L.A. Times on Voter Fraud
The L.A. Times runs an article titled Vote watchdogs warn of troubles on election day:
Counting down to an election day expected to draw a record-shattering turnout, voting-rights watchdogs are sounding the alarm that a repeat of the Florida fiasco of 2000 could occur in any of a dozen battleground states.
The watchdogs are barking madly about the purging of voter rolls.
There’s one sort of trouble not mentioned in the article. Yet I believe it’s the biggest problem of all.
The discussion Armed Liberal and I were having the other night — which led to that hypothetical we posed to readers yesterday — revolved around voter fraud and how to prevent it. Armed Liberal identified several different ways in which voter fraud can take place. My assertion was that there is one voter fraud problem so massive that it makes all the other possible problems seem trivial. The discussion then turned to how it can be prevented — and whether the possible fixes are too draconian for Americans to accept. (I say they aren’t.)
But maybe I’m wrong about the nature of the problem. So instead of my telling you what I think it is, let me throw open the floor to discussion, without prejudicing you any further.
What do you think is the single greatest source of voter fraud in this country?
The cities with 125% of the voting age population registered.Mike K (2cf494) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:01 am
The lack of proof that is needed to register…
Any type of voter registration situation where a person does not have to prove they can legally vote…
My personal example is, that when I see a credit card registration spot, and they are giving away something I might like, like a bag, or a blanket, I’ll register…and then, after giving a fake name and fake address, when they ask for ID, I’ll beg off, saying I didn’t have it on me, and they’ll take the registration anyway, and I’ll get the gift…
Well, I recently stopped at a “voter registration” drive, and did the same thing….
So, I “COULD” vote twice….
Maybe I will….reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:01 am
ACORN. I think they’ve been getting away with it because their fraud is so massive that the average American simply won’t believe it’s possible.benavente (ddb479) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:01 am
The lack of poll watchers in inner city districts.
The poll workers write down whatever number they are told to. They don’t even look at the machines.Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:02 am
picture id/no pic-ee/no vote-eepdbuttons (359493) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:02 am
i need a pic to do almost anything in this country/cash check/buy booze/show coppers/etc
voting is a privilege/not a right
if ur too stupid or lazy to get pic id-too bad
my vote is cancelled by the fraud/i feel disenfranchised
think i’ll march around the block
for the justice/exercise
I suggest we go to the Iraqi voting method.
Vote and Dye. Purple fingers all around.
Also, I fear that the “non-partisan” groups apparenlty charged with facilitating voter registration are, in fact, highly partisan.Techie (62bc5d) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:14 am
Illegals with or without fake ID. Millions of illegal foreigners with illegal credit cards, illegal houses and illegal jobs placing millions of illegal votes.
The better fix, require picture ID that illegals can not legally obtain. When found voting with fake ID, put them in jail for theft of American civil liberties.Ray (8cfb7a) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:18 am
Actually you have that backwards. Voting IS a Right.
I don’t agree with allowing community action groups, such as ACORN, to register voters. While I think we need a massive push for all citizens (Democrat, Republican, or whatever party they choose) to register and vote, allowing biased groups to take care of this is just asking for trouble. All it takes is a few unscrupulous zealots to ruin the whole process.
Every county in America has an election board, with trained staffers. There are (or should be) checks and balances to insure that anyone registering is a legitimate resident of their precinct. But it should only be done by these staffers, and not a bunch of undertrained, over-zealous partisan groupies.Paul (38c4d7) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:19 am
Greatest? Absentee ballots/early voting.Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:20 am
Absentee ballots have the greatest potential for fraudulent votes.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:25 am
Groups like ACORN should not exist.
The (potential for) abuse is way too high.
Voter Registration should be a governmental function.Techie (62bc5d) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:25 am
I like Techie’s idea. Why isn’t the entire voting and registration process done by the government?JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:25 am
Paul…there is NO Constitutional Right to vote in Federal Elections. State Constitutions may have this, but the U.S. Constitution doesn’t. There is a Constitutional provision to protect your ability to vote when that is an option to you as a citizen, but the U.S. Constitution has no “right to vote” power written into the document.reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:27 am
I don’t see any reason for the resistance to showing an ID at the booth other than to promote fraud. It wouldn’t matter so much if people were allowed to register multiple times or register fake people if you had to prove you are who you say you are when casting your vote.tim maguire (72f509) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:29 am
JD, it is done by the government. On the local level, groups like ACORN simply provide a service to the citizen, to do it at a mall, or a neighborhood playground. ACORN then submits the registrations for APPROVAL by the local registrar of voters.
The problem exists when someone can REGISTER AND VOTE on the same day, or at a time in which the registrar cannot verify the legality of the voter in time to prevent fraud (re: Ohio recently).
This is the racist portion of the posting. It is racist to have time restraints on citizens in this situation.reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:31 am
For all of the fuss surrounding ACORN, even if they were submitting false registrations, those registrations are useless unless and until they’re converted into votes and, even then, they’re a non-issue unless there are sufficient numbers of these votes to change the outcome of the vote. Maybe they have a master list of fraudulent registrations and they’ve got hundreds of people going from poll to poll casting extra votes, but I doubt it. And even if they did, it wouldn’t matter unless the number of fraudulently cast votes was greater than the margin of victory.
If you’re looking for a hypothetical as to the way in which to commit fraud on a big scale, I go along with Amphipolis (#4) and vote for the tabulating and reporting of the vote as the count proceeds from machine to precinct recap to county counter. It’s just too easy to misreport – on an accidental / honest basis – the results (getting the right count but switching the two candidates, misreading the numbers); doing so intentionally and on a wide scale basis would require some effort but pulling it off certainly screws with the process and greater than you could with a bunch of ACORN folks driving from poll to poll with their list of fake names.
But I’m guessing you posed a trick question. The biggest voter fraud comes not from registrations and the actual voting process, but in the fraud the candidates pull on the voters during the course of the campaign. False registrations and misreporting the numbers pale in comparison to the fraud a candidate can pull off by trying to convince voters he is, for example, going to cut their taxes when he fact he has no plans of ever doing so.stevesturm (369bc6) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:32 am
The media and the polls.Anonymous (3f3c9f) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:35 am
Thats probably another post, steve.
It’s not just that they are turning in false registrations, deep down in my dark Rethuglican heart, I’m convinced they are actively solicting and facilitating false registrations. And will do what is in their (hopefully) limited power to see that those false registrations DO turn in to false votes.Techie (62bc5d) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:37 am
The ignorance and gullibility of the average American voter!vet66 (d8da01) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:38 am
We, as a people, are too accommodating. We make it too easy to vote and by secondary effect too easy to defraud. To reduce fraud we must make it harder to vote in the first place. If you feel this disenfranchises you, well too bad, you should have put forth the effort.Thomas (b5d255) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:45 am
So, essentially, you just do not care.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:46 am
The lack of a photo id requirement…
What happen at the polls after they close? Can the poll monitors then fill in ballots for those who didn’t vote? Bogus registrations help that happen.Jack (d9cbc5) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:53 am
JD: I prefer to care about things that matter. Someone turning in 1,000 fake registrations, while illegal, doesn’t bother me if all it results in is 1,000 ‘voters’ not-voting. And if those 1,000 or 10,000 fake voters actually voted, it doesn’t bother me if the margin of victory is 100,000 votes.
The outcry over ACORN and fake registrations just illustrates how you all can miss the forest for the trees. You get so worked up over trivial matters (ACORN, Ayers, the videotape the LA Times is not releasing) and, in doing so, you fail to go after your opponents in ways and on issues that actually have the potential of making a difference. My God, how Obama has to be laughing at just how much time and effort you all have wasted. Here he is, with so much to go after, and McCain and the RNC spent millions of dollars and precious ad time pushing themes that don’t matter to voters.stevesturm (369bc6) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:55 am
Reff, I quote the Constitution.
While the 15th amendment specifically deals with race as an issue, it begins with the words,
Constitutionally, and I think that scholars have argued this point to and fro, this very wording implies the right of ALL CITIZENS of AMERICA to vote.
~PaulPaul (38c4d7) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:58 am
I think there are many routes to cheating, and I’m not sure which results in a greater number of bogus votes.cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:01 am
One is partisan organizers taking a cadre of folks to multiple polling places. Another is partisans “helping” those who don’t care one way or the other, or can’t think (e.g., old, infirm, some homeless) taking them to the polls and telling them how to vote; another is wholesale manufacturing of votes by partisan poll workers. All of those methods require registration – either an honest one (i.e., the person exists and wants to vote), or a fabricated one.
I agree that mail-in voting is also prone to “error.” I think some voting systems are also prone to error or gaming. I do not trust electronic-only systems, nor do I trust systems that lack a paper trail created by each individual voter. I do not like punch card systems – too easy to manufacture overvotes.
The biggest problem is the prevalence among Democrats that cheating is justifiable, and that cheating is not a moral wrong. Democrats are unethical, immoral people.
Paul – ALL CITIZENS of AMERICA do not get to vote, even if you use bold and ALL CAPS.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:02 am
“the single greatest source of voter fraud:” Poor education on the sanctity of democracy and the terrible price paid for it. This lack of education results in cavalier attitudes towards the exercise of the franchise.gp (72be5d) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:02 am
Not trying to be difficult here. Just enjoy a good argument. Hope you reply.
~PaulPaul (38c4d7) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:04 am
Republicans officials unfunding voting operations in Demcratic majority areas is the biggest source of voter fraud.snuffles (677ec2) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:05 am
I never said that All get to vote. I was quoting the Constitution, that all citizens do, in fact, have the right to vote. The bold was for emphasis. Sorry if it troubled you in some way.Paul (38c4d7) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:08 am
Other points have been raised here, but the increasing tendency of some localities to allow voting past the time allowances seems to be a growing problem. Last time around, MO had a budding scandal in St. Louis, where the polls remained open for (I believe) almost two hours after their official close. Seems to be a ripe avenue for corruption.Dmac (e30284) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:08 am
Bipartisan commission needs to do a top to bottom investigation and be equipped to order changes from states and even counties. Heavy fines for counties that don’t follow precise protocol.
New machines (preferably not Diebold or any of its subsidiaries. IBM, is the only company with the integrity to handle it.) Paper receipts that can be decoded only by the state in case of recounting (so people can’t sell their vote.
