O’Keefe Gets Stunning Vote Fraud Scoop
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
The must-watch video is here.
In other fraud related news we are hearing about “funny” behavior of voting machines here and here.
And of course a regular reader pointed me to this story.
This has to be a blow-out, folks. Because if the race is close, they will “find” enough votes to win.
Update: Instapundit has more fraud-related links, here.
Update (II): In the comments a few people have been tossing ideas on how to combat fraud. Let me throw in my view, stated a few weeks ago at my own blog:
By the way, what is my solution? I mean I don’t want to eliminate electronic voting machines, but I want them secure.
Okay the real problem here is anonymous voting. Back at the founding everyone voted openly. People think this was abolished because of fears that others would try to bully you into voting one way or the other—especially by employers. The truth is more checkered. The anonymous voting system was first introduced as one of a myriad number of ways black people would be deprived of the vote in the South. It allowed their votes to be thrown out, while frustrating efforts to prove that this had happened. Now while the origins were racist and abusive, it didn’t mean it had to continue for that reason, and concerns about pressure have some validity. So it’s a dilemma. Eliminate anonymous voting and introduce pressure, or keep it and make it easier to fix elections.
But we don’t actually have to choose. With electronic voting and the internet, it is now easy to do this.
First, give each voter a special voter identification number. This is not to be used for anything but voting—I mean pass a law saying no one can ask you what it is, outlawing discrimination based on whether you reveal it or not, etc.
Then they vote and when they do they get a receipt.
Then on each state’s website, they allow you to look up your voter identification number and see what the system says you voted for.
So, its anonymous to the world, but not to you. So then if there is some accusation of funny business, each voter can say, “I am number X, and I voted for Y and Z, but it said I voted for A and B.”
Anyway, that’s my idea, for what it’s worth.
I will add that this approach would interact well with Dustin’s proposed national voter ID card he suggested in the comments.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Braddie was correct about voter fraud…but not the way he would prefer?
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:00 amI think its time to cut the BS and go to a national ID card that youhave to swipe to vote
case closed, countrys more secure and elections – which keep us free are
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:05 amas well…
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:05 amO’Keefe is a lying felon and Breitbart edits video
JD (ae2c41) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:12 amJD, are you just that desperate for a libel lawsuit?
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:15 amI’m with EPWJ on this one.
We need to cut the crap. The whining that an ID requirement would somehow screw up our elections is ridiculous.
I also think absentee ballots should require some major documented reason, and perhaps a fingerprint.
I am worried the GOP won’t move on this next year. The left moves to RACIST! instantly and loudly and apparently that scares the leadership even when it’s absurd.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:17 amPatHMV, JD is being satirical.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:20 amwell, i think eric is right, but even that doesn’t solve it totally.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:22 amIt would be nice if Braddy focused on stuff like absentee ballot fraud and same day voting registration and that weird stuff like the Minnesota vouching provision.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:23 amIf we have to submit fingerprints to vote, the terrorists have won!
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:24 amWhether or not the GOP is victorious on 11/2, there will be massive vote fraud committed.
AD-RtR/OS! (3cdbf9) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:29 amIt will only be through a GOP victory that the extent of that fraud will be (or should be) revealed.
It is another item on the “oversight” agenda that should be at the peak of the GOP’s efforts to reform, and downsize, the Federal Government.
Let’s free the dopers, and replace them in the lock-up with the vote-grabbers.
Now that O’Keefe has exposed the fraud, the MSM will flood the zone with followup reporting, being scrupulous to credit his work.
/sarc
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:29 am@12…Laugh moment of the day!
AD-RtR/OS! (3cdbf9) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:32 amI’m sure they will pretend it’s that bad.
I think an ID requirement and a fingerprint requirement should go together. I realize national ID card proponents usually argue for a different biometric, and I really wish they didn’t. You can leave a fingerprint on an absentee ballot (outside on some envelope, of course, but hidden from the actual external mailing envelope).
The ID could easily have this data included, and you could stick your finger in some purple ink and use that for access to your ballot. Everyone gets one vote, and a symbol of performing a civic duty.
I realize I’m preaching to the choir to some extent.
This solution isn’t perfect. No solution is perfect. What we’re doing today is simply insane levels of trust after democrats have proven they are not to be trusted. Daleyrocks mentions Bradblog. Its purpose is to keep lefties from seeing the actual issue for what it is, and to con money for Brett Kimberlin and pals.
No lefty in good conscience could abide the reality, so they need a pretend reality where thousands of voter registration frauds didn’t mean actual election fraud (it does).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:34 amDustin,
Forget the biometrics – its not a good idea – from the privacy point and practicalities – however remote do occur
Having a simple robust ID card like just about every other country – is not an insurmountable task
Also, convicts would be prevented from voting, people in arrears in legal judgements could be excluded as well as those who are not citizens
Even those who have not filed tax returns…
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:54 amWhy would conservatives (or anybody, really) support a National ID for any purpose? There are plenty of ways to commit election fraud even with the most draconian of ID requirements. A National ID card would only stop voter fraud schemes which rely on individual human beings to come in and vote in person somewhere. It won’t at all stop schemes like where the poll commissioners wait until the end of the voting day, and then cast a bunch of ballots for people who never showed up, while falsely recording that they did come to vote that day.
We are Americans, not Soviets. We don’t have to show our papers to every government official who wants to harass us about something. A National ID would do a LOT of damage to our federalist system. And if Congress lacks the power to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance (and I think it does lack such power), then under what provision of the Constitution can it issue national ID cards, or require such cards in order to be able to vote?
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:56 amThe national id card creeps me out. I thought you guys didn’t like big government. Now you want the nanny state to meet the police state. No thanks.
But hey, how about a nationally standardized ballot? And beyond that a nationally standardized method of voting? (Not run by the feds tho). That way there wouldn’t be so many different ways to cheat. The black hats would be forced to innovate ways to cheat a single system instead of having lots of different ways to cheat. The white hats could then focus on how to defeat whatever latest scam the black hats came up with.
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:00 pmEric, you really might want to read the 14th Amendment, which would penalize, in the Congressional apportionment process, for denying citizens the right to vote based on being “in arrears in legal judgments” or not having filed tax returns.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:00 pmI’m willing to take what I can get, be it merely an ID requirement.
