pageok
pageok
pageok
Fake Votes in New Mexico Primary?

Jim Geraghty offers an interesting report that, if verified, could be quite significant:

Today, news out of New Mexico, the state GOP looked at information for 92 newly-registered voters in one district, and found 28 had "missing or inaccurate Social Security numbers or birth dates. In some cases, more than one voter was registered using the same Social Security number. In others, people who the Republicans said had no Social Security number on public record were registered." All of these are of individuals who have already cast ballots in the June New Mexico state legislative Democratic primary.

The key element of the story, if confirmed, is that these individuals actually voted, so that this would not be a case of simple registration fraud, but actual vote fraud. Another possibility is that the individuals in question were all eligible voters who simply submitted sloppy or inaccurate registration forms. We'll have to see. The Santa Fe New Mexican has more here.

UPDATE: According to ACORN, local election officials have confirmed that at least some of the 28 voters identified by the New Mexico GOP are actual eligible voters. Details here and here.

henryporter:
The "she" in the following quote from the Santa Fe New Mexican article linked in the post refers to State Rep. Justine Fox-Young, an Albuquerque Republican.

She said Republican registration cards and those for voters who declined to state a party also were reviewed, but the state GOP did not have the resources to present their findings for more voters.

"It was not specific toward political parties," she said, when asked why only Democratic voters were named as suspected fraud cases.

How convenient.
10.18.2008 11:46am
RPT (mail):
David Iglesias was right. No wonder Gonzalez changed the USA manual to allow for last minute DOJ/FBI/RNC campaigning for the GOP.
10.18.2008 11:51am
Justin (mail):
One of the 28 was a guy named "Duran Duran" voting. There *is* a person named Duran Duran living in Albequerque, though. So....27..... and my guess this will go all the way down to 0.
10.18.2008 11:52am
anon345 (mail):
A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.
10.18.2008 11:53am
Syd Henderson (mail):
When did the Volokh Conspiracy become the RNC web site?
10.18.2008 11:54am
seadrive:
Speaking as one who works in a business (insurance) where SSNs and birthdates are tracked all the time, I'm not surprised.
10.18.2008 11:59am
byomtov (mail):
How convenient.

Indeed. Maybe, just maybe, NRO is not an altogether reliable source, and Jonathan should get his facts elsewhere, or wait for better information (could missing or inaccurate SSN's be honest errors? Not in the world of ACORN-phobia, apparently) before joining the "ACORN is destorying the fabric of democracy" campaign.

Time for some good solid patriots to go vandalize some ACORN offices. That'll show 'em democracy at work.
10.18.2008 12:02pm
Paul Milligan (mail):
There is an all-out push by the libs and ACORN et al to 'register' all the fake voters they can, and they fully intend to have 'votes' placed by those fake registrations.

The numbers may be small ( a few thousand here, a few hndred there ), but look at the margins in close states in the last few elections - Florida in 2000 being the premier example. A thousand votes one way or the other in the right state can change the election.

Dems, as always, think they are 'entitled' to win, and they justify anything and everything they do to get there on those grounds.
10.18.2008 12:09pm
Chris Bell (mail) (www):
seadrive said:
Speaking as one who works in a business (insurance) where SSNs and birthdates are tracked all the time, I'm not surprised.
I have a friend who worked for one of the credit reporting agencies. Once you have a certain number of people entering in Social Security numbers, the errors begin to pile up. It's a mess.

I saw a calculation once that took the database of first and last names and then asked this question: Given a person's name, how many people in America have the SAME name and a SSN that differs by only one digit?

You could then type in your name and get an answer, based on probabilities. If you had any sort of regular name, the answer was surprisingly large.
10.18.2008 12:11pm
T Gracchus (mail):
The only election I know of which whose outcome was affected by voter fraud was in Daggett county Utah, and the fraud was committed by Republican voters.
10.18.2008 12:13pm
Cornellian (mail):
And speaking of opportunities for fraud, since when are Social Security Numbers free for all to see?
10.18.2008 12:15pm
loki13 (mail):
Please help me rank these in order of what should make me most sad:

1. Prof. Adler posting this.

2. The concerted effort to throw doubt on the legitimacy of an election before it is even held (aka the it's my ball and I'm going home theory of governance).

3. The fact that there really is some increased enthusiasm for voting in this country, and we are getting this garbage.

So when is the GOP going to start complaining about the Diebold machines and the butterfly ballots? I've noticed that the supply of tinfoil has been running low at local stores.
10.18.2008 12:17pm
Steve Lubet (mail):

People who the Republicans said had no Social Security number on public record were registered.