Automatic registration at 18 that never expires, you’re set for life, unless you lose it due to committing a crime. And really unless you’re actually in jail, a citizen should be allowed to vote. (oh, and there goes the rights ability to criticize community groups like ACORN or for bad actors on there part to register mickey mouse.)
All shenanigans investigated by the FBI and heavy charges and fines imposed. Putting up flyers saying it’s okay to vote on Nov. 5th? Say hello to your new best friend courtesy of the FBI: a federal jail cell.Peter (e70d1c) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:09 am
Republicans officials unfunding voting operations in Demcratic majority areas is the biggest source of voter fraud
For once in your besotted life, provide an objective link to back up your unfounded assertions.Dmac (e30284) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:09 am
— Someone turning in 1,000 fake registrations, while illegal, doesn’t bother me if all it results in is 1,000 “voters” not-voting. And if those 1,000 or 10,000 fake voters actually voted, it doesn’t bother me if the margin of victory is 100,000 votes. —cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:09 am
It bothers me, because it represents dishonesty that has cost in trying weed the illegitimate from the legitimate. When a large enough fraction of the pool is tainted, the end result is thrown into question.
I understand and agree with your points, that if the votes cast and vote count are honest, then “all’s well,” and that a certain amount of dishonesty won’t affect the end result. I’m just extremely intolerant of dishonesty, especially with something as serious as voting.
What’s that old saying, “I don’t care who votes, I care who COUNTS the votes.” I think wholesale vote fraud is where the action lies. See precincts that are nearly 100% dominated by one party.
Well, cheating of course, which is to say individuals voting illegally. the solution is simple and not at all draconian: voter verification. ID is certainly part of that.
Anyone who isn’t trying to cheat should want that.
sniffles, do you have an example of that Republican “unfunding”?Pablo (99243e) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:11 am
I also point you to the 19th and 26th Amendments, where the same wording is used in each.Paul (38c4d7) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:13 am
Paul, you’re mistaken. See here. The states decide when voting is required. The Constitution merely states the reasons for which a person cannot be barred from voting when voting is taking place.Pablo (99243e) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:15 am
Early Voting with Instant Registration.
And, I’m beginning to have serious doubts about the efficacy of universal, absentee voting.
Having people actually show up at a polling place on a certain date, between certain times, encourages a sense of community.
Plus, we need to think about shredding the voter lists, all of them – everywhere, and re-registering all voters, perhaps in conjunction with the National Census.Another Drew (260c29) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:15 am
Absentee Ballots are the greatest source of fraud.
I think we should just go with thumb print identification. Sure it would cost a few billion dollars, but then we wouldn’t have to have this huge fight over purges and such.headhunt23 (9e1243) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:16 am
Beer and DemocratsEricPWJohnson (47b9ab) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:16 am
Snuffles : Can you furnish us with examples? I have been working elections since 1948. First as a Democrat and then as a Republican. The problem, IMHO, in some Democratic majority areas is that the local politicians use the local Election Boards for political patronage. With unqualified people placed in charge, it is no wonder that these Election Boards have trouble. If you have worked as many elections as I have, you would know that, in any election district, where the majority party is Democratic, the propensity for election fraud increases. It is not that Republicans are more honest but that the circumstances necessary for successful voter fraud is less likely to eist in a Republican majority district.longwalker (dda662) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:18 am
Better yet: manual ballots fed into an optical scanner that electronically registers the vote. That way, there’s always a paper record and the ballot itself is retained so an actual recount of the ballots is possible, by hand, by machine or both. We’ve got that in RI and we don’t have voting problems.
I don’t get the “coded receipt”/vote selling concern.Pablo (99243e) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:22 am
This has to be one of the biggest Leftist canards out there.
That sniffles trots it out is no surprise.
Paul, all citizens do not have the right to vote. There are many limitations on who is allowed to do so. 18 years of age. Resident for a certain period of time. Some areas felons cannot vote. It is not open to all citizens.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:24 am
The greatest sources of voter cheating have already been outlawed: poll taxes, literacy test, and refusal to allow registration. The most scary fraud now, takes place when public officials will not accept registrations if the wrong box is checked (see sec of state’s in Ohio and Colorado for this year) and voter purging of legit voter (see HAVA and Katherine Harris).
In all the United States over the last decade, there have been 26 cases of provable voter fraud. Fake voters on election day is and has not been a serious problem in this country.
By raising the issue, though, certain people attempt to remove the legitimacy of the contest from the victor. It was stupid and disgusting when Robert Kennedy, Jr. attempted to do it regarding the 2004 election and it’s still stupid. Take your loss and run a better candidate.
Lastly, as long as both parties are allowed access to the vote counting, then there is a great chance elections will be fair. No more of LBJ’s box 13.
There will be tons of attention this Tuesday to make sure the election is fair and open. One might want to ask oneself, “Self, am I for more voters or less?” The answer to that question should make some of you blush: disenfranchising your fellow citizens because they have different political beliefs? Seems wrong to me.timb (a83d56) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:26 am
longwalker – sniffles does not actually care, it is just throwing out one of the Leftist talking points.
For example, last election, they claimed that there were long lines to vote in Cleveland, and blamed that on Sec. Blackwell, who had the audacity to be black and a Republican. His actions were not responsible for the actions of the local elections officials, who were all Democrats, yet the Left continued to blame Blackwell for the actions of local Democrats.
Dmac pointed out above that it simply asserts that point, and offers to proof, because it does not exist.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:28 am
This has to be one of the biggest Leftist canards out there.
Kinda like ACORN fraud is a far right canard, JD?snuffles (677ec2) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:29 am
timmah – Why would any of us blush? Give us examples of us disenfranchising people.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:30 am
I have a challenge for you –
Go look at any statewide recount, and explain to me the disparity.Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:30 am
Wait, if they are “Democrat Majority Areas”, how can the Republicans “unfund them? Can’t the Dems vote themselves voting monies?Techie (62bc5d) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:30 am
No, sniffles, not at all. I suppose that being under indictment in multiple states for systemic fraudulent registrations over many election cycles is just a figment of someone’s imagination?JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:31 am
I took my daughter to the dermotologist the other day and wrote a check for the deductible. They asked for my license, ANOTHER form of ID and ANOTHER phone number besides the one written on the check. This was for a $30 check.
Obama doesn’t even have to produce a valid birth certificate to run for president.
What’s wrong with this picture?Karen (dda662) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:31 am
What did you answer when you asked yourself that, Timmah!?
I’m not concerned with more voters or less voters. Quantity is not quality. I’m concerned with free, fair and legal elections.Pablo (99243e) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:31 am
Techie – There is always a Republican somewhere that they can blame it on.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:32 am
That site is very self contradictory.
The writer essentially says that the Constitution does not give you the right to vote (while I –and a lot of Constitutional scholars– disagree with that assumption) but that states, for whatever reason, can take away that right.
You can’t have it both ways, either there is a right or there’s not.
I agree with the point that the states, for various reasons, have the authority to prohibit a person from voting. However, in three different Constitutional amendments the words “right to vote,” are clearly written.
Like I wrote, this has been, and will be argued, a lot, withno one side really winning.
~PaulPaul (38c4d7) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:32 am
Comment by Dmac — 10/30/2008 @ 8:08 am
If you follow the “yellow brick road” in St.Louis, you will find ACORN at the end of it with the problem of keeping the polling places open past their allotted time.Another Drew (260c29) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:33 am
Also, several ACORN employees are now convicted felons for their actions in the last election in MO.
The greatest source is the desire to win the election (or to cause an opponent to lose.)
Greatest method, these days, is probably ballot box stuffing via early voters who can’t change their minds. What do these states do if Joe T Voter shows up at the poll, and claims not to have voted, that was someone else who used his registration?htom (412a17) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:33 am
I have another challenge for you –
Explain to me how more votes are counted in a precinct than registered voters.
Wake up. They don’t need bogus registrations.Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:34 am
The problem with fraudulent registrations, and not just the obvious ones like Mickey Mouse and Daf E. Duck, is a matter of percentages.
Say a specific precinct has a history of 30-40% turnout. Corrupt pollworkers (without poll watchers) could “vote” some number of the unvoted registrations and stay within historic turnout. When there are so many more registrations, even if there’s a slightly higher turnout than previously, the corrupt poll workers can “vote” a higher number of the unvoted registrations and still stay within historic numbers – thereby staying under the radar.
If a precinct had a history of 30-40% turnout and suddenly had 70-80% turnout that would raise flags, even in year where higher turnouts are expected.kimsch (2ce939) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:34 am
I don’t know about other states but here in Cali you can register to vote as many times as you want.ML (14488c) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:35 am
Its not illegal to register to vote more then once.
The problem with the fraudulent registrations, and voter fraud, is that it is designed to not only artificially inflate numbers, but it has a secondary effect of reducing the public trust.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:39 am
Paul, valid bars from voting have been mentioned above. Age, felonies, lack of citizenship, etc. The Constitution mandates that a state can not discriminate against a potential voter for the listed reasons and that’s all it does. It does not delineate a right to vote. There is no (federal) Constitutional right to vote. Keep in mind that popular elections for POTUS are relatively new, and that they are still not decided by the popular vote, by the Electoral College. It used to be that state legislatures would direct the electors; there was no right to vote for POTUS. Many states have voting rights clauses in their constitutions, but there is not one in the federal.Pablo (99243e) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:42 am
Lack of a moral center in society and individuals. For every idea how to combat voter fraud there will be a counter idea on how to cheat. If a majority of citizens believe that their candidate must win even at the expense of right and wrong, then there will be no stopping fraud. Only a moral center — honor — is the sure way to keep elections honest.KW (44e38d) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:42 am
The worst and most significant cause for the voter fraud is not having a universal system of identification for citizens. If everyone had one unique number that they carried from, at least, the time they first registered, to the time they died, and that number could only vote once, fraud would be virtually non-existent, especially if, say, the card had fingerprint or retina data encoded and a finger or retina scan was used at the poll to verify the user. If instituted, my gut feeling is that no one would need to deal with who came in, but just watch the repository for the votes.
There’s still the issue of preventing state/ district/precinct hopping but that, I suppose could be addressed without too being too much more draconian since the solution of universal ID is already too draconian for vast majority of citizens that it would probably be insignificant by comparison.Dusty (545d04) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:44 am
I think the biggest threat to valid voting is the fact that fewer than 50% of individuals eligible to vote, actually vote.
