Suppress the vote

[Kulaf]

The company should be charged with fraud and lose its liscense to operate.

[Lurker]

And if the company is blameless and this is just the fault of a few overzealous workers?

[Kulaf]

The company is still responsible for the actions of its workers.

[Harlowe]

So if a restaurant had a worker that pee'd in the soup while no one was looking, someone later informed them of it - the restaurant should just lose it's license? That makes no sense. They should be culpable for damages and under scrutiny, but you don't just arbitrarily shut down businesses or organizations because they happened to have some jerk offs working for them.

If they aren't sanctioning it, and took action when the issue was discovered, they shouldn't be treated like criminals. No company has 100% control over every single thing each worker does.

[Kulaf]

From the article you cited:

The Times randomly interviewed 46 of the hundreds of voters whose election records show they were recently re-registered as Republicans by YPM, and 37 of them -- more than 80% -- said that they were misled into making the change or that it was done without their knowledge.

That is a fair example of systemic fraud in the branch. If it was some rogue employee I doubt highly you would see that percentage of fraud. They should lose their ability to register voters in the state......or at the very least be put on probation and heavily scutinized.

[Select]

If they aren't sanctioning it, and took action when the issue was discovered, they shouldn't be treated like criminals. No company has 100% control over every single thing each worker does.

This parallels the Obama and Joe the Plumber thread.

[Lurker]

That is a fair example of systemic fraud in the branch. If it was some rogue employee I doubt highly you would see that percentage of fraud.

Ok, so a percentage of 80% indicates systemic fraud instead of a rogue employee.

What if the percentage was lower? For the sake of argument, lets say that there were a handful of problems out of hundreds of thousands of registrations? Would that be a sign of "one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy", or would it be just some rogue employees?

[Kulaf]

If you want to discuss ACORN.....at least have the testicular fortitude to not disguise it with how much you care about an organization registering Republicans and just broach the subject honestly.

[Kulaf]

Seeing as we are "really" discussing ACORN I will say this.....their incentive program is the root of the "rogue employee" problem. They encourage less than honorable behaviour from their employees.

I will draw a parallel to Sears since the events happened while I was working my way through college there. The auto service employees were incentivized by how many services they sold to a customer. 4 tires = cash, balancing = more cash, alignment = more cash, etc. To make more money therefore some "rogue employees" started selling services to customers that they really didn't need. The end result of this was a class action suit against Sears.....and a restructuring of the way auto service employees were compensated.

I would suggest that ACORN should do the same or face similiar legal problems.

[Ddrak]

You mean like paying mortgage brokers based on the number of mortgages they can sign, and giving bonuses for bringing in the high interest ones?



Dd

[Lurker]

If you want to discuss ACORN.....at least have the testicular fortitude to not disguise it with how much you care about an organization registering Republicans and just broach the subject honestly.

Harlowe posted about the Republican organization to highlight the hypocrisy and dishonesty of those screeching about voter fraud. I expanded it to ACORN when you said that the percentage proved it was fraud and not just rogue employees. Following that logic, the percentage of problems with ACORN registrations proves it isn't fraud by the oganization.

Which brings us to your Sears example and why it doesn't apply. ACORN has no incentive program and no quotas, they flag questionable registrations, fire suspect employees, and cooperate with the authorities. The Sears analogy also falls apart due to scope and the fact that it was Sears management pushing the fraud, not the worker.

The current attack against ACORN is the fraud. Thanks for proving my point.

You mean like paying mortgage brokers based on the number of mortgages they can sign, and giving bonuses for bringing in the high interest ones?

That's a great parallel to his Sears example. ACORN? Not so much.

[Kulaf]

You mean like paying mortgage brokers based on the number of mortgages they can sign, and giving bonuses for bringing in the high interest ones?



Dd

Not a valid comparrison at all since mortgage BROKERS are independent self employed people. Perhaps you meant mortgage BANKERS who actually work for a lending institution that is using it's own money.

[Embar Angylwrath]

So if a restaurant had a worker that pee'd in the soup while no one was looking, someone later informed them of it - the restaurant should just lose it's license? That makes no sense. They should be culpable for damages and under scrutiny, but you don't just arbitrarily shut down businesses or organizations because they happened to have some jerk offs working for them.