Could someone please explain what that means. How would Republicans possibly know whether someone's social security number is "on public record"?
10.18.2008 12:22pm
cboldt (mail):
-- Could someone please explain what that means. How would Republicans possibly know whether someone's social security number is "on public record"? --
.

Ask Melanie Dabovich | The Associated Press, she's the one who wrote it.
10.18.2008 12:26pm
krs:
haven't you heard that voter fraud is a myth invented by the GOP, like unicorns and capitalism?
10.18.2008 12:29pm
from Texas (mail):
A couple of years ago "I" ran up $10,000 in credit card debt in a week. Someone hesitated at selling "me" some electronics and "I" ran out of the store leaving "my" picture ID New Mexico drivers license. You may not be surprised that, to paraphrase Jack Nicklaus, that it was a "me" with whom I was unfamiliar. Deciding to adopt yet another persona, Sherlock Holmes, I went to Cheddar's where "I" had had a party earlier. I told my kids we were looking for a guy with a goatee ("I" had a goatee in the picture). It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that every guy there, entering, or leaving had a goatee. N=1 doesn't prove that New Mexico has a thriving fake id industry but it wouldn't be hard to prove it to this Sherlock.
10.18.2008 12:43pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Time for some good solid patriots to go vandalize some ACORN offices. That'll show 'em democracy at work."

Do you think statements like this really contribute to the discussion?
10.18.2008 12:46pm
BruceM (mail) (www):
Like republicans don't do the same thing.

Regardless, get ready for McCain v. Obama at the SCOTUS.
10.18.2008 12:54pm
Sarah (mail) (www):
I can't wait for the Republican version of ACORN. At some point we'll need to have a site that does nothing but compare blog posts (and comments) based entirely on the political leanings of the groups in question, making sure to cross-reference usernames and emails. Let me do my part now.

Registration fraud is voter fraud (and keeping people from registering is keeping people from voting) -- registering and casting the ballot are just two parts of the same action, separated by (in some cases, virtually no) time.

In my Ohio county, at least, the roll you sign when you arrive at the polls actually has your signature printed right next to the line you need to sign on when you vote -- that's scanned off of your registration card -- and all you need in order to vote, other than the signature, is picture ID (how much more trivial is it to get a fake ID than it is to manage to "nearly" match someone else's name/SSN combo by accident?) You don't even need to prove your address, or at least you didn't the last time I voted. I always bring a lot of documents to vote, because I can never believe it'll last when they don't ask for anything. All they wanted was a picture ID; my sister's driver's license worked for her even though it had her living in another county altogether. They didn't bother to ask for the little card the BMV sends you when you change your address (the card says "carry this with your license at all times.")

Anyway, if the signature you need to provide is right on the page, and if your easy-to-fake ID doesn't need to have a matching address, how exactly are observant parties and/or the Board of Elections supposed to prevent these wacky registrations from turning into fraudulent votes? By hoping it's not worth $5 per fake vote (for the ID, compensation to the voter if any, and extra gas) to anyone? By my estimate, given the current system, it would be trivial to pick vulnerable polling locations in each of Ohio's 88 counties and get 87 spare votes for about $75 -- tacking on another $60 for paying the lucky multi-voter to drive all over the state, and assuming the counties don't check with each other for duplicates (*). Provisional ballots here get set aside for careful, individual analysis (like writing and calling the voter and asking him/her to submit proof of address), not burned .

And yeah, they should have looked at GOP ballots, too. The thing is, allowing observers from both parties, unilaterally holding non-matching registrations regardless of party affiliation (and letting standing, bipartisan Boards of Elections sort the messy stuff out after the rest of pretty-sure-they're-real votes have been counted but before the results are certified) and a culture in which all forms of election fraud are treated with the kind of zero-tolerance logic normally limited to the ghastly presence of plastic dinner knives and Advil in public elementary schools, would solve that part of our dilemma. It's also possible that the New Mexico GOP had a boring primary unlikely to generate fraud, whereas the Democratic primary was hotly contested... when did NM's party primaries occur this year?