That is a huge untapped pool. Do we force them to vote so no one else can use their vote? Sounds draconian for sure.Annie1958 (c42553) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:44 am
Also, several ACORN employees are now convicted felons for their actions in the last election in MO.
AD, didn’t you get the memo? Here’s your handy – dandy, all – encompassing answer:
One might want to ask oneself, “Self, am I for more voters or less?” The answer to that question should make some of you blush: disenfranchising your fellow citizens because they have different political beliefs?
See how easy that was? How dare you attempt to disenfranchise those voters who apparently don’t agree with your politics – denounce yourself at once!
In the meantime, I’m going to ask myself the following searing, personal question: “self, am I destined to read incomprehensible rants from Trolls without a scintilla of evidence to back up their constant screechings? Sadly, it would appear to be so.”Dmac (e30284) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:46 am
Paul, the argument is
The Right To Vote is
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the “most numerous branch” of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.
Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by “the People,” and who comprises “the People” has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
Thanks to Roy Neale for the idea and to Brian Shaprio for some clarifications.
The laws of the Constitution only provide that if voting is allowed, your right to make your vote is protected…
Next…and while I don’t regularly read this site…the explanation is concrete in this argument… that the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore made explicit that exact statement….that we do not have a Constitutional Right to vote…
Amazing document, that Constitution of the United States of America….reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:47 am
Comment by Dusty — 10/30/2008 @ 8:44 am
I suppose we could tatoo a unique number on the inside of their wrist at birth?Another Drew (260c29) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:47 am
please delete the words “The Right to Vote is”
The argument is over…not the right to vote…reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:48 am
It’s a step up from calling people Nazis like you were yesterday, Dmac.
Doesn’t get any lower than that.snuffles (677ec2) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:50 am
STFU, sniffles.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:53 am
Doesn’t get any lower than that.
And blaming it all on the Joos is lower than plankton, Sniffy- so congrats, you win the douchebag of the year award. Own it, it’s all yours.Dmac (e30284) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:56 am
BTW, are we ever going to get an actual objective link to your malicious assertions, Dr. Goebbels – or are you going to continue to avoid the question?Dmac (e30284) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:57 am
In my opinion, the greatest source of election fraud is the Board of Elections. The persons tasked with determining who votes, how they vote, how the votes are counted, counting the votes, and otherwise managing the election results are the place where the greatest amount of fraud may occur. We trust them to be perfect – and honest – and they cannot possibly be so.Roberta (92fd54) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:01 am
There is no requirement when you register or even vote to show a government issued ID. This should be a requirement. No exceptions. Hell, I can’t get on a plane with picture ID, why should I be able to vote.
There is nothing stopping me or anyone else from registering and voting multiple times. The only reason I don’t do it is because it’s just not right. But not all share that view. Requiring picture ID when registering and voting would stop 90%+ of voter fraud.EddieB (cfee1e) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:04 am
Chicago.Mike Myers (31af82) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:04 am
Please consider posting this video and passing it along, it’s amazing. It’s great at showing the distinction between MaCain and Obama in regards to the economy. Please pass this along to everyone you know. We have to get McCain elected… E
“Some may try to tell us that this is the end of an era. But what they overlook is that in America, every day is a new beginning. For this is the land that has never become, but is always in the act of becoming.” Ronald ReaganErnesto (1f0b66) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:04 am
Comment by Roberta — 10/30/2008 @ 9:01 am
It is interesting, and damning, that in both FL-’00, and OH-’04, the local Boards of Elections for the counties that experienced the most controversy were controlled by Dems.Another Drew (260c29) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:04 am
Even if I do have a right to vote, the State has every right to take reasonable precautions to ensure that I only vote once because my extra vote would effectively disenfranchise my opponent.
Voting isn’t the issue. Voting ONCE is the issue.Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:05 am
Another Drew, #67:
I suppose so, but an implant might be better. That would free the carrier from having to remember the card, not worry about losing it or forget it in the rush to get to the polls at the last minute. Still need the scan at the poll, though.
Look, the one fraud “so massive”, as Patterico says, is any way to cast a vote fraudulently and should be looked at in this light when looking for solutions to prevent it. That Patterico stipulated in his post that the solution may be “too draconian for Americans to accept”, it would seem to me that other than requiring a not secret vote, which Patterico would never think possible, this is the one solution that he might think is possible and do the most to prevent fraudulent voting.Dusty (545d04) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:06 am
Single greatest source of voter fraud in this country:m (a7a8b3) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:07 am
We’ve got a long way to go until we can award that.
We might have a new nominee before lunch.CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:07 am
Sheesh, just look at the 1960 election. The mob bosses in Chicago waited until the downstate returns came in, then “found” enough extra votes to give the state the Kennedy. Likewise, LBJ’s minions in SW Texas “found” votes to deliver that state.
It’s all in the Dark Side of Camelot and the Caro LBJ bios IIRC.cassandra (5a5d33) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:09 am
Comment by Dusty — 10/30/2008 @ 9:06 am
Tatoo…Implant….Another Drew (260c29) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:10 am
Do you not see the symbolism involved in these?
I am with CW on this one, Dmac. It is a mendoucheous twatwaffle, to be sure. But the Douchebag of the Year award it still up for grabs, with JerrySpring, twoothinessandjustice, sniffles, timmah, Peter, and the rest all still in the running.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:12 am
Don’t let em get to you, snuffles. In their minds, what they do is fair and just but what you do is cowardly and low.
It helps them feel all growns up at beddy-bye time.i like america (d2f951) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:13 am
AD – Apparently, it does not.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:13 am
Hey, me too, Pablo. That’s while I’ll at the polling places on Tuesday ensuring people get to vote! Seems to me, Pablo, you are more concerned with the last two of your adjectives and the first.
Meanwhile, I’ll state it again: 26 cases of voter fraud (people attempting to or actually casting more than one ballot) in the last ten years. Mickey Mouse will not be noting, nor will the Dallas Cowboys show up in Nevada to vote.
So, dmac, what are you worried about? Maybe, “certain” Democrats getting to vote?timb (a83d56) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:18 am
My point is that no ID, absentee ballots and other such instances of fraud are essentially one fraudulent vote at a time. But the elections workers can alter numbers, even alter votes in some cases, and “create” fraud in massive quantity (whether by intention or by incompetence). We assume they won’t or that there are workers “on both sides” so it won’t happen, but I’m not sure that assumption is valid.Roberta (92fd54) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:19 am
Voter registration is the single-largest fraud risk. Once one is on the rolls, it’s over, because the ballot is (appropriately) secret, making it impossible to trace back to a fraudulent registration. Motor-voter and same-day registration abet the fraud risk.
Fraudulent voter registration opens the door to a fraudulent vote via mail or absentee, the next-largest fraud risks and lack of validation (say, showing identification or signing in at the polling place).
Early voting is the next largest risk, because it allows multiple-registration voters to vote once early and again on election day.
Move the vote to a weekend (over Saturday and Sunday). Require valid ID at the polls (mandatory for something as mundane as cashing a check, getting a library card, or boarding a commercial airliner). Make absentee requirements as stringent as, say, getting out of jury duty.
Short of ACORN-like interstate collusion requiring federal RICO indictments (please-please-please), keep vote integriy enforcement at the state level. Federalizing voting standards only takes the potential for systemic fraud national (again, ACORN-like).
And, most important of all, if it’s not close, cheating won’t help.furious (56af6d) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:19 am
1)Absentee ballots are historically the greatest source of election fraud.kishnevi (f5f266) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:23 am
2) Early voting shouldn’t be a source of fraud in and of itself. To early vote, at least around here, requires the same thing as voting in person on the official election day–gov’t issued photo ID and a signature that matches the signature on the voting rolls. In htom’s hypo (#56) the same thing could happen if Joe the Voter showed up at lunchtime and was told that someone had voted under his name at eight in the morning. It could also happen if someone cast an absentee ballot pretending to be Joe the Voter, but that’s easier to challenge because of the paper trail (an absentee ballot should be sent only to the voter’s address of record, and remains in existence to allow for signature verification, etc., and can be deleted from the count if it proves to be fraudulent).
4)Failure to purge dead voters, allowing felons to register and vote when their rights have not been restored, and failure to purge people who have moved out of the voting district may actually be a bigger problem than new fraudulent registrations. A poll worker would probably question OJ Simpson showing up to vote in California, but the poll worker wouldn’t probably question someone claiming up to be Mrs. X if they had fake ID, because the voting officials never know that Mrs. X died in Jacksonville 24 years ago
(true case reported by the Fort Lauderdale paper yesterday, although no one seems to have ever voted under the name of that dead person during the 24 years since she died). The poll worker wouldn’t question Pete Thug’s right to vote because the poll worker has no means to find out that Pete Thug is a convicted felon whose rights have not been restored (and there’s lots of those around here). The poll worker would also have no way of knowing that Mary Contrary is not only casting a vote in person here in Fort Lauderdale but will drive up to Palm Beach County afterwards to cast a vote there because her registration there was never purged even after she moved from Palm Beach to Fort Lauderdale, and a week after she mailed her absentee ballot back to Ohio because she’s registered there at the house where she lives during the summer months.
And, on the flip side, there are plenty of case of people being purged from the voting rolls who shouldn’t have been purged.
Probably a national database that flags for death certificates (apparently if you die out of state, the local voting officials will never find out that you have died because they only see local death certificates), felons, multiple registrations, etc. is the only way to take care of these problems systematically.
4) However, unless the election turns out to be decided by extremely small margins, a la Florida 2000, I think that any election fraud large enough to affect the outcome of an election would require organized effort on the part of election workers and officials. So that’s the problem I would nominate as most worrisome.
And then there is the ultimate fraud of our political system, of course, the claim politicians make to be serving the public interest….
How dare the Democrats try to disenfranchise thousands of votes from soldiers overseas in 2004. See how easy that is?otcconan (8b7d8d) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:31 am
#90. I think that any election fraud large enough to affect the outcome of an election would require organized effort on the part of election workers and officials…
See Kennedy-Nixon 1960, and the turnout in Chicago. Never underestimate the Mob, the Daley Machine, and those politicians who are creatures of that machine, but I repeat myself.