PatHMV, we don’t have a federalist system anymore. At any rate, this is a great issue for states to move on, demanding state ID.
the DOJ already interferes with reasonable protections all the time. They stopped Georgia from complying with HAVA, for example.
I like the model of state governments issuing/requiring IDs, all of which, across the country, comply with some basic standards.
You’re right, PatHMV, that this isn’t a perfect solution. This is one solution to some of the problem.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:01 pm“It won’t at all stop schemes like where the poll commissioners wait until the end of the voting day, and then cast a bunch of ballots for people who never showed up, while falsely recording that they did come to vote that day.”
PatHMV – If the machines were secured until representatives of both major parties could unlock them (crazy thinking maybe), you could diminish such shenanigans. Unlocked machines should not be available in the presence of reps from one party. I also worry about the uncounted ballots always turning up in the trunks of cars like they did in Minnesota in 2008.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:07 pmBefore it became “politically incorrect,” I was a poll watcher in the Bronx. I learned my poll watching skills from “Boss” Charles Buckley’s Democratic machine while a kid. When I became eligible to vote, I had become a Republican andeither was a poll watcher myself or supervised poll watchers. When the Republicans were frightened out of maintaining poll watchers because of phoney racism charges, the balance shifted. Close elections are routinely stolen by the Democrats – ask “Bomber” Bob Dornan. It is organized theft and will occur where Democratic organizers and their cohorts are unsupervised.
Longwalker (4e0dda) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:09 pm“The national id card creeps me out. I thought you guys didn’t like big government.”
EdWood – The fingerprints creep me out, but then again I’m already in all sorts of databases from working in regulated industries. There’s not much diff from having a drivers license or other ID to board a plane or get government benefits than moving to a national ID. It’s not big government. It’s practical.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:10 pmEdWood – Why don’t you and your ilk support fair elections?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:11 pmFor that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they make a selection at any time.
Ban. These. Machines. NOW.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:13 pmIt’s true that voter fraud is such a major problem that it will require some kind of action to stop. These actions will necessarily involve government powers that involve identifying if a person is who they claim to be.
In fact, I’d say that’s part of the mandate of even having an election these days.
Should the \government harass people for not showing their papers? Sometimes, yep. It’s perfectly legit to note the federal government can’t do this and remain federal in nature. Not that it is federal in nature anymore, but the point is legit.
We’ve got to work that issue out. One way is for state governments to make these reforms, demand one specific ID, and the federal government not interfering with this process because ‘it will discourage minority voters!’. Of course, this doesn’t solve every election fraud issue by any stretch of the imagination.
Frankly, I worry about IDs without some kind of accurate biometric identifier, but EPWJ is right that robust IDs work out there without it.
Another major problem is enforcement. I’ve noticed a lot of folks prefer this issue be left for another day.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:14 pmI think an ID requirement and a fingerprint requirement should go together
how do you handle disabled people who have no hands?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:15 pm“state ID”
Got a driver’s license/id card already thanks.
I assume you are proposing that all persons residing in a state be able to produce an official state ID to vote/open a bank account/ etc.
Will the federal government mandate that or will it go state by state? If some states opt out what then? With-hold fed interstate highway funding until they cave in, you know, big government style?
Maybe a federally mandated standardized ballot and voting method would help make some forms of voter fraud more difficult to accomplish… That and a receipt from whatever cockamamie form of a Diebold machine your “vote” goes into….
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:23 pmThey don’t get to vote.
(kidding).
My ID has my eye color and hair color, and yet some people don’t have eyes or hair, either. We’ll manage. If there are 15 special cases in a state, where the ID doesn’t have fingerprints, I see that as an improvement over today.
It’s a very complicated problem, and I’ve seen every solution fall apart because of some (often reasonable) objection, and yet the status quo is far worse.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:23 pmWhat did I say about bank accounts, again?
At any rate, obviously I am proposing states require use of a specific state ID to vote. If they don’t all do it, that’s still an improvement. I will push for more states to do so at that point.
When the federal government tries to stop that kind of reform, they need to be stopped.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:27 pmPATHMV
is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime
I stand by my statement non-filing and in arrears of tax payments are crimes
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:27 pmDustin
All elections including local elections fall under some kind of federal jurisdiction – I think a federal ID is all that is required – all the pertinent info would be in the federal database
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:29 pmAs true as that is, I’m not making the claims that edwood seems to think I am. I would be happy with states fixing this problem, even though I realize that isn’t the ideal. It’s an improvement.
It’s also annoying to me that much of the federal government’s involvement lately has been making the problem worse, not better.
You want the feds to have a consistent requirement. Some prefer states issue the IDs, but agree to some kind of standard, which is effectively similar to the national ID in effect.
What I want is for everyone to see that we need to start reforming this issue soon, and all solutions are imperfect. I don’t want to make things worse with a solution, and I think that’s not going to happen under your or my idea of a reform, so I’m willing to compromise rather than do nothing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:35 pm#23 “Why don’t you and your ilk support fair elections?”
Haw Haw! BigD you are so silly. Since I believe in and support fair elections my “ilk” is by definition the people who support fair elections.
If you believe in that also then at least on this point we are the same ilk.
I am not in the “ilk” that is silly enough to actually believe that only one political party engages in voter fraud tho. I hope they catch and jail/fine/make miserable every single ballot box stuffing, Diebold machine reprogrammig, voter roll inflating sum’beech out there. But all of them, not just the ones on the other “side”.
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:40 pmDustin
AS each state receives federal assistance and resources – and they all provide for the common defense, I think a robust federal standard ID (as already established by the Passport) is not a big stretch – I would also say that states cannot issue birth certificates as they are conveying citizenship upon all 50 states – only the federal government should do so
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:45 pmDustin, I just see what I’ll call “retail” level voter fraud as fairly small potatoes in the grand scheme of voter fraud out there. It’s inherently more risky, because you have to have more people actively involved in the fraud in order to perpetrate it in any numbers. And it is only the “retail” voter fraud that can be addressed by more stringent ID requirements. Wholesale fraud, like “finding” the absentee ballots in a trunk, or the type of fraud described by the man in this new O’Keefe video, requires fewer active confederates and can more easily and quickly produce large numbers of phony ballots.
