This article from the Miami Herald
portrays a chaotic scene: small bunches of voters disenfranchised in 2000 have had their rights restored while thousands more remain in limbo due to overdue reports from counties who now may blatantly screw them a second time; meanwhile thousands more are about to be pushed into electoral limbo as another list of "potential felons" comes out. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why is the burden of proof on the voter who has been falsely accused rather than on the accuser who must surely have evidence of a conviction (whereas an innocent couldn't have proof of not having been convicted).
This story alone makes it difficult to see anybody claiming that US elections are beyond reproach. This story alone creates sufficient doubt to make the case for the No Confidence movement
Post a Comment
Top of Page / GuvWurld Blog Home Page