If they aren't sanctioning it, and took action when the issue was discovered, they shouldn't be treated like criminals. No company has 100% control over every single thing each worker does.

Legal theory would indicate otherwise.

[Lurker]

Which legal theory is that, Embar?

After you inform us you might want to let the Bush DoJ know, because there were the same hysterics over vote fraud in 2006 which led to a few indictments against individual ACORN workers and not a single charge against the organization. The voter fraud fraud pushed by the Republicans also led to the politicization of the DOJ, the illegal firing of US Attorneys, the resignation of Gonzales, and a special prosecutor to try to sort through the whole mess.

[Kulaf]

Whatever happened with that Congressional probe into the firings anyway? I assumed it fizzled out like I thought it would but it sort of dropped off the face of the planet.

[Lurker]

Whatever happened with that Congressional probe into the firings anyway? I assumed it fizzled out like I thought it would but it sort of dropped off the face of the planet.

You are stunningly ignorant.

[Ddrak]

Which legal theory is that, Embar?

After you inform us you might want to let the Bush DoJ know, because there were the same hysterics over vote fraud in 2006 which led to a few indictments against individual ACORN workers and not a single charge against the organization. The voter fraud fraud pushed by the Republicans also led to the politicization of the DOJ, the illegal firing of US Attorneys, the resignation of Gonzales, and a special prosecutor to try to sort through the whole mess.

He's talking about the store scenario I believe, and there's some legitimacy to his claim. If an employee at McDonalds ignores policy and serves coffee that's scalding hot then I think you'll find McDonalds still runs a serious risk of a lawsuit.

Dd

[Lurker]

Of course. But McDonalds isn't going to have their license to operate revoked. There's also legal theory that provides substantial protections to businesses for employee misconduct if the employee is operating outside the scope of their job.

To highlight what Harlowe said, and what Embar incorrectly said was wrong...

They should be culpable for damages and under scrutiny, but you don't just arbitrarily shut down businesses or organizations because they happened to have some jerk offs working for them.

If they aren't sanctioning it, and took action when the issue was discovered, they shouldn't be treated like criminals. No company has 100% control over every single thing each worker does.

[Kulaf]

Whatever happened with that Congressional probe into the firings anyway? I assumed it fizzled out like I thought it would but it sort of dropped off the face of the planet.

You are stunningly ignorant.

Soooo.....yer saying it didn't fizzle out. Gee thanks Helpy Helperton. And here I didn't get you anything.

[Harlowe]

Whatever happened with that Congressional probe into the firings anyway? I assumed it fizzled out like I thought it would but it sort of dropped off the face of the planet.

What?? Are you just being facetious or do you really not know what's been going on with this?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=95187253

The Justice Department's inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility released the report jointly Monday morning. It is harsh, but incomplete, as key officials in the White House and Congress refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

The nearly 400-page report provides a road map to one of the most chaotic periods in the department's history. It has no praise for anyone who was in charge then. According to the report:

* Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "failed to exercise appropriate leadership and supervision throughout this entire process."
* Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty made public statements that were "inconsistent, misleading or inaccurate."
* Chief of staff Kyle Sampson, who oversaw the U.S. attorney firings, "mishandled the removal process from the outset."

All three of those men resigned over the controversy, as did more than a dozen others.

Investigators found no evidence that anyone at the Justice Department evaluated the reasons for firing each U.S. attorney. They also found that no one tried to keep improper political considerations out of the firing process. That means prosecutors may have been fired for refusing to indict Democrats or for prosecuting Republicans. Indeed, investigators "found substantial evidence that partisan political considerations played a part in the removal of several of the U.S. attorneys."

On September 29, 2008 the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) released a report on the matter that found most of the firings were politically motivated and improper. The next day Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a special prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, to decide whether criminal charges should be brought against Gonzales and other officials involved in the firings. The IG's report contained "substantial evidence" that party politics drove a number of the firings, and IG Glenn Fine said in a statement that Gonzales had "abdicated his responsibility to safeguard the integrity and independence of the department." The report itself stopped short of resolving questions about higher White House involvement in the matter, because of what it said were the refusal to cooperate of a number of key players, among them Karl Rove, Senator Pete Domenici and Harriet Miers and because the White House refused to hand over its documents related to the firings.