(*) They don't. I moved this summer, and changed my address with the BMV and the Secretary of State on the same day at the Ohio State Fair in early August -- in mid-September, I got a "don't forget to vote, here's your same old polling place info" notice from my old county, and a "welcome, here's your new polling place info" notice from my new county a few days later. The Republicans don't purge their mailing list rolls of duplicates, either -- I get mailings from both county organizations, one set at each address (my mom lives there and gives me my mail.) The good thing is, I know with total certainty that the BMV and new-county Board of Elections have identical address and name information on file for myself, having taken the two or three seconds required to check on that using a random sample of the MANY forms and mailings both organizations like to send me with that information clearly given.
10.18.2008 12:57pm
Oren:
At least in my state, you don't need a SSN to vote. I routinely refuse to give my SSN to anyone but HHS because it has no place in any transaction except those involving the Soc. Sec. Administration and their taxes/benefits.
10.18.2008 1:01pm
trad and anon:
So we have 28 voters with suspicious registrations. Is it really that implausible that 28 people either screwed up their own registration forms or had the official record of their registration screwed up by the data entry people?
10.18.2008 1:02pm
Brian K (mail):
it's not worth $5 per fake vote (for the ID, compensation to the voter if any, and extra gas)

what world do you live in? where can you get a fake ID for under $5!? and why was i not informed of this place before i turned 21?

I think people grossly underestimate the cost and likelihood of someone buying the election. it isn't going to be cheap to buy 1000s or 10s of 1000s of votes necessary and not even superman can vote 1000 times by himself...and the more people involved the more likely someone is going to blab. with most crimes, one person is already one person to many.
10.18.2008 1:11pm
news reader:
Time for some good solid patriots to go vandalize some ACORN offices. That'll show 'em democracy at work.


Greg Gordon, McClatchy, reports yesterday, “Death threat, vandalism hit ACORN after McCain comments”:
WASHINGTON — An ACORN community organizer received a death threat and the liberal activist group's Boston and Seattle offices were vandalized Thursday,...
10.18.2008 1:23pm
Norman Bates (mail):
news reader: I'm from Boston. If you actually read the news you would realize that the Boston ACORN office was burglarized, not vandalized. The office is in a neighborhood where burglaries of businesses are common and the same office has been burglarized on previous occasions.
10.18.2008 1:32pm
byomtov (mail):
Do you think statements like this really contribute to the discussion?

I think they are as useful as the post.

The fact is that the GOP has been whipping up vivious anti-ACORN sentiment, and one consequence has been vandalization of offices and death threat to ACORN workers.

That's an important part of the story, more important than some clerical errors. And remember, it's the McCain-Palin campaign that is assuring its supporters that they are the only real patriots, that they're the "pro-American" people, so all that is OK, I guess.

It's worse than sleazy, and it keeps going on (and yes, McCain lied when he said his campaign was opposing the hate it is generating).
10.18.2008 1:32pm
Paul Milligan (mail):
Loki13 = you said :

"2. The concerted effort to throw doubt on the legitimacy of an election before it is even held (aka the it's my ball and I'm going home theory of governance). "

And in the same post :

"So when is the GOP going to start complaining about the Diebold machines and the butterfly ballots? I've noticed that the supply of tinfoil has been running low at local stores. :

GIven that the libs started to "throw doubt on the legitimacy of an election before it is even held " right after 2004 ( in re the 2008 election ), and that you in fact repeat it and reinforce it today in your post, do you not feel the pain of the hole you just shot in your own foot ???
10.18.2008 1:55pm
Chico's Bail Bonds (mail):
Republicans are desperate . . .
10.18.2008 1:55pm
PC:
She said Republican registration cards and those for voters who declined to state a party also were reviewed, but the state GOP did not have the resources to present their findings for more voters.

"It was not specific toward political parties," she said, when asked why only Democratic voters were named as suspected fraud cases.


Seriously? I guess the FUD campaign is working if law professors are joining on it. Perhaps next Prof. Adler will call for a civil war like some of his other fellow travelers.
10.18.2008 1:56pm
PC:
And in case anyone is confused on what is going on here, I'll quote the Republican State Chairman, Robert Gleason:

With the election being only a couple of weeks away and with more and more incidents of voter fraud coming to light, we don't believe that we can trust the results of this election


Of course the Republicans can't lose this election legitimately. Everyone loves the Republican brand right now. That's why McCain is running far away from President Bush and being cheered by supporters at his rallies when he does so.

Just when I thought the GOP could not get more dishonest...
10.18.2008 2:03pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
Here's some voter registration fraud from a Republican group in California.

http://tinyurl.com/6dyu6t

Whether it translates to vote fraud is another matter, except if this is true:

"Some also report having their registration status changed to absentee without their permission; if they show up at the polls without a ballot they may be unable to vote. "

then it does.
10.18.2008 2:06pm
Benjamin Davis (mail):
ACORN registers poor people so I expect that there offices are located in poor areas - but that does not mean that we can conclude that this was just a burglary.

