Talk:ChoicePoint
|
|
ChoicePoint has been criticized for a bias in favor of the Republican Party, for knowingly using inaccurate data, and for racial discrimination. Allegations include listing voters as felons for alleged crimes said to have been committed several years in the future. In addition, people who had been convicted of a felony in a different state and had their rights restored by said state, were not allowed to vote despite the restoration of their rights. (One should note Schlenther v. Florida Department of State (June 1998) which ruled that Florida could not prevent a man convicted of a felony in Connecticut, where his civil rights had not been lost, from exercising his civil rights.) Furthermore, it is argued that people were listed as felons based on a coincidence of names, despite other data (such as date of birth) which showed that the criminal record did not apply to the voter in question.
Who made these criticisms and claims, and what proof have they offered? Was it Greg Palast? If so, cite him as the source. --Uncle Ed 17:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A lot of people have made these criticisms. Pretty much anyone who thinks the 2000 election was "rigged" has made these accusations. People who think Choicepoint did not allow them to vote, they have made these accusations. Do you really think removing the text is the proper way to discuss this? Is it too much to ask that you take a moment and contact the author of the text; instead of just removing it and potentially having nobody ever notice what you did? Lirath Q. Pynnor
Cleanup needed
Hi all. I added the cleanup tag to call attention to the need for some reoganizing of this article for readability and organization. There are some stylistic inconsistencies present, and a think a good once-over should help. Your thoughts and edits are welcome! Please comment using the ":" below this section - thanks. --NightMonkey 23:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)