Don’t get me wrong, I support a requirement that you must show ID at the polls, I just don’t think that the problem of retail-level voter fraud is sufficient to justify a National ID scheme or even enhanced state ID cards.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:46 pmEven Pathmv’s solution, simply requiring the State ID (as they are now) is a solution I would be elated with.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:51 pmDustin
no each state has vastly different levels of proof, a fed ID or minimum fedID standards is the only solution – I mean – why travel 98% of the way and then just stop?
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:54 pm“Even Pathmv’s solution, simply requiring the State ID (as they are now) is a solution I would be elated with.”
Would an employee ID from a state agency work? Or a student ID from a state school?
imdw (16090e) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:58 pm“no each state has vastly different levels of proof, a fed ID or minimum fedID standards is the only solution – I mean – why travel 98% of the way and then just stop?”
Are you familiar with the REAL ID act?
imdw (bdd6dc) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:00 pmEric… because sometimes the solution is worse than the disease. And because there are many people opposed to a National ID system for good, conservative reasons, and thus you can easily build a broad coalition for requiring the state IDs, but would lose many members of that coalition by taking an “all or nothing” approach, particularly when the “all” you are proposing is seen as a tremendous invasion of individual and state sovereignty by a lot of principled people.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:00 pmHow would having a fed or state ID have stopped the scenario in one of the links where machines were preprogrammed with votes?
When I lived in New Orleans and they were voting on some local offices and also the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage ALL of the voting machines for certain precincts just didn’t get delivered. Guess someone was worried people might vote the “wrong” way on that issue. No amount of IDs would stop that.
Would it be more important to reform the ID issue or the method of voting issue (especially the method of electronic machines that leave no paper record of the votes). If federal mandates were to come to the states wouldn’t it make more sense to mandate a standard form of voting least amenable to tampering (maybe that would include a standard state ID)?
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:00 pmbtw, in the main post, i reprint my own suggested solutions.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:02 pmPAt
List one conservative reason,please
Everyone ALREADY has an id – we just need to print them have people ONCe every 10 years like the census and get them renewed.
No biggie
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:04 pmThe fraud and waste these ID’s will uncover and prevent also will be breathtaking – think about medicare claims – without swiping the card a doctor can’t bill = they estimate 5 to 20% of our 1.5 to 2.0 trillion dollar largess is fraudulent
this would cut that WAAAAY back a cash savings of 75 to 400 billion per YEAR – and thats just on the federal level double even triple that for state and local level
Personally I would like to get 1/14th of the economy back myself
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:09 pmThat’s a fair appraisal of my view. I’m willing to travel partway to what I want because I’ve seen how these complaints have been part of the reason the problem is perpetuating. I can’t solve the libertarian problems completely and eliminate voter fraud (even just the walk-in type). I’m fed up and ready to make a deal.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:09 pmDustin
nothing will make libertarians happy 🙂
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:10 pmUmmmm…. how about that the state is not the one who gives us an identity? We exist and have an identity independently of the state. Who we are is not and should not be dependent on recognition by the state.
Or a more practical conservative reason. Government is INCOMPETENT by its very nature, at most things. What happens to you when some government bureaucratic process marks your National ID card as you having died? Or you’re a woman, and you get married, and now your National ID card doesn’t reflect your actual name, and the discrepancy keeps you from voting, or opening a checking account, or getting a job, or whatever?
We are not agents of the state, period. There are some areas where legitimate government regulations requires an ID of some sort, to minimize fraud. But that doesn’t mean that the government, especially the federal government, needs a master database of all citizens, with your absence from the database being proof that you are a non-person.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:11 pmgoing to bed- call to prayer has been around 4 freakin am – oh yes unbelievers get awakened as well
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:13 pmPat,
imperfect or not – your a$$ got whacked you cried and were issued a birth cert
existentionalism notwithstanding
no chanting – I’m trying to sleep – itsworse than snoring…
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:15 pmEric, as for Medicaid fraud, again, a national ID system would stop very little Medicaid fraud. Most of the fraud does not involve treatment of non-existent people, it involves non-existent treatment of real people, usually real people who are getting a tiny cut of the profits from the fraud. Think it would be terribly difficult to get those folks to lend their card for a physical swipe? Think again. Another big chunk involves performing unnecessary procedures on real people, also not solved with a National ID. Only a very small portion is lost to people who are using a fake social security number. And I’ve got no problem with Medicaid issuing an ID card for people who want to receive government benefits. Require that card to be swiped all you want, I won’t object.
P.S. I’m not a libertarian. I’m a SMALL government conservative, wondering why other conservatives, who generally agree that the government can’t do much right, are in favor of a large national government program as a solution to much of anything.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:17 pmPat
umm, in EVERY case fraud is reduced with identity
every case
fake ss# would also evaporate as you have to show up with documents proving who you are
why are people uptight about proving who they are?
geez – what an infringment – no proof – no vote no jasmine scented cupcakes with gov cheese – no job no bank loans to default on no medical care
waaaaah!
trillions of fraud and waste gone
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:23 pmgoin to bed I’m woozy I am starting to think Okeffy did something right
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:25 pmWoozie and unintelligible are your apparent baselines.
JD (4d450e) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:34 pm“And I’ve got no problem with Medicaid issuing an ID card for people who want to receive government benefits. Require that card to be swiped all you want, I won’t object.”
And that seems to work with credit cards, right? And what happens when the card is lost, or doesn’t work?
imdw (cd4b7a) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:37 pmEric, have you ever actually investigated or prosecuted Medicaid fraud? I have. Most of what I saw was committed by doctors using the real names and real social security numbers of real people, and most of those real people had at least some level of collusion with the doctors involved. For example, folks who had been in an auto accident would be steered by sleazy lawyers to the “right” doctors, where they would be given (completely unnecessary) treatments like “magnatherapy” (a fancy type of heat lamp) for their muscle aches and pains. The patient did this because the lawyer wanted documentation of their pain and suffering for the lawsuit against the other driver. Requiring display of a National ID card would NOT stop that form of fraud in any way, shape, or form.
As for fake ss#, we’re already seeing an increase in identity theft by illegal immigrants, to make sure that their false name matches up with a real social security number issued to that false name. The crackdown on making people provide ss#, and verify them through the e-Verify system, hasn’t stopped the fake ss# scheme, it’s just made it so that it has a negative impact on a real person when their identity is stolen and used by the illegal alien.