National data-base for purging dead voters: the individual states should enact periodic re-registration requirments, like they have periodic re-registration requirements for automobiles.furious (56af6d) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:33 am
You don’t want people to go in voting for X or Y with the understanding that they can take that receipt and sell it someone who’s made it known “rewards,” cash or otherwise will be handed out to someone who shows a receipt or proof that they voted for someone. IN essence you don’t want to create something with any value other than for record keeping, verification or redundacy in case of problems.
I like the optical scanner idea used in RI.Peter (e70d1c) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:40 am
Optical scanners are also used in many counties in CA, Los Angeles for one.Another Drew (260c29) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:50 am
Don’t you know it is inherently racist to ask for identification?JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:52 am
To quote JD, could you provide a link to that?timb (a83d56) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:56 am
Of course I do, but you suggested the tattoo, I only suggested a wallet sized card.
Irrespective of either, though, I do take it you think a Universal ID is too draconian, which is close to meeting Patterico’s requirement on that score, though he might have solutions making it amenable to a near universal agreement on what it means and how it is implemented.
BTW, are mistaking my original comment for a recommendation?Dusty (545d04) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:05 am
The largest source of vote fraud is the lack of photo ID matching with voter registration records at the polls. If a photo ID verification was required, it would severely limit the utility of voter registration fraud. Photo ID verification requires no additional technology and minimal training, and could be implemented quickly.
Although, I like the purple finger idea; that also has a low-tech, high-reliability appeal. Combined with a simple photo ID check, they would help assure the electorate that “one citizen, one vote” is still in effect.Robert Arthur (afb444) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:05 am
Which, of course, it already is. For the third time, vote fraud comes from who counts and reports the voting. 26 cases of voter fraud nationwide in 10 years is NOT evidence of a systemic problemtimb (a83d56) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:14 am
timb…assume you are right, which you probably aren’t…
What is wrong with having in place proper ID, and voter verifications?
As for you problem with counting and reporting, I know, for example, in Louisiana, at every precinct, there are several checks, and the machines both have visual and paper counts, and the checks and re-checks are solid. We’ve not had in my voting lifetime a conflict…
And, remember, we’re pretty low on most lists of what is good…reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:18 am
Scott Jacobs, I have a pretty serious problem with absentee ballots (although I also accept that they’re now a permanent feature of the landscape and that we should fix them, as best we can, rather than agitate to abolish them), but what’s the problem with early voting?
In my county, at least, early voting is conducted just like precinct voting … and the precinct rosters are updated to indicate that you’ve already voted.aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:27 am
I vote(punny, huh) with the person who suggested that the unreliable electronic voting mahines, without any auditing capabilities, are our worst nightmare. How about the Diebold website picture of the (one and only one) key to open the voting machines. Someone went and took that picture and made a key. Now the part where there is only one key – kinda like a cheap lawn tractor – means that this person can now open EVERY Diebold machine and tamper away. Not that that person would, but where opportunity exists, man finds a way.
BrianBrian (12b711) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:27 am
What is the SINGLE greatest source of voter fraud?Tammy (3d8720) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:30 am
Non U.S. Citizens voting. period.
In my county early voting actually requires an ID whereas regular election day voting does not. We use optical scan ballots and they seem to work just fine. The machine reads the ballot and retains the actual paper ballot for verification. Early votes and absentee ballots are kept in a warehouse where all the ballot boxes from the precinct are delivered to on election day. Then they are all counted.
When I lived in Vermont 18 years ago, I had to vote absentee because I was pregnant and on bed rest. I had to have a valid excuse to vote absentee. Someone came to the house with the ballot, I filled it out and that person took it away. I don’t remember who it was who came or who or what that person was affiliated with though…kimsch (2ce939) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:35 am
Because it keeps people from voting, in an effort to stop a non-existent problem. It was here where one used to be able to call it unconstitutional. But, Justice Stevens and the five dwarfs decided protecting voting from even non-existent problems was cool.
So, here’s where I will compare it to poll taxes, which the Supreme Court never seemed to be able to find unconstitutional either. It requires eligible voters to do more than register, to expend time, energy, and money, on something that is a birthright to most of us and an earned right to the naturalized.
Ask the nuns
As to Tammy’s point, I hope you make that in some immigrant communities in swing states, Tammy. Right now, Hispanic voters only favor Dems 65/35 (thanks to previous con demagoguery). I’d love you to help push that number into the 80/20 range, Tammy.
Maybe you could you take some time off on Tuesday to go down to the polls and challenge each person with a Hispanic surname? Make sure to wear your McCain/Palin button!
It would really help bring those 40 million voters into the Dem coalition. Tammy, keeping Republicans the minority party into the mid-teens! you go, girltimb (a83d56) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:43 am
cucking frybabyIcy Truth (1468e4) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:46 am
Since we have anonymous voting, it is practically impossible to prove actual fraud, and timmah knows that.
Couple that with an antiquated system where counties do not compare their voter rolls to other counties, nor States to States, and there is simply way too much information not tracked to see the extent of the problems.
Kind of like how the Baracky people from NY rented a house in OH to vote.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:46 am
You see, reff. They really do not care about whether or not a person lives in the district, the County, or even the State. They do not care if they are eligible to vote, or even registered to vote. All that they care about is that they vote. Picture ID’s are racist.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:48 am
I denounce myself at the feet of the master, JD..
timmah problem lies in his own words…It requires eligible voters to do more than register, to expend time, energy…
Actually, it doesn’t. To register, you must prove you are a citizen. That take the time and energy to get a birth certificate, and a social security card, both of which cost nothing, since you get one at birth, and the other is provided when you register for your number, and it too is free….photo ID’s for the purpose of identification are provided in most states for free to any indigent person….the voter registraton card could easily be made a photo card, and the people could absorb that cost….
So, yes, JD, I have been denounced….reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:02 am
If someone hypothetically voted twice, would you consider that equivalent to keeping someone from voting?
Yes or no?Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:03 am
When one moves from state to state and gets a new DL in the new state, the new state will confiscate the old state’s DL and return the DL to the old state so the old state’s records can be updated. However, even with Motor Voter in place, it is still supposed to be up to the individual to let old state know that the individual should be purged from old state’s voter rolls. And that’s just stupid. Old state should purge the voter rolls when new state returns the DL to old state.kimsch (2ce939) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:03 am
Electronic, paperless voting machines.Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:04 am
You base your voter fraud on successful convictions in a court of law. How many successful convictions have there been for keeping people from voting?
You have a habit for having widely varying and inconsistent standards for your arguments, pro and con. Voter fraud includes willingly and knowingly submitting false information in your registration. The vote doesn’t even have to occur, just act of registering, with those provisos, is a count of voter fraud.
Often the voter fraud is not pursued because it is deemed to not affect the voting results. Are you suggesting these not be counted?
Lastly, your argument that it is a birthright, or a naturalized right, is a good one. Now all they have to do is prove it, every time they come to exercise it.Dusty (545d04) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:04 am
The greatest source of voter fraud is the ability to register and vote on the same day. Bus loads of out-of-state voters can fraudulently register and vote, then they do not have to come back on November 4th- they stay in their home state, and vote again there.lionheart (476682) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:11 am
Oiram, would you say that Florida has/had a better system with the butterfly ballots than Louisiana has with electronic machines, where there is no paper trail to provide voter intent, but, also, no problems with the clerical side of the process?reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:12 am
It could be that in its zeal to promote Obama MSM has signed its own death warrant–at least for many concious Americans, who will increase a reader base of alternative media and bring in more readers through their own connection.I’m hardly a pundit, but there’s something about the power of altenative media when you get tens of replies like this to a post about the true nature of this election:
Thank goodness others see the danger to our country under an Obama administration. If only the MSM would wake up and really report the truth instead of just repeating what their corporate leaders tell them to say. But then, if they did they would be out of a job. I feel that most of the so-called reporters actually believe the garbage they feed us each day
My post was about the fact that it’s no longer about GOP vs. DemsJeff Tyler (563056) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:13 am
I don’t know if there is a problem with voter fraud at all. All I have ever heard are hypothetical problems — voters who allegedly won’t be able to register, people who allegedly vote multiple times or improperly. I never see any proven problems in either direction.
Has anyone done a post-election voter verification survey, to see what percentage, if any, were cast in that election improperly?
All you’d have to do is randomly sample say 1000 registered voters who did in fact show up at the polls, and verify that (1) the person who was registered was in fact the person who voted, and (2) that the person registered was in fact qualified to vote (a u.s. citizen, not a felon, etc).
If the percentage of this sample turned up a statistically significant number of verifiable improper votes, then we could talk about addressing that.
Conversely, has anyone ever collected data on how many ordinary Americans do not have easily accessible photo identification proving U.S. citizenship? To show how many people would actually be disenfranchised by more stringent identification requirements? My guess is that less educated, lower-income folks, especially younger ones (or the very old), will tend to be the vast majority of such people. But who knows for sure?Phil (6d9f2f) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:13 am
Comment by Dusty — 10/30/2008 @ 10:05 am
The tatoo remark was with heavy sarcasm.Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:23 am
Anyone familiar with the history of the 20th-Century would have realized that fact.
Implants are even worse.
We do not need a National ID card. The Feds have conveniently made state drivers licenses those ID’s for all practical purposes. It is essential that drivers licenses not be issued to non-citizens – “green-card” holders can be issued a unique license that allows driving and entry into an airplane, but would not be valid for registration/voting purposes.
What we need to do is to enforce reasonable standards at the time of registration to ensure that the prospective voter is in fact eligible to vote, and to check ID’s at the time of voting to ensure that the person registered is in fact the person voting.
Comment by JD — 10/30/2008 @ 10:46 am
40,000 registered voters in NY State were found to be on the FL registration roles.Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:27 am
Which state did they vote in? Nobody knows.
Did they vote in both states? Nobody knows.
End of the World near. Women, Children, and Minorities hit hardest.
AD – It is racist to ask questions like that.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:34 am
OJ is not a murderer because he was not convicted of murder, therefore, it did not happen.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:34 am
You’re wrong. That’s like saying people emptying their guns in the air at midnight on New Year’s Day is a non-issue because only a few people only are killed by stray bullets every year.
