What the hell was that man, Palast is the guy that espouses this, and you what, google it and take the 1st thing that you think supports you? Deal with the rest of his article too yeah?

But then you even got that bit wrong too didn't you? 445 apparent felons from the flawed list-
this is precisely the point- of those 445, most of the, quite possibly all of them would have had the right to vote, as that number could very easily represent the number of errors- doesn'taddress the higher numbers that Palast would uncover after that article...hell that was I think the 2nd one, right back in 2000.