It is the socialist and fascist countries which want to control all aspects of citizens’ lives, and the first step they generally take to do so is to require all citizens to be identified in accordance with the government-imposed scheme.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:38 pmimdw… that’s partly my point. What happens when a person misplaces his National ID card? Are the bureaucrats so draconian that they say: “No medical treatment for you!,” a la the soup nazi? In the private, free market world, you either use another card or you write a check, or pay cash (lots of options). If the merchant knows you, they may be willing to take a check even though their policies normally prohibit doing so. Government employees don’t usually have such leeway. The private credit card companies also have a financial incentive to keep their customer happy and able to use their card, so they set a high priority on overnighting you a replacement card. How much do you think the government will charge? (Hint: Check how much it costs to expedite processing of your passport application).
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:42 pm“In the private, free market world, you either use another card or you write a check, or pay cash (lots of options)”
And we still have fraud there.
imdw (604a8a) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:44 pmSure. The private market can tolerate a certain amount of fraud, because it costs more to eliminate it than is lost by the fraud.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:46 pmIf it cannot fix everything it must not even be attempted.
JD (4d450e) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:46 pmJD, that’s not it at all. It’s a matter of whether the costs of the fix, and other negatives associated with the fix, are worth it in light of the amount of fraud that it will fix. As the National ID card will only fix relatively small-scale “retail” level voter fraud, but have significant costs and negative effects, I don’t think it’s worth it.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:50 pm“The private market can tolerate a certain amount of fraud, because it costs more to eliminate it than is lost by the fraud.”
What JD is missing is that the argument is that the benefits from these ID schemes aren’t so great and won’t overwhelm the cost. He prefers to think in more absolute terms than a simple cost-benefit comparison.
imdw (604a8a) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:52 pmConservatives need to be diligent on the 2nd, otherwise corpses, illegals, cartoon characters and felons will decide this election.
The left is ideologically driven beyond the right’s comprehension. Nothing –and I mean nothing — will stop them from trying to maintain power and continue to ruin the greatest nation the world has ever seen.
NO EXCUSES.
NEW POST:
“This needs to go worldwide” — Lynn B.
ANALYSIS: JUAN WILLIAMS WAS LYNCHED BY NPR FOR NOT BEING “BLACK ENOUGH” (warning: controversial photo)
heir2freedom (d9456e) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:53 pmhttp://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/2010/10/analysis-juan-williams-lynched-by-npr_25.html
I find it interesting that its considered an “invasion” of privacy to demand an Federal ID of someone receiving federal dollars but its not considered an invasion of privacy for us to provide those dollars so the unidentified can have access to it
GOING TO BED !!!
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:55 pmPat, don’t underestimate the value of simple confidence in our elections.
It’s not clear to me what degree of ‘retail level’ voter fraud exists, but my guess is that it’s enough to turn elections in some cases.
Add in a lot of voter fraud that isn’t merely identity, but somewhat helped by an ID card. Felons voting by the thousands, illegals voting, etc. ID cards don’t fix this completely… just somewhat.
I think leaving things as they are has significant costs and negative effects that are enormous. I propose much more than merely an ID card, though. It’s a holistic approach, where a person is who they claim they are, can only vote a single time, and election officials do not tamper. Confidence sapping machines are eliminated. Election judges are tested on election day to ensure they catch those who are on the absentee rolls (just one example).
ID is a part of the solution. Without it, one could make a similar objection to many of the other reforms, since they only solve some of the fraud potential, too.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:57 pmAnd EPWJ certainly has a point. the feds already have ID numbers for all of us. A lot of the problems you claim are costs of this system EPWJ proposes are not really costs of this system since we’re already paying that.
But I don’t mind State IDs being required, and the feds being stopped from their typical interference of such a reform.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:59 pmPatHMV #55
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:08 pmYes indeed.
I suggest make a national standard and farm it out to the credit card companies. You pick which which card of your you want to be linked for voting purposes. Go to an ATM machine, stick you card in, press “vote’ enter a pin number then it pulls up the ballot for which you a eligible to vote for. Select the candidates and issues you want to vote for, hit a button to review and/or redo, finish, press complete and the system assigns a random number that does not identify what you voted but that you did vote. It prints out a tally of what you voted for with a random sequence number. With that print out you can go online to the database, enter the sequence number to confirm that it matches your receipt.
In addition make voter fraud a major felony. Ten year sentence with no reduction of sentence for any reason along with a million dollar fine. Multiple convictions to be served consecutively and not concurrently along with a life time ban on voting and on holding public office on any level or a government job on any level. Allow for private citizen prosecution if the prosecutors fail to prosecute for any reason other than lack of sufficient evidence to prosecute. Is this absolutely bullet proof? No. But then again with these measures how many will risk a possible life without parole sentence for crooking ballots?
cubanbob (409ac2) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:13 pm“I suggest make a national standard and farm it out to the credit card companies. You pick which which card of your you want to be linked for voting purposes. Go to an ATM machine, stick you card in, press “vote’ enter a pin number then it pulls up the ballot for which you a eligible to vote for. Select the candidates and issues you want to vote for, hit a button to review and/or redo, finish, press complete and the system assigns a random number that does not identify what you voted but that you did vote. It prints out a tally of what you voted for with a random sequence number. With that print out you can go online to the database, enter the sequence number to confirm that it matches your receipt. ”
Think how many systems would be easy if the only description required was the user interaction under ideal circumstances!
imdw (017d51) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:20 pmPat – I was mocking dimwit, not you.
JD (ae2c41) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:25 pmPat, don’t worry. JD doesn’t have a problem with messenges. It’s messengers he attacks.
imdw (1d54b7) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:32 pmA virtuous society has enough people of integrity that public procedings such as elections are carried out with minimal tampering that is largely non-systemic. A society that lacks the ability to police itself in such a fundamental process is in trouble. It’s scary to think we can’t trust the results of our elections.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:33 pmWhen you have more than enough convicted felons illegally voting in Minnesota to swing an election for Stuart Smalley as we did in 2008, we have a problem. That’s a combination of not maintaining the integrity of voting rolls and/or potential ID issues.