I don’t know how young or old you are, Steve, but I know you can’t be ignorant of what happened eight years ago in Florida. 538 votes separated the world from President Al Gore (shudder), and if there were just 269 enterprising ACORNistas who registered a false name and followed the Gap’s advice to vote twice, that’s what we would have gotten. The governor’s race in Washington was decided by a couple of handfuls of ballots. The mayoral election in Vallejo, CA was decided by THREE votes. Every vote that shouldn’t count negates one that should. Every illegal voter punishes an honest voter for not being a crook. When a crook votes against what you vote for and vice versa, your vote is stolen. It’s gone. You went to the polls for nothing.
My philosophy about voter fraud is the same about media bias: Some say it doesn’t matter, but if that were true, it wouldn’t be all-important for the perpetrators of it to constantly do it, and as long as they think it’s that important, so will I.L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:47 am
On second thought, why don’t we abandon voting altogether, and just alternate Bush/Clinton presidencies from now on, like we’ve been doing for the past 20 years anyway.Phil (6d9f2f) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:52 am
I would support the gummint supplying ID to those who cannot afford it, free of charge. I would actually say the gummint should go to GREAT LENGTHS to do this and spend a good amount of money doing so. In fact, I would propose they take all of the money they pay to (many adjectives deleted) ACORN and allocate it to making sure everyone has a valid photo ID if they’re interested in voting.CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:53 am
Early voting is the next largest risk, because it allows multiple-registration voters to vote once early and again on election day.
How is this a greater risk than simple election day voting? Multiple-registration voters can still vote multiple times on election day in different precincts.
The only difference is that it would allow someone to vote twice in the same precinct; but why is that a greater threat?aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:54 am
As usual, the non-verification crowd would not turn anyone away from the polls – no matter how many times they appear there. If voting is a right, then it only applies once per election.
One person’s second (and third and fourth) vote invalidates another person’s first vote. Therefore, enforcing one vote per person is at least as important as ensuring that everyone can vote.
There are documented cases of multiple voting. The dead vote. Has there ever been a case of a person not being able to vote for lack of ID?Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:54 am
#115 Loaded question Reff….. but I’ll try to answer it.
I wasn’t to thrilled with the butterfly system in Florida and the outcome (of course) of the 2000 election. But at least it had a paper trail, voter intent revealed or not.
You loaded your question by saying “no problems with the clerical side of the process?”
I don’t buy that statement.
And yes I am a partisan voter, but I think both sides could take advantage of computer voting sans paper trail.
I say let there be computer voting….. but allow a paper trail. Check randomly every 10 or 20 boxes to verify that they match up to what the computer’s outcome is.
My question to you Reff is why would that be so difficult?Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:56 am
Suffice it to say, I bet my experience and training in these matters dwarfs yours, JD (as usual), but I was unaware voting was “anonymous.” I thought one had to register and sign the poll book here in Indiana? Doesn’t seem too anonymous to me. Your ballot is secret, but the fact that you voted is not.
If one rents a house in Ohio 90 days before an election and establishes residency, then one can vote there. If you actually read the story, the chick claims she voted in Ohio, because she lives there now and she is not voting in NY.
Wrong, as always, and breaking your word, as usual.timb (c2fda4) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:57 am
Timb: but what that means is that, while you can prosecute someone for voting illegally if the post-election canvass demonstrates they have done so, you cannot detect which vote was theirs, or prevent their vote from influencing the result.aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:00 pm
those registrations are useless unless and until they’re converted into votes
We’ll never know absent more vigorous prosection of ACORN-driven fraud, thanks to the secret ballot (and thank g*d for that, given the Ohio Demo machine’s intrusions into Joe-the-Plumber’s private life).
Noting the typical liberal’s risk-aversion to, say, PPB environmental contaminants, one would think they’d err on the side of caution as well regarding “polluting” the vote.furious (56af6d) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:02 pm
If I may pile on, Paul, I addressed the issue of a “right to vote” in May 2003, here — in a post taking Al Sharpton’s side against James Taranto. Weird, huh?Patterico (3c7f1f) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:02 pm
Another Drew (#118),
It’s good to know you are familiar with the history of the 20th-Century. I’ll remember that.
As for the state driver licenses, I agree that that system that is sufficient. It meets the ‘universal’ criteria, especially since the Fed is also pushing non-driver ID’s, IIRC, to make it comprehensive.
All that would be needed is integration of the various systems to prevent duplicate registrations across state lines and state hopping which might be done requiring culling the lists at least biennially, for federal purposes, and, as you say, requiring the ID at time of voting.
The last one is the huge hurdle right now. No one would be talking much about this at all if that last one was required.Dusty (545d04) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:11 pm
Oiram…I don’t have any problem with rules that set up a paper trail…Louisiana has three…two people who, when you walk in to vote, take your name off your ID/voter card, and you sign the book, and then go into a booth. At the end, the number of total signatures on the list should match the total number of electronic votes cast. Even if a person votes for no one, they must push the button to end their turn to vote, and it counts as a voter. The machines show a total number of votes for each candidate/ballot measure, and that total number in a precinct cannot exceed the total number of voters. If it does, there is a method of trying to find where the errors have occurred. The law allow for votes to be thrown out for malfunctions, but only after extreme measures.
I was one of those laughing at Florida in 2000, when the butterflies were flying all over, because, as much as we elect total idiots here in Louisiana, at least we do it up front, and without fraud….reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:16 pm
Patrick, while I did not read you then (my loss, since then my gain) I did have alot of interest in this subject, including steering my daughter to research it for a Master’s thesis….
I would be against an amendment, because it would take from the states the power to decide elections in the manner they choose….as the SCOTUS said in Bush v Gore….reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:18 pm
timmah…you better take back #128, because you are completely wrong about the Ohio situation that is being discussed….
So, I’ll wait to hammer you on that one….google it, please….reff (556669) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:21 pm
119–Voting in both states could be checked for, if the elections officials allow access to the info. Simply check both rolls to see who voted and where.kishnevi (0b0c9a) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:23 pm
It won’t tell you if voter x voted for a particular candidate, but it will tell you if voter x voted in either place, or both, whether by absentee or in person.
Well, I included the Foxnews link to the nuns being unable to vote.timb (c2fda4) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:27 pm
Comment by Dusty — 10/30/2008 @ 12:11 pm
Actually, there is a process within the Dept.of Transportation to ensure that a driver has only one valid license at a time. It is primarily aimed at the holders of commercial licenses, but it can be used to cross-check non-commercial licenses also. All states must have data-bases that are checkable by other states, or the Feds, or they lose Highway Trust Fund money.
Voter ID though, has been fought tooth-and-nail by the ACLU and other Lib/Left groups where-ever it has been voted upon by either the Legislature, or by initiative.Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:27 pm
Only groups who want to encourage voter fraud would oppose a simple method of discouraging it.
Reff, I think you’re misunderstanding what people mean when they say they want systems that have paper trails.
The paper trail you have described gives an answer to the question “is the number of votes recorded equal to the number of voters who voted.”
The paper trail generally talked about in the context of electronic voting systems is designed to answer the question “are the votes recorded by the system actually the votes cast by the voters”.
This is a serious problem with touch screen systems: how do you know that the vote that is stored in the database is actually the vote cast? You can’t rely on what the system says it is doing.
A paper trail makes it somewhat less problematic: if the system prints out a paper record of the votes cast, and the voter can look at it and say “yes, this is what I wanted”, then the output of the paper records can be compared against the data in the database, and the integrity of the database can be verified.
(It’s a *serious* pain in the neck to do the verification. But a system which allows that tedious verification to be done is per se more reliable than a system which doesn’t allow it.)aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:29 pm
Comment by timb — 10/30/2008 @ 12:27 pm
The nuns were not allowed to vote not because they had no ID, but because they refused to avail themselves of the opportunity to acquire those ID’s from the State – ID’s that would have been provided to them at no cost.Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:31 pm
They were making a political point, and now have to suffer the consequences of that “non-violent, civil-rights” demonstration.
Heretimb (c2fda4) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:33 pm
Re the 2000 election in Florida:
There is more misinformation regarding the Florida election than most people imagine. The punch card machines had been in use nationwide for over forty years with an “error rate” average of 2.9% which was compatable with the other voting systems.
The butterfly ballot had also been used for the same period, particulary in large cities like Chicago. There had been little or no reports of large numbers of voters being confused by the butterfly ballots prior to Florida and no real evidence from Florida that such massive confusion had actually occurred.
Snuffles mentioned Kathleen Harris. The Liberal media meme is that Kthleen Harris, as Secretary of State, disenfranchised thousands of legimate(mostly African-American) voters in 2000.
The truth is quite different. After massive voter fraud was uncovered in the election for mayor of Miami, The then Governor, a Democrat, and the Florida Legislature (then Democrat) revised the Election Laws in 1998. The revisions required that the counties, under the supervision of the Secretary of State, take stronger steps to remove ineligible voters from the voter registration lists.
In removing these suspect voters, the counties used the procedures that had been developed since the 1850’s through the courts and legislatures in every state. These procedures required that the suspect voter be notified, by registered mail, that his or her right to vote was being questioned.
The notice instructed the voter as to his/her legal rights. If, after a reasonable time, the original notice had not been answered, a second registered notice was sent. If the suspect voter did not respond to the second notice in a resonable time, he/she would be removed from the list of voters and, in most cases, a third notice would be sent stating that the voter was no longer registered.
Denying a legitimate voter the right to vote is a crime under Federal and State law. Under the Voting Rights Law, a private citizen can institute an action in either Federal or State court against any party suspected of such acts.
Although Jssie Jackson and others made many claims that African-American voters had been illegally disenfranchised, neither Mr. Jackson nor any one else sought legal action.
Why? Because of the paper trail that supported each and every removal would have destroyed the myth of voter disenfranchisement.longwalker (dda662) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:38 pm
Off topic, but probably would do well to warn you.
In the time since I posted my last comment, I’ve gotten another Obama volunteer knocking at my door (college age white kid). In the last two days we’ve gotten two phone calls from Obama volunteers.
And a door to door volunteer for Obama came by the day before registration for this election closed.
