please explain the line "purging ex-felons" on the graphic

IANAL, but my understanding of felonies, is that once one is convicted of a felony, they are a felon for life (one of the ongoing, life long repercussions of breaking laws in society). my understanding is that the only way to become an "ex-felon" is by an executive order of clemency. this graphic suggests that people who go through the process of obtaining clemency in those 4 states will have their voting rights purged -- that doesn't make sense because felons lose their right to vote upon conviction.

[babylonsister]

12. Nope. "As of 2011, only two states, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to impose a life-long denial

of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record."

Lots more here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement

[maggiesfarmer]

14. I'm aware of felony laws in VA and KT. the graphic discusses something totally different...

'ex-felons' being 'purging' of rights.

I read the wiki page -- I note they introduce the term 'ex-felon' without defining it, so let's be 100% clear. A felon is someone who has been convicted of a felony (http://law.yourdictionary.com/felon). To be an 'ex-felon' means that conviction was removed (e.g. clemency granted by the gov, appeals court overturning conviction). If there's a different meaning of ex-felon, i'm interested.

your reasoning seems to suggest that if a felon goes long enough without being convicted of further felonies, that they somehow become an ex-felon. this is not the case. yes, 48 states automatically RESTORE VOTING RIGHTS, but that is not the same as removing the felony convictions.

the graphic states that states "purge" voting rights from ex-felons, which is simply not accurate. update the graphic with text like "STATES THAT DON'T AUTOMATICALLY RESTORE FELON'S VOTING RIGHTS AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME" and we're good. the text on it now is totally misleading