The state already has my ID as do the feds from my tax returns. When I lose my drivers license, which I have not done, but my kids have, I can get it replaced. They now store the digitized picture so the process is virtually instantaneous. If the license prints out showing I’m dead, I can tell them I am not.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:35 pmDustin, I agree that confidence in the system is extremely important. I’m with you on eliminating the machines. Enforcement of existing laws requiring purging of registrations of convicted felons is more than sufficient to prevent any significant fraud by having them vote. We just need a truly color-blind DOJ (and state officials) who are willing to do so.
Cubanbob… as a former prosecutor, who has actually investigated voter fraud at one point in my career, I can tell you that the solution is NOT to increase penalties for voter fraud. Voter fraud can be extremely difficult to prove. Increasing the penalties for a crime doesn’t have much deterrent effect if the risk to an individual of actually being caught, prosecuted, and convicted of the crime is very small, as it is today.
Let me give you a real-world example. In my state, the requirement is that you show your ID to the poll commissioners. One commissioner has you sign the printed listing of that precinct’s voters, next to your name, while two other commissioners write out your name, in separate journals. You then go vote. At the beginning of the day, the poll commissioners print out a machine tally, which should reflect 0 votes for each candidate, and post it on a wall at the polling place. After the polls close, they are supposed to print out a tally which shows how many votes were cast for each candidate. The morning printout, the tally printout, the log, and the handwritten journal all go into an envelope that stays with the machine for verification later, if needed. Taken altogether, IF these processes are all followed precisely, it’s nearly impossible to commit fraud (other than by tampering with the machines’ programming).
Keep in mind that poll commissioners tend to be kindly-looking elderly people, and our election days are very long (in my state, from 6 or 7 am to 8 pm).
Now, suppose you go look at some of those logs and journals after the fact, and you see that, for instance, the last 50 names in the two journals (in which 2 separate commissioners are supposed to be writing down the name of the voter) are both obviously in the same handwriting. That’s a violation of the procedures. But is it voter fraud? You ask the commissioners, and they explain that one of them had to go to the bathroom, or one of them started having medical issues and had to leave early, or whatever, so one poll commissioner started keeping both books. The 2 poll commissioners left claim that these were all legitimate voters, and they just got sloppy with the paperwork.
Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those last 50 votes are fraudulent? I can assure you, you cannot. Not without some witness to testify that they saw the commissioners casting votes and writing down names of people who were not there. In most places I know, there are core precincts out there were the opposition party, not having any voters in that precinct to speak of, doesn’t bother (or is intimidated from) having poll watchers of its own.
Ok, so no provable fraud. You could probably technically claim something like malfeasance in office against the poll commissioners who didn’t follow proper procedures. But do you really think you’ll get a serious conviction, and jail time, for the nice lady who sings in the church choir and is 60 years old for skimping on the paperwork because, all the witnesses will assert, the other poll commissioner got sick and had to go home to take their heart medication?
I’m not making this up. I’ve seen it first hand. I’m virtually certain that hundreds or thousands of ballots in one particular election were fraudulently cast in this manner (poll commissioners voting at the end of the day, using the names of people who hadn’t shown up to vote by 8pm). But absent a poll commissioner who participated cracking and confessing to the whole scheme, there is absolutely no way to get a conviction, and no National ID card would have helped that in any way, nor would massive penalties. No penalty is imposed when you can’t prove the case.
That type of fraud would be stopped, or diminished, by requiring cameras to record the activity at each precinct. I’m all in favor of that requirement, provided that the cameras are carefully positioned so as not to be able to see anybody’s ballot.
Aaron, many people have proposed a system such as you describe, with the voter getting the code so they, and they alone, can verify that their vote was recorded properly. The inherent flaw is the same in all of them. You say: “I mean pass a law saying no one can ask you what it is, outlawing discrimination based on whether you reveal it or not, etc.”
You can pass all the laws you want, but that doesn’t mean that everybody will obey them. Say you’ve got a great job. You’re making $100k in this down economy. Your employer’s been making some cut backs recently, and you’re worried you could be next. Your supervisor pulls you aside, reminds you how important it for the future of the company that candidate X win the election. He asks you to prove to him, using this super-secret ID, that you voted the right way. Do you stand on principle and say no, and report him to the authorities? (remember, it’ll be his word versus your word that he actually asked the question) Or do you consider the braces your kids need, and succumb to the pressure?
Or suppose you’re just a poor guy in a poor neighborhood that has a long tradition of “street money” on election day. A guy offers you $10 if you’ll go vote, and bring him your receipt and your code so he can verify that you voted for candidate X. You think the local police are going to be rushing out to investigate whether that is going on?
Once you give the voter ANY means to verify his vote after the election is over, you dramatically ease the ability to buy or intimidate votes, no matter how many protections you try to write into the law. It is the process of the secret ballot, not the laws about it, which truly protect our privacy to vote how we wish.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:42 pmYeah, let’s require everyone to have a national ID card. Better yet, since it could be lost, let’s make it a biometric chip instead. HEY, we can implant it into the right hand or the forehead, and require an oath of loyalty at the same time. Anyone not having such implanted chip will not be able to vote. They won’t be able to work, buy, or sell either.
NO FRIGGIN THANKS!!!!!!
You take the mark of the beast, but I WILL NOT!!!!!!!!!
peedoffamerican (5e6604) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:44 pmRevelation:
16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
peedoffamerican (5e6604) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:49 pm“If the license prints out showing I’m dead, I can tell them I am not.”
That simple huh?
imdw (16090e) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:52 pmpathmv, thanks for the detailed description of that problem. And indeed, you make a good point that IDs won’t solve that.
Of course, it’s not like I’m asking for something particularly awful to remedy some of the problem (nothing like the mark of the beast, POA). But the other part of the problem, your example, is a major problem requiring a different solution.
POA, a biometric is not necessarily a chip, and there’s absolutely no reason to implant one in your head. It could just be a number, other than 666, btw, linked to a database with your thumbprint. You probably already have one if you live in a decent state.
There are no perfect solutions.