Presumably they’re attracted by the fact this address lists two Democratic voters (since I don’t like the GOP, I never got motivated to chance my party label on the voter rolls after becoming libertarian in my politics). That may also be the reason that we’ve had no contacts at all from McCain’s campaign. It’s also true that this area is heavily Democratic, but there’s more than a few Republicans (and more than a few older Democrats who might have been persuaded to vote for McCain) around here, yet I have not seen anything more from the McCain campaign in this area than one yard sign. (Truth to tell, that’s almost as many yard signs as I’ve seen for Obama. In bumper stickers, however, Obama has McCain beat from here all the way to China.)
By contrast, in 2004, we were contacted once each by the local Democratic party on behalf of Kerry, and once by the local GOP.
So Obama is putting on probably the best GOTV organization this area has seen in years.kishnevi (0b0c9a) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:42 pm
Moving the goalposts, eh?
These folks didn’t have ID, they were citizens, they were registered, and they were kept from voting because of the law. The question was, name an incidence where the law kept otherwise legal voters from voting. I did. QED.
Whether you feel sorry for their “protest” is immaterial to the fact that the voter ID law in Indiana kept people from voting; whereas the Secretary State and Attorney General of Indiana have yet to find an example of anyone in Indiana being convicted of fraud for casting more than one vote.
The GOP’s new motto: “Making voting more difficult since 1990.”timb (c2fda4) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:44 pm
What about my question in 110?Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:44 pm
How about this: If you are not disabled and want to vote, get off your lazy ass off and go register at the courthouse. Same on election day. No other help from anyone, period.
In the case of the disabled/infirmed/elderly, absentee ballots or free public transit to and from your local registration office and assigned polling place, at the request of the voter only. No prodding from either party or their supporters.
If you don’t think enough of your right and privilege to vote, screw you.Sparticus (e30c70) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:46 pm
#133 Ref. aphrael on comment #139 replied to you for me perfectly.
Thanks aphrael.Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:53 pm
re 142–the fraud in that Miami election focused on absentee ballots (filled out in the name of people who couldn’t vote because of death, non existence, etc), not people presenting themselves at the polls to cast a fraudulent vote on Election Day. In that one, the judge threw out all absentee ballots because so many were shown to be fraudulent. The official winner changed three times in two days because of court rulings: election night winner–winner declared on basis of absentee ballots–original winner declared winner by judge who threw out the absentee ballots en masse.
As to the main topic of the comment–not to get into the defects of Ms. Harris (which really center on the fact that every official action she took came down on the side of the GOP, without even a facade of making courtesy gestures to the other side–for instance, refusing to keep her office open later than usual to receive recount totals from counties that missed the official deadline by two or three hours)–there are still claims, even in this election cycle, of people who don’t find out they’ve been purged until they go to vote.kishnevi (0b0c9a) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:54 pm
I think the single greatest voting problem facing America today is that only citizens have the right to vote but very few states take steps to make sure only citizens can register to vote.DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:54 pm
Just out of curiosity DRJ, how money non U.S. citizens register to vote? And what percentage does that make up of total voters?Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:05 pm
Ball park it if you like.
As was said, while it shows you have voted, WHO you voted for is unknown. If you are willing to cheat to get your guy elected, why would you say you voted for him? Lie more, and say you voted for the other guy.
Once a fraudulent vote has been cast, it is indestinguishable from a real vote.
Say we know that a race was decided by 20 votes. We also know that 30 votes were fraudulent. The 30 fraudulent votes could change the entire outcome (the winner may not have won if enough were for “the winner”), but it is impossible to know.
Thus the (possible) bogus result would stand.
Do you see the problem?
Regarding the disenfranchisement of the military vote, the issue is that the Millitary does not treat mail as the USPO does. It is not marked with a date, thus due to the invariable slowness of the Millitary mail system, a ballot mailed 2 weeks ago might not arrive at the intended place until after the set “must be in by” date. If you mail an absentee ballot in that is post-marked propperly as being mailed in time, but gets there before the election is certified, it gets counted – obviously is isn’t the fault of the person that mailed it, so count it.
Not so with over-seas ballots. A large number were tossed in FL in the 2000 election, as were a number of similar ballots in the WA gov race in 2004. Enough to have changed the outcome (not that most rational people think the majority of the millitary vote would have gone to Gore in 2000, but you get my point).
So, sometimes by the rules/systems in place, military votes are ignored. And sometimes by deliberate act (“misplacing” or “forgetting about” a box isn’t unheard of).
I mean, Gary IN had an issue with absentee ballots magically appearing in a mail room the night of the primary. At least, that was the excuse, since they said “we’re not done counting absentee ballots, that’s why the delay”. Even though all were supposed to have been counted by the prior weekend. It’s why it seemed so… Odd…Scott Jacobs (89480a) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:06 pm
Hypothetically, I assume that we think the “twice voting” voter cast the same ballot twice? I imagine that’s a reasonable assumption. In that case, then I suppose they offset a vote for the other person, but, I don’t think that’s “keeping someone from voting” (since that person did vote).
Not sure what that hypothetical proves, but the Supreme Court taught me that hypotheticals can prove laws constitutional, even where the harm caused is not hypothetical.timb (c2fda4) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:07 pm
timb refuses to acknowledge the FACT that these nuns knew that ID would be required for them to vote. They made the decision to refuse to avail themselves of the opportunity to acquire that ID.Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:10 pm
The STATE did not keep them from voting,
THEY kept themselves from the act of voting.
That’s just it… In a lot of ways, it isn’t possible to know. But think about it… if only 10% of illegal immigrants (as just one segment of the “non-citizen” group) registered to vote, that’s (assuming a mere 12 million illegals) 1.2 million voters on the rolls that shouldn’t be there.
Cities in Chicago or LA might have large portions of those registrations, and those could swing the vote in that area, changies who might be in congress, or overall shifting the vote-outcome in the state.
And Snuffles, while YOU might not agree, obviously 2/3 of the SCotUS think that needing to show an ID (which is free for any of the “affected” groups the Dems tried to use) is not a hardship, and that what it added in integrety outweided the “imaginary” threat.
Which has been neatly side-stepped simply by moving to absentee ballots.
Because they had not put forth the effort to GET the ID. Not. My. Fault. The rules were known well in advance. It wasn’t a surprise announced when they showed up.
Because quite frankly, I think that less attention is being paid to that process.Scott Jacobs (89480a) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:14 pm
timb 152 –
They voted, so their rights were respected – but they don’t have the right to have their vote counted the same as anyone else’s?
Everything you have said falls apart at this point. It’s not voting rights that you are protecting, but double and triple voting rights.Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:19 pm
Conversely, has anyone ever collected data on how many ordinary Americans do not have easily accessible photo identification proving U.S. citizenship? To show how many people would actually be disenfranchised by more stringent identification requirements?
I’m not positive, but I seem to recall the number that came up over the Georgia voter ID fracas was around 3% of the state’s population lacked one of the required documents to prove eligibility.Taltos (4dc0e8) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:19 pm
Dornan v Sanchez…
Dornan lost by 984 votes.
An INS investigation in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California’s Forty-sixth Congressional District revealed that “4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez.”Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:20 pm
And no one bothered to find out if those people were/would register…
And I think 3% is too high, frankly…Scott Jacobs (89480a) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:22 pm
It helps them feel all growns up at beddy-bye time.
Whereas gratuitous sockpuppetry makes the commenter above feel like a real man, apparently; or perhaps a eunuch in this instance – your mileage may vary.Dmac (e30284) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:34 pm
“What do you think is the single greatest source of voter fraud in this country?”
Are you kidding me? Before the 1960s this country never saw a national election that wasn’t rigged. Between the corrupt political machines in the northern cities (e.g. Tammany Hall), and the racist Jim Crow south, the Democrats engaged in nationwide vote fraud in every election, local and national.
Hell, when all their other election rigging tricks (poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.) failed, the southern Democrats used to hang black people who attempted to vote.
If people are stupid enough to believe that the Democrat party’s love of rigging elections magically vanished after the Voting Rights Act was passed, that’s o.k. by me.
But, if you believe it, you’re a damned fool.Dave Surls (acf9f3) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:38 pm
#154 if only 10% of illegal immigrants (as just one segment of the “non-citizen” group) registered to vote, that’s (assuming a mere 12 million illegals) 1.2 million voters on the rolls that shouldn’t be there.
10%? Wow, really?
If 1.2 million illegals wanted to vote, we probably would be more willing to accept them as legal residents.
I don’t think so.
I suspect it’s more like .001 which would put my figure at around 12,000 illegals. Of my 12,000 or your 1.2 million for that matter, how many of them do you think actually make there vote count?Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:47 pm
Ooooooo. Timmah is a law student. He knows stuff. If the NY Baracky voters in OH were doing so legally, why did they have to withdraw their ballots?
Anonymous/secret … you know exactly what I meant. That you choose to be an asshat about it is no shock.
The nuns were not otherwise legal. They failed to comply with the State law, or chose to not comply with the State law, that outlines what it takes to vote. Pity that the Supreme Court is not as smart as you.
timmah has moments of being almost a good guy. But it never takes long for it to slip into the you are a racist, Rethuglikkans suppress the votes, BDS BS.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:51 pm
Wouldn’t illegal immigrants be more likely to vote for McCain than Obama?snuffles (677ec2) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:52 pm
#160 Gee Dave I must be a fool for going up against Lincoln’s party. He freed the slaves. Hmmm…… wait a sec, could that be why the south was so solid Democrat up until the 60’s?Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:53 pm
What happened to the south? Times change my friend.
Your still blaming the Democrats and the south for ills of last century.
It doesn’t matter. They should not be able to vote, and even if they voted for the Right candidate, I do not want their vote.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 1:57 pm
In answer to the question, absentee balloting of course. The number of votes cast counted and the number of voters cheked off the lists by the poll workers gives us some quality control over election day voting, but absenteen ballots can be faked enmass,
People seem to be ignoring one of the reasons why ACORN so persistently engages in fraud (they do the same thing every election — hire desperate people they know are unreliable and then harass them into filling out registrations for Mickey and Donald, etc., then throw them to the wolves when the fraud is discovered.
They are trying to monkey-wrench the electoral system. They also might be able to get a few fake voters through because the election workers are busy tossing Mickey and Donald, although I suspect this would require more competence than they generally exhibit.John Costello (7bafc1) — 10/30/2008 @ 2:03 pm
Douchebag of the Year:Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab) — 10/30/2008 @ 2:13 pm
Many trolls strive to win it;
All get a trophy.