At any rate, if we can just look at a database of all votes, their ID number, and how that ID voted, it’s easy to give a different ID than your own, to satisfy crooked bosses (assuming you do not get a printed receipt). Though this is another complex problem. Note, anyway, that this is not a cost, since it’s already easy to buy and intimidate using absentee ballots. We’re losing little and gaining something.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:58 pm“At any rate, if we can just look at a database of all votes, their ID number, and how that ID voted, it’s easy to give a different ID than your own, to satisfy crooked bosses (assuming you do not get a printed receipt)”
Why won’t the crook ask for your ID?
imdw (47a9bf) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:01 pmDustin, that’s also why I oppose the increased use of absentee ballots. They are a necessary evil, in order to allow deployed soldiers and shut-ins to vote, but their use should be severely restricted in other cases. And switching from a system where a relatively small number of votes can be easily ascertained and controlled, via absentee ballot, to one in which EVERYBODY’s vote can easily be determined by a crooked boss or abusive spouse, is indeed losing a lot.
There are much easier solutions to prevent tossing out a person’s ballot and substituting it with another than a massive database which contains a record of EVERY SINGLE VOTE CAST, and who cast it. Mainly, get rid of the machines. Good old paper ballots, stuffed into a locked box. Does it take longer to count than the TV news would like? Sure. Is it more secure, and more transparently secure, than any machine method could possibly be? Yes.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:06 pmPat’s toenails are more honest than dimwit could ever dream of being.
JD (ae2c41) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:06 pmPat and my positions are very close.
I envision some more sweeping reforms than he does, but I realize they wouldn’t be quite as necessary if we took some common sense compromise reforms in several directions. You wind up with a fallible system, but you also wind up with less fraud. It’s not what I specifically want, but I am not confident I can get what I want.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:10 pmPatHMV @73 – Appreciate the comment. The controls you describe should work. The problem as you note is adhering to them as in most situations where deliberate fraud is committed. People intending to commit fraud will try to bypass controls. ID doesn’t prevent that and it’s not intended to. You are describing separate problems. Lack of ID or fake ID gets an ineligible voter to the booth. It doesn’t fix manipulation by poll commissioners.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:17 pmPrivate voter ID for X. Right, and in Boston, X can also get a private ID for his father, mother, brother, and recently-deceased uncle. Vote early and often.
To get a feeling for the seriousness of the problem, take a look at James & Kenneth Collier: Votescam. Janet Reno was in the middle of such a scandal. Galleys of the book were delivered to every Senator before hearings on her, and not one of them raised a question about it during her confirmation.
docduke (9e8675) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:20 pmKeep in mind that poll commissioners tend to be kindly-looking elderly people, and our election days are very long (in my state, from 6 or 7 am to 8 pm).
This is actually one of the problems: the people manning the polls are all volunteers, and (speaking from experience), many of them aren’t actually very good at it. But there aren’t enough volunteers as it is, and if you get rid of the people who aren’t actually doing the job well, you end up with only three officers at each polling place, which is a nightmare if anyone needs to go to the bathroom.
by requiring cameras to record the activity at each precinct
sounds expensive, but otherwise i don’t have a fundamental objection to this.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:26 pmThis conversation is making me regret that I haven’t worked in a polling place in the last couple of elections, and I need to resume it in 2012.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:36 pmDustin: I see no reason to believe that a database which connects thumbprints to names could not be perverted by deliberate partisan hackers, or that the connection between the fingerprint scanner at the polling place and the remote database couldn’t be interfered with.
Such a scheme presents many of the same problems that electronic voting machines do.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:38 pmDaleyrocks, i’ve always wondered why activist groups which organize people to challenge voters at the polls don’t instead organize people to be polling place officers.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:39 pmaphrael, because then they would have a duty of honesty and impartiality.
And that’s not the point.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:52 pmDustin, exactly. Any system which is completely impervious to fraud is generally so draconian and inflexible as to make legitimate uses much more difficult or impractical, and is also fairly expensive. The key is finding a collection of solutions which aren’t overly expensive or burdensome but collectively work to bring the risk of fraud down to a minimal level.
PatHMV (c34b06) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:54 pm“Dustin: I see no reason to believe that a database which connects thumbprints to names could not be perverted by deliberate partisan hackers, or that the connection between the fingerprint scanner at the polling place and the remote database couldn’t be interfered with.”
So all you’d have to do is dirty up the scanner in the places you don’t want voting.
imdw (cbe404) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:56 pmaphrael, good point in reference to fingerprints and yet more fraud.
I hope you get back to poll place volunteering. There simply aren’t enough capable patriots like you to go around. I always do GOTV and sometimes poll watching in swing states, but have given some thought to following in your footsteps for a couple of elections.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:00 pm“Daleyrocks, i’ve always wondered why activist groups which organize people to challenge voters at the polls don’t instead organize people to be polling place officers.”
I’ve always wondered why they don’t volunteer to do voter protection.
imdw (3a28bb) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:10 pmIMDW: it’s not clear how voter protection meets their aims.
Their purported aims are to prevent voter fraud by interrogating suspicious voters.
Working as polling place officers would allow them to work to prevent voter fraud.
“protecting” voters, whatever that means, is less connected.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:18 pm“IMDW: it’s not clear how voter protection meets their aims.”
Yeah I guess that’s the obvious answer: they see the problem as too many people voting. Me? I see it as not enough.
imdw (150cd7) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:20 pm“Daleyrocks, i’ve always wondered why activist groups which organize people to challenge voters at the polls don’t instead organize people to be polling place officers.”
aphrael – I’m not sure which activist groups you are talking about. I thought challenging or intimidating voters within a certain number of feet (depending on the state) of a polling place was illegal. Maybe you can clarify.
The True the Vote folks in Houston have volunteered as Poll Watchers in precincts apparently not used to having them and are getting intimidated and sued six ways to Sunday by the SEIU and ACORN-backed left.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:34 pmI voted early in another town in my county. I had to fill out a paper form and show ID. I voted on an electronic machine in which you stuck in a card to record your vote based on selections you made on the touch screen. The machine also had a paper tape back up. You turned in your card when you were done.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:40 pmDaleyrocks: see, for example http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/28/Decision2004/Gov_Bush__Poll_watche.shtml, which talks about Florida’s Governor endorsing the notion of poll watchers going out to challenge a voter’s right to vote.
I can’t find a link from this election, but every election there’s a series of media articles which seem to run down the story as:
* a bunch of conservative activists are planning to go out and challenge the registration of suspicious voters
* liberal activists are angry about this and want the courts to stop it because they think it’s really all about intimidating minority voters
I could swear I saw one this morning.