I suspect it’s more like .001 which would put my figure at around 12,000 illegals
How on earth do you come to that assumptive figure? In GA alone, there are over 3,000 illegal immigrants who’ve been registered to vote, yet have not appeared for jury summons:
Keep in mind that GA is hardly a state with significant illegal immigration at this point – compare their numbers to AZ or CA, and it points to much larger numbers than you’ve speculated on. Either provide your basis for your conclusions, or admit that you’re pulling stuff out of thin air in order to make your dubious point.Dmac (e30284) — 10/30/2008 @ 2:32 pm
How many illegals are registered to vote?
Nobody knows, because, nobody even knows how many illegal aliens are in the United States of America.Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 2:47 pm
I don’t know.
You don’t know.
And the Government of the United States of American doesn’t know
(and sometimes it appears that they don’t even care).
Well Dmac, time to re-read your link on #168. The article at ajc.com refers to “Non Citizen’s” not illegal immigrants.
Last time I checked, Non Citizen’s are aloud to Drive and have a driver’s license. When you apply to the DMV you are put on a jurors list. Now that doesn’t mean you are allowed to be a juror. You will be declined of course because of “Non Citizenship”.
I do admit, I estimated the .001 percent it was a guess as was the 1.2 million a previous comment I was responding to.Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 2:53 pm
“#160 Gee Dave I must be a fool for going up against Lincoln’s party.”
Pretty much.Dave Surls (acf9f3) — 10/30/2008 @ 2:56 pm
#171 way to take me out of context Dave. I’m guessing your a Republican.
Funny one though.Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:01 pm
kishnevi : Harris was following the Election Laws of the state of Florida. The Secretary of State must follow the Election law not do “favors” for candidates.
Under Florida Election Law, the recount was improper as the law did not allow for such a recount. The seven Democratic Supreme Court Justices in rendering their 7-0 first decision threw the Florida State Constitution and the Florida Election laws out the window.
That is why all nine United States Supreme Court Justices voted to stop the totally illegal recount. SCOTUS demanded that, before the Florida Supremes took any further action, they should make known the authority for their decision.
Under the old common law, this would have called for a Writ of Quo Warranto – one of the Great Writs. It was used when a government official appeared to abuse the authority of the office or, more seriously, stepped on the perogative of the Crown.
If the offense was a serious one, the resulting charge would be High Treason and the official or officials would receive the treatment that William Wallace received.
After the first SCOTUS decision, three of the seven Florida Justices, including the Chief Justice, refused to continue to assist Al Gore in his attempt to steal the Florida election but the remaining four made a majority and pressed on with their Grand Theft – Election.longwalker (ce69ff) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:03 pm
“What happened to the south?”
The crooked, corrupt and violent Democrats lost their monopoly on political power, and with it their ability to blatantly rig every election.Dave Surls (acf9f3) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:03 pm
“aloud” … “your” … Oiram’s head-scratching, headache inducing posts continue unabaited [sic].Icy Truth (84d054) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:18 pm
#174 Really Dave?
It had nothing to do with Civil Rights?Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:25 pm
Oiram – Is the distinction between non-citizen and illegal alien functionally important when discussing those eligible to vote?JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:28 pm
Because, as we all know, Republicans opposed civil rights. Oops, that was the Dems.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:29 pm
“Head Scratching”? Like you’ll be doing after McCain loses (hopefully) ICY?Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:32 pm
Ahh, JD there you go again revising history.Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:33 pm
When the Civil Rights Act was being filibustered, which party did so? When the Civil Rights Act was voted on, which party voted in favor of same in larger percentages?JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:37 pm
LBJ was a Dem, JD.snuffles (677ec2) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:40 pm
#177 Well JD, there is a distinction when numbers are being skewed in order to scare Americans into enacting useless expensive legislation.
Please read this link provided to me by DMAC at comment #168 with an open mind and tell me it’s not misleading.
You may need to read my comment at #170 to get the full jist.Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:46 pm
Really?! I had no idea. Thanks, sniffles/alphie. You really cleared that up.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:47 pm
Turns out Wiki has the vote totals on the Cicil Rights Act, JD:
By party and region
Note : “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
Looks like region, not party, determined wthe vote.snuffles (677ec2) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:49 pm
Oiram – I agree with you that in that link the terms illegal alien and non-citizen seem to be interchaged and conflated. Having said that, as both groups have the same status in re. voting, isn’t that a discintion without a difference?JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:49 pm
“It had nothing to do with Civil Rights?”
Surely, it did. As long as the Democrats controlled the south, people couldn’t exercise their civil rights (like the right to vote), now that the Dem monopoly on political power has been broken, they can.
That’s why there were only 115,000 votes cast in South Carolina in the 1936 presidential election, (not surprisingly, 99% of them for FDR, the Democrat candidate) out of a population of about 1.8 million, while in the 2000 election 1.3 million people voted (with a more believable 57% voting for George Bush).
The Democrats don’t just engage in voter fraud in areas they control, they flat out rig elections, and they’ve used every trick in the book to do it, up to and including cold-blooded murder if that’s what it takes to make sure their guys win.Dave Surls (acf9f3) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:50 pm
sniffles – So Dems voted 152-96 (61%) and the Reps voted 138-34 (79%) in the House. Thanks for those stats, even though I specifically referenced the Senate. It appears that the Republicans supported this legislation in the House by a far greater percentage than the Dems.
The Senate endured a filibuster on this legislation led by the Dems, Sen. Grand Kleagle, (Dem KKK – WV).JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:54 pm
I forgot to state that in the 2000 election 1.3 million people voted in S.C. out of a population of about 4 million compared to 115,000 votes cast out of a population of 1.8 million in 1936.
When it comes to denying people access to the vote, no one does it like the Democrats.Dave Surls (acf9f3) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:55 pm
Here’s the Seante votr, JD:
The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Same thing, Northerners were for Civil Rights, Southerners against it.
Party had nothing to do with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totalssnuffles (677ec2) — 10/30/2008 @ 3:57 pm
#173 succinct post of the truth, but most of the people I know here in Palm Beach and Broward will never buy it. They prefer to consider that SCOTUS was dead wrong and Fla. Supremes had it right. Katherine Harris and dem LaPore were just part of the conspiracy to thwart algore.
Any doubt what kind of judges the Messiah will appoint? Laws? We don’t need to follow no laws we disagree with to any degree. Judicial activism is the rule and let’s not forget what the Eurotrash courts want either and how they rule.madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/30/2008 @ 4:01 pm
JD #181 All the south concerned themselves was with who the president was that wanted the bill passed.
Thanks Snuffles, it was Johnson.
South switched because of that and then solidified even further after Roe Vs. Wade.Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 4:04 pm
It seems to me that monitoring an electorate of many millions would be too cumbersome for one or several universal qualifiers. However, if each of the states elected administrators (governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorneyLaughren (9316f4) — 10/30/2008 @ 4:12 pm
general, treasurer) and boards of elections were charged with safeguarding the integrity of the ballot box, we would have a manageable number of individuals to hold accountable. I would impose harsh penalties on all the officials for violations so that they would monitor one another. Being a federalist, each state would continue to establish its own voter criteria and elections methodology with the certainty of imprisonment of the state’s chief elections gatekeeper when preventable fraud occurred. Since I live in Ohio, I’d love to see Jennifer Brunner in an orange jumpsuit!!!
#186 JD said “Oiram – I agree with you…..”
Sorry I had a hard time getting past that one as the ground opened up below me and I had huge comets blasting all the walls in my office 🙂
Having said that, as both groups have the same status in re. voting, isn’t that a discintion without a difference?
But JD, what are the actual numbers and do both groups really end up voting?
Comment byOiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 4:18 pm
Comment by Oiram — 10/30/2008 @ 4:18 pm
Oiram, see comment # 157.Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 4:51 pm
I guess if you want to assert that, you can. But the fact remains that the Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act by significantly greater percentages in the House (79%-61%) and in the Senate (81%-68%). And, one of those Northern Democrats (geography was the only thing that played a role according to you) was a fuckin’ Grand Kleagle in the KKK and filibustered this legislation. That you want to brush this aside tells me that you are either a blind partisan, or ignorant of your party’s history.
If all the South concerned themselves with who was the President, why did their Representative and Senators support the President?
As noted repeatedly above, Oiram, it is practically impossible to tell. You were provided evidence in re. Georgia, and the Sanchez race in California. Nationally, there is not a system to check across county lines, or State lines, and without specifics, States rarely make comparisons of their rolls.
If the status is do they end up voting, then you have already conceded that it is alright for illegal aliens and non-citizens to vote. Isn’t it better to protect the system on the front end, rather than trying to enforce the laws after the fact?JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 4:58 pm
#195 A lot of allegeds and possiblys in that comment #157 Another Drew.
Keep ReachingOiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 4:59 pm
#196 The party is not about that anymore JD, that’s what the shift was all about. Geography matters more than party.
I was provided with “evidence”??? I hope your not talking about #157, your smarter than that JD.Oiram (983921) — 10/30/2008 @ 5:02 pm
Well, what can you expect from a government study.Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 5:05 pm
Oiram…Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 5:09 pm
Here’s a link to what a quick google search found, and where I pulled that quote.
Argue with this guy, not me.
What do I know about SoCal elections, I’ve just lived here for 67 years.
I am pretty sure it is racist to question whether or not Sanchez’s election results were tainted.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 5:13 pm
We should ask her EX-husband about that.Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 5:14 pm
“I guess if you want to assert that, you can…”
Surely, Sniffles or Truffles, whatever it’s name is, can assert that the sky is bright orange too.
Don’t make it so, though.Dave Surls (a4d3c5) — 10/30/2008 @ 5:18 pm
Re 173–I’m not talking about the Florida Supreme Court (and by the way, you need to refresh yourself on the history of quo warranto) but Harris.kishnevi (bc780d) — 10/30/2008 @ 5:29 pm
There were a number of actions she could have taken which would have made her seem more impartial (or at least more willing to listen to the other side)without involving anything improper or illegal, and would not have harmed Bush’s cause in the long term and which she refused to do.
Jeb Bush at least had the good grace to officially recuse himself.
Probably the best verdict on Harris is the fact that even the Florida GOP, after going out of its way to create a Congressional district for her in the next round of redistricting, ended up not liking her very much.
#196 The party is not about that anymore JD, that’s what the shift was all about. Geography matters more than party.
Your argument might have more weight if this guy wasn’t still in the senate.Taltos (4dc0e8) — 10/30/2008 @ 6:01 pm
Region was a much bigger factor than party in determining how members of Congress voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Dave and JD.
All the swearing and whining in the world can’t change that.snuffles (677ec2) — 10/30/2008 @ 6:02 pm
People like to forget that the FDR New Deal coalition was an alliance of the Democratic party’s left wing, unions and segregationists. An alliance held together so long by FDR’s talent for making everyone think they heard what they wanted to hear. FDR was never uncomfortable with the segregationists since they kept him in power, and for that matter, since FDR had as Cox’s VP in 1920 run such a racist campaign.SPQR (26be8b) — 10/30/2008 @ 6:04 pm
Yes, it damn well is. The Dem party is all about hating “the other,” whether it’s because they’re a different color or because they “have more than you do,” or in fact, because they have less than you do.EW1(SG) (9a80bf) — 10/30/2008 @ 6:57 pm
Comment by kishnevi — 10/30/2008 @ 5:29 pm
Harris would still be a member of Congress if she had not tried to step up to the Senate after only a brief time in the House. Her Congressional District, as you noted, was designed for her, it was the area that her family was from, and she grew up in. She survived a hotly contested primary to challenge the incumbent Sen., Nelson.
As you well know, 2006 was not a good year for the GOP, and Harris had a connection to the same defense contractor that was part of the Cunningham mess. That, plus the memories of Gold Coast Dems still seething from ’00, doomed her bid to become a Senator.Another Drew (3eb642) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:42 pm
“Region was a much bigger factor than party in determining how members of Congress voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Dave and JD.”
Democrat controlled south = Jim Crow
Republican controlled south = No Jim Crow.
Overly simplified, but generally true.
Same old region, just different parties running things.
And, whereever your party has ruled, there is a long history of rampant vote fraud and outright rigging of elections, whether it’s in northern cities like New York or Chicago, or in the Jim Crow south.
Deal with it.Dave Surls (a4d3c5) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:43 pm
“Geography matters more than party.”
Right, it wasn’t the Nazi Party that murdered millions, it was the geograpy of central Europe.
Left wing = Nit wit.Dave Surls (a4d3c5) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:45 pm
Great comment, Dave. Yes, the Nazis weren’t the problem; it was just people being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And Obama and his leftist illuminati ideals are not glorified Socialism, but are indeed the right way to spread the wealth in our country.Jeff (7ff0a7) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:59 pm
Does crap like this make the top 5?Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:03 pm
Bob, that’s a hoax copying a 2004 hoax.SPQR (26be8b) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:07 pm
Well, yes, Timmah! That’s why I picked those three and used them and only them. Very astute of you to suss that out.Pablo (99243e) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:17 pm
Copying a 2000 hoax, copying a 1998 hoax, etc … The Dems trot this same one out every year.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:32 pm
What do you mean by hoax? That it wasn’t actually circulated?Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:10 pm
Oh, I have no doubt that someone printed that out somewhere. The idea that it was a Republican, or that it was done en masse, or that it would be effective, has always been in dispute.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 9:12 pm
Oh certainly you would have to be fairly stupid and very uninformed to be fooled by it, but it is still a fraud being perpetrated on voters. And it does seem to be somewhat in circulation: “distributed in Hampton, Newport New, Norfolk and Virginia Beach.”
All around a crappy thing to do.Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:10 pm
If I had to bet, the person that turned in a copy to the local Democrat Party office and the person that turned in a copy to the reporter is likely the person that created it, and printed it out.JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:16 pm
Just as there are jokes that soldiers tell that date in one form or another to the days of the Roman Legions, this is a joke that is as old as voting.
That someone printed it up, whether out of slightly malevolent humor…or an attempt to see if anybody would fall for it, doesn’t make it any less of a joke.
And yes, sadly, there are always a few in any crowd that will fall for the joke…hook, line and sinker.EW1(SG) (9a80bf) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:26 pm
And frankly, people so stupid as to buy it really shouldn’t be voting…Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:44 pm
#222 Scott Jacobs:
Well, yeah…but what are you gonna do?
Just as poor people have the same rights as rich people, so do dumb people have the same rights as smart people.
Its the dumb people that think they are smart I got a problem with.
And smart people that think they are dumb are usually incredibly good teachers of things that are important. Like how to live life happily, as opposed to the dummies who think they are smart and spend their lives miserably resenting the rest of us dummies that fail to recognize their inherent superiority.
Like most O!bamatroids.EW1(SG) (9a80bf) — 10/30/2008 @ 10:57 pm
Scott Jacobs, at 151: there’s a tension here between practicality and ideology.
Ideologically, I think votes by military personnel should be counted as long as they are sent by the date required (albeit, the laws usually require that absentee ballots be *received* by the close of business on election days, but i’d support waiving that for absentee ballots).
But state laws require that the count of votes be completed by a particular date. In California, for example, that date can’t be extended because the new legislature is sworn in more or less immediately thereafter.
So there *must* be a hard deadline for receipt, and a postmark deadline won’t do, as otherwise finishing the count on time is difficult or impossible. That deadline can be set later than election day, but it can’t be set more than a week or two later, without threatening to interfere with the completion of the official count.aphrael (9e8ccd) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:32 pm
It’s not my fault you can’t choose your words correctly. Jesus, if I can’t end your weird obsession with responding to me, then I certainly am not responsible for your diction.
As for my expertise, you little man, being a law student has nothing to do with it. Being a former precinct inspector and a credentialed poll watcher might have something more to do with the fact that I know Indiana election law better than you know how to NOT pay an insurance claim.
P.S. Click on the link above, JD. The chick voted absentee and the county election board flagged it as suspicious. She did not “withdraw” her vote (not that it mattered, voting illegally is a felony; offering to withdraw an illegal act doesn’t make it less of a felony.timb (a83d56) — 10/31/2008 @ 6:43 am
“credentialed poll watcher”
timmah – How many years of study and series of tests does it take to attain these lofty credentials? Do many mortals have them? Or, do you just have to pay somebody off?daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/31/2008 @ 8:00 am
Well, daley, it requires legal credentials to be in polling place when the poll closes, per Indiana statute. I sat through yet another training in Indiana election law for the credentials, which I imagine is much more than you’ve done.
I’m sorry you are disappointed by the title. I’ll mention to the General Assembly and see if they can change to something better.
Strangely, you don’t complain about your title: King of the Asshole Observation, but I guess that’s because “king” has more panache than “credentialed”.timb (a83d56) — 10/31/2008 @ 11:11 am
timb – You are focused on only one girl, when at least 12 others that we currently know of had to withdraw their ballots.
Fuck off timmah. You have no knowledge of my practices at work, and the fact that you routinely disparage my ability to do my job, and slander me by saying that I do not pay claims is ridiculous. I guess it would be easier for you to lie about me were I to not respond. If you quit fucking stalking me, maybe I would.JD (5b4781) — 10/31/2008 @ 11:19 am
13 forced to withdraw their votes for BarackyJD (5b4781) — 10/31/2008 @ 11:25 am
When you can link to this item on actual news source, instead of a blog, let me know. Blogs are not news sources and Google can’t find this linked anywhere.
Given how much of a baby you are, tiny one, and how you like to throw around allegations, let me just state I am not saying you are a liar or Tiffany Wilson is a liar. Just that I like my news independently verified. Otherwise, I might think the Corner was a source or Balloon Juice or Darleen Click or that braying ass Serr8d.
Anyway, I assume you’ll get back to me on this considering your whole post-election post-mortem is gonna be about voter fraud, ACORN, and the Community Reinvestment Act.timb (a83d56) — 10/31/2008 @ 11:33 am
Because the MSM does not cover it, it did not happen?!?!?!
Go look at the Columbus Dispatch. I guess the quotes from the Franklin County Prosecutor, Ron O’Brien, were just made up?JD (5b4781) — 10/31/2008 @ 11:40 am
Here is an article in the local Columbus paper. This was before the County Prosecutor’s office got involved.JD (5b4781) — 10/31/2008 @ 11:45 am
40,000 registered voters in NY State were found to be on the FL registration roles.
Another Drew, for the record, the reason for this is obvious: old Jews spend the winter in Florida. My grandfather drove a bus and my grandmother was a school teacher, and when they retired, they bought a winter place in Ft. Lauderdale in the same community as their neighbors. Every year, half of Sheepshead Bay (in Brooklyn) relocated to the same condo complex in Florida. Given that November is a winter month, I’m surprised there aren’t more than 40,000 people registered in NY and FL.
To answer Pat’s question, though–and presuming we’re talking about electoral fraud, not voter registration fraud, which all the ACORN complaints fall under–the answer’s obvious: ballot tabulation on electronic voting machines. To make this not about 2000 or 2004, I’ll link to an article from 2006 in which the ease of manipulating electronic votes is demonstrated. I don’t doubt that this election will witness shenanigans galore–but I doubt it’s going to hinge on them. Put differently:
Electoral fraud from the voting side requires a vast conspiracy set into motion months before the election–multiple registrations, relocating from polling place A to polling place B, waiting in lines for hours at multiple polling places, &c. There’s only so much that can be done.
Electoral fraud from the ballot-counting side, however, requires a person 18 credits of degree in computer science and a bone to pick.SEK (072055) — 10/31/2008 @ 2:22 pm
“I sat through yet another training in Indiana election law for the credentials, which I imagine is much more than you’ve done.”
timmah – Nice attitude. If you don’t want people to ask questions about your credentials, don’t make such a big deal about them and don’t throw a hissy fit when they do, queenie.
I don’t intend to join the election illuminati any time in the immediate future, but thanks for the useless snark anyway.
So how many hours and levels of training does poll watching require by statute in Indiana?daleyrocks (83b6c5) — 10/31/2008 @ 8:53 pm
No use talking of past statistics. Democrats are different after Kennedy and Johnson. And Republicans are different after Nixon, Reagan and Bush.Smith (d4364f) — 11/3/2008 @ 9:50 am
What matters is now. Today’s GOP is as narrow minded as can ever be. And Mccain who was basically decent has to go along or lose the base.