I know that in California, only precinct board members are allowed to challenge a voter’s right to vote in the polling place (Elections Code 14240), but apparently it’s different in different states.
——————
But the same question good applies to poll watchers: what’s the benefit to volunteering to watch the precinct board rather than being a member of the precinct board?
I mean, in theory, you can check out multiple precinct boards.
But in practice, that’s nonsense: if you’re worried about a precinct board cheating, you have to watch them the entire day. Or, at the very least, for the entire takedown/reconciliation process. So you can’t go a-wandering.
(Now, maybe the idea is that you really only have to work the hours of the takedown/reconciliation process, which is true enough in California, although it might vary in places with different kinds of machines.)
I’d note that the only poll watchers I’ve ever encountered were (a) GOTV activists and (b) an official delegation from the Chinese government wandering around watching US election procedures.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:44 pmDaleyrocks – that kind of voting machine, where it prints it on paper for you and then the paper is counted, is probably OK.
Do you know if it printed the results in machine-readable form, human-readable form, or both? And which is used for counting?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:51 pm“I know that in California, only precinct board members are allowed to challenge a voter’s right to vote in the polling place (Elections Code 14240), but apparently it’s different in different states.”
Ole Bill Rehnquist, before becoming a supreme court judge, used to go challenge black and hispanic voters. I don’t know where in his career that was in relation to his writing a memo arguing to uphold Plessy v. Ferguson.
imdw (18e605) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:57 pmaphrael – Thanks. I have no problem with people from either party following the rules to make sure only properly registered voters get to vote by volunteering to work at polling places. I’m not sure why anyone else would either, except that liberals seem always view announcements from conservatives that they intend to do that as attempts to suppress the vote or intimidate voters. Mark Kirk, running for Senate against mob banker Alexi Gianoulas here in Illinois, recently announced his campaign would be sending poll watchers into some heavily black precincts in the city during the election, which was met with howls of protest from the usual suspects.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 5:00 pmActually no, voters can challenge other voters right to cast a ballot, it’s kind of a long and
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/26/2010 @ 5:02 pmcomplicated process, as is everything else, thatinvolves communicating with headquarters, but it is not unique to precinct workers
“that kind of voting machine, where it prints it on paper for you and then the paper is counted, is probably OK.”
aphrael – I did not receive a paper copy. The machine retained it. The machine card I turned in presumably was used for counting, but who knows, maybe it was only used to pull up the right ballot for me to use on the machine since people from all over Cook County could vote there.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 5:04 pmState mandated ID…
Senor AD-Viva la Republica! (3cdbf9) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:49 pmHey, I’ve got my Matricula Consular Card.
Que pasa?
Case in point.
A state requires voters to prove they are citizens, and the federal government says that’s not acceptable. That’s the intrusion I’m worried about.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 8:30 pmDustin – Crazy decision given that you have to prove citizenship or be a legal immigrant, theoretically at least, to get a drivers license. Additional burden to prove citizenship when you register to vote – zippo or negligible. Kozinski got it right.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 8:48 pmYep. Koz is one of my favorite judges. He’s fairly libertarian and very likely to make calls strictly accurately.
This is pretty outrageous, and really puts in perspective mine (or others’) reform ideas. We can’t even get the most basic measures without fed judges, or the DOJ or some other agency standing in the way, pretending it’s so burdensome as to be illegal.
Reforming this system requires repealing a variety of laws and replacing them with something specific that these judges and DOJ cannot screw with… though I am sure they will invent some constitutional principle demanding we not verify this or enforce that.
Unelected judges (even a retired justice) standing directly in the way of citizens having a true democratic election.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 8:53 pm“messenges”?
Icy Texan (abe429) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:07 pmWait a moment. Let me go get my ‘imdw to English dictionary’.
Dustin – I could not change the address on my drivers license or voters registration without all sorts of ID. Signing a postcard that you are eligible to vote under penalty of perjury is ridiculous.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:17 pmIan – this is something which is going to vary from state to state.
But California’s rules are quite clear.
Cal. Elections Code 14240(b) says:
On the day of the election no person, other than a member of a precinct board or other official responsible for the conduct of the election, shall challenge or question any voter concerning the voter’s qualifications to vote. (emphasis added).
You can send precinct board members – whose ID and contact info is public and available before the election – documents indicating that a voter isn’t legally registered, and then they can go through the procedure in 14240(c).
aphrael (5e1058) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:20 pmDaleyrocks – well, if you’re going into poor minority neighborhoods and challenging voters there, but not also going into wealthy white neighborhoods, then of course you’re going to get leftist activists up in arms: you’re singling out minorities for disparate treatment and it’s going to scare some voters off, and likely you know that.
My point, though, was that working as precinct official is simply flat-out more effective a means of ensuring the integrity of elections than challenging random voters.
aphrael (5e1058) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:24 pmDaleyrocks: it’s ridiculous, but Congress has said those are the rules for federal elections, and under Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution, they win:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
Now, states can adopt different rules for non-federal elections (eg, elections which don’t involve federal offices), but that requires maintaining two voter rolls, etc, which is expensive, so few jurisdictions do it.
(San Francisco may take it up, though, as there’s talk of letting resident aliens vote in school board elections).
aphrael (5e1058) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:26 pmThis kind of proves California has everything backwards, GOP pollwatchers try to make sure
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:28 pmthat everyone follows the rules, Dem poll watchers
want everyone to vote, regardless of qualification, this is how the vote total in Philadelphia can be
over 100%
Ian: one very handy rule for poll workers, in general, is that anyone who is insisting on voting should always be allowed to vote provisionally.
This lets the county elections office check their credentials and reject them, later, non-confrontationally.
(I’ve done this: one particularly vivid example was the woman from LA who insisted on voting in 2008 even though I told her her vote wouldn’t count. OK, fine. into the provisional envelope you go, with a note saying that you told me you’re registered in LA and that therefore your vote shouldn’t count).
Of course, this assumes the county elections office does its job.
Who’s watching them?
aphrael (5e1058) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:31 pm“then of course you’re going to get leftist activists up in arms: you’re singling out minorities for disparate treatment and it’s going to scare some voters off,”
aphrael – I don’t think scaring off voters was a real issue. The precincts were expected to be heavily Democrat. The question was the real vote totals.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:53 pm“but Congress has said those are the rules for federal elections, and under Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution, they win:”
aphrael – If the req
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:55 pmFat fingers, sorry.
aphrael – If the requirement is not unduly burdensome, it does not frustrate the will of Congress. I disagree.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:57 pmdaleyrocks – I think it depends on the details of the law: did Congress say that it pre-empted other provisions? has Congress so pervasively regulated as to occupy the field?
I don’t know the details of the law in question, so I can’t say – but we’re working in an area with an explicit delegation of power in the Constitution, so I don’t find it surprising that a court would say Congress wins this one.
Of course, Congress can fix it.
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:42 pmI don’t think scaring off voters was a real issue. The precincts were expected to be heavily Democrat. The question was the real vote totals.
well, on some level this comes down to whether or not you take your opposition at their word. liberal activists publically denouncing such things say they’re about the danger of voter intimidation; do you believe they’re being honest, or do you believe they’re lying?
notwithstanding the fact that the liberals in question clearly think the conservative activists are lying, I’d say: I think it’s most likely that both groups are being honest about what their concerns are – conservative activists are motivated by a fear that illegal voters are stealing elections for liberals, and liberal activists are motivated by a fear that conservatives are trying to suppress legal voters who are likely to vote for liberals.
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:45 pm“so I don’t find it surprising that a court would say Congress wins this one.”
aphrael – Courts upheld Indiana’s voter ID law in 2008 which would conflict with your interpretation, so I think we have a very mixed bag.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/27/2010 @ 12:02 amExcept the Choice Point lists, of voters that were drafted for 2000, were occasioned because of the real brouhaha back in 1997, several counties used their discretion and ignored it, letting thousands of illegal votes, through, many of the same canvassing boards screening out the absentee votes of veterans. As we now know, the whole chad issue, was in large part ginned up by a public relations firm, hired by the Democrats, the clamor went for this new machines, but soon Brad’s group along with Kimberlin, came up with this “black box’ theory to delegitimize the last GOP wave back in 2002, demonizing Diebold, the cash register people, while keeping mum about ACORN
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 5:18 ammany of the same canvassing boards screening out the absentee votes of veterans.
again: in California, at least, these boards consist entirely of volunteers. Seems volunteering for them would be the best way to combat fraud.
but soon Brad’s group along with Kimberlin, came up with this “black box’ theory to delegitimize the last GOP wave back in 2002, demonizing Diebold, the cash register people, while keeping mum about ACORN
the question of the integrity of voting systems should cut across partisan lines. I don’t care about which party the machines are helping; the machines are untrustworthy. A skilled hacker can use them to throw elections basically undetectably unless they have a voter verified paper trail which voters actually verify.
The ATM analogy is inapposite because ATM records aren’t required to be secret (that is, transactions are linked to the individual making them, which can’t be the case with voting machines).
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/27/2010 @ 6:43 amWe might as well go back to the fraudulent paper ballots, if only because the potential for mischief is somewhat negated compared to electronic malfeasance.
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 10/27/2010 @ 7:37 amDmac – right. You can steal a paper ballot election, but assuming the people running the thing are honest, it’s reasonably difficult. You can steal an electronic election without the people running the election even knowing it’s been done, and it can only be “proved” later using complex statistical analysis that the average joe doesn’t understand … meaning you could probably never prove it to a jury’s satisfaction.
aphrael (9802d6) — 10/27/2010 @ 7:53 am3-Judge panel of 9th-Circus strikes down AZ voter law….
“…The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn’t require them to show proof as Arizona’s law does.
The ruling left in place a requirement that voters provide proof of identity when casting ballots…”
Kozinski was the minority vote, retired SCJ O’Connor was one of the majority. It does not effect next month’s election as the registration deadline has passed.
AZ has indicated they will appeal for an en banc ruling.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/26/court-strikes-ariz-law-requiring-voters-prove-citizens/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29
AD-RtR/OS! (c987f6) — 10/27/2010 @ 8:19 amIn Delaware, where I live they are pimping the Real ID like it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I will NEVER get one. If I can’t fix the situation in my State, than I will be moving. If I can’t move far enough, I will go off the grid. It is a shame that I would have to do such a crazy thing to protect my privacy and stand for my principles.
The sad truth is, the vast majority of people are too wrapped up in themselves and their lives to care about the loss of freedoms, the waste in government, or the death of our constitutional republic.
Even those who have interest, are so mis-informed and brain washed from the corporate media machine that they simply squabble whatever left or right sided position the news they choose to watch tells them.
We are becoming a nation void of individual thought. Convenience has taken the place of research. Corporations and chains have taken over.
Never mind the fact that we have sent generations of our bravest young men and women to fight wars that make our citizens less secure, poorer, and hated around the world.
This country has lost its way. I just can’t believe that socialism and communism ideas are now the main stream thought.
What ever happened to self reliance?
Whatever happened to keeping the money you earn from your efforts?
Whatever happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Why has it become the governments job to play Robin Hood?
It makes me sick that my government takes money from me and then uses that money to go kill people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other countries we are in “unofficially” .
It makes me sick that my neighbors and acquaintances can’t even research the people they vote for. How many people even know the names of some of the people they vote for an hour later?
Just vote the party line! Who has time to think for themselves, it just hurts to much. ouch! Brain Pain
Just a load of crap. Why is it so hard to see that if Grandma was never taxed on her income, she would have enough money to buy her own medicine, or if you were not taxed on your income perhaps you could buy it for her.
I know I went off topic a bit there but when the rant starts it can’t stop easily.
The Real ID does drive me nuts. I actually have written an article about it here, http://www.upfordebate.us/story.php?title=real-id-act–national-id-and-the-end-of-privacy-1
I think it is important to get the word out about this as much as possible. Most people have just bought the propaganda the State has put on them without even questioning why? Or if this is something considered American in values.
I have not yet given up on my country, though that day may come. I will fight as long as a fight is to be had. Unfortunately, they are winning, even as they are exposed. I feel we have a legitimate chance to make corrections in the coming years. I think within a decade we should know which way our country will go.
Until then I will do everything I can to thwart the Real ID Act and stand up for my friends and neighbors even as they mock me for standing on the side of liberty and freedom.
The true patriot always stands alone at first.
IAmRight (83737c) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:14 am