Just for you folks who do not remember in 2004 the Democratic Party Headquarters was broken into a few short days before the presidential election and the computer of the key election protection person (nothing else by the way) was taken. It is in a poor area too (near a mission) but again that does not mean that this was just some break-in by a criminal.

Finally, I am getting messages from people about the threat of Martial Law being called in the country in the next few weeks. Is anybody out there hearing this too?

Best,
Ben
10.18.2008 2:07pm
John Doe:
I'm a registered voter who prefers not to risk identity theft in order to exercise my right to vote. The voter rolls are bought and sold without regard to the de minimis constraints envisioned by the legislators.

My right to vote is a Constitutionally guaranteed one; the administrative systems associated with it ought to be subject to strict scrutiny.

For more, see:
Wired article on voter privacy
Aristotle Data page on what they sell.
10.18.2008 2:14pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
Registration fraud is voter fraud

Sure, because Mickey Mouse is going to show up in person to vote. Also Tony Romo.

Inspired by a vague recollection of my statistics coursework, I think Republicans are prone to Type I errors (preventing legitimate voters from voting) while Democrats may be prone to Type II errors (allowing illegitimate voters to vote). Personally I consider the Type I errors more heinous.

If I showed up at the polls and was denied, I would be pretty ticked off. The two-hour wait when we switched away from the good old hanging chad ballots to the paper-record smart-card enabled (and thus hacker enabled) machines was bad enough.
10.18.2008 2:19pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Loki13:

I vote this order (first most important): 2, 3, 1.

The only interesting thing I learned reading this latest same-stupid-excuse-for-the-upcoming-loss post and comments following was that there actually is somebody in the relevant district named Duran Duran. I wonder if he has any female relatives named Rio.
10.18.2008 2:33pm
PC:
I wonder if he has any female relatives named Rio.

I was wondering if he lived on Mathmos Street.
10.18.2008 2:43pm
Anthony A (mail):
T Gracchus obviously doesn't know about the 2004 Washington Gubenatorial election where the number of duplicate and otherwise potentially fruadulent votes in King County (Seattle) was larger than the Democrat's margin of victory.
10.18.2008 2:45pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ Tony Tutins


"If I showed up at the polls and was denied, I would be pretty ticked off. The two-hour wait when we switched away from the good old hanging chad ballots to the paper-record smart-card enabled (and thus hacker enabled) machines was bad enough."


But you're ok with having a dozen illegal aliens, ineligible felons and people engaged in deliberate vote fraud casting votes that completely invalidates your vote?

Sure. Right. Yeah.
10.18.2008 2:46pm
PC:
ed, are you still supporting a civil war? Would supporting a civil war be pro-American or anti-American? What do you think the sides should be in your civil war?
10.18.2008 2:48pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.


"T Gracchus obviously doesn't know about the 2004 Washington Gubenatorial election where the number of duplicate and otherwise potentially fruadulent votes in King County (Seattle) was larger than the Democrat's margin of victory."


What I thought was curious about that election was the sheer number of times the Democrat run election system could "find" boxes of new votes. What was it? About 7-8 times they recounted, found the Republican had won and then then Democrats announced they "found" yet another set of boxes of "votes", in a closet no less, that swung the election to the Democrat.

Amazing number of closets there.

Astounding that all of those "found" votes were magically Democrat and ... found by Democrats.
10.18.2008 2:49pm
CB55 (mail):
When the justice system and law enforcement agents becomes just another arm of either political party no election is fair or can be legal. What is not shocking to me this election year is that the Democratic Party has been muzzled and if not silent for the Party elites knew or should have been troubled by the past misdeeds of the GOP in past elections as reported by Main Stream Media, testimony, law suits, investigations, GOP operative meetings with Bush Admin leaders and government reports. If the GOP steals the 2008 election it will be because the GOP got help from the Democratic Party and the United States law and justice system.
10.18.2008 2:54pm
Russ (mail):
When did the Volokh Conspiracy become the RNC web site?

When did it becmoe a partisan issue to care about voter fraud?

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
10.18.2008 2:57pm
deweber (mail):
On the ACORN Boston vandalization.
There is a word for the logical failing shown by the original article writers and by the the ACORN spokesmen.

Post Hoc Propter Hoc

The assumption being made is that because the vandalization came after the speeches. the speeches caused the vandalization. They could have but there is no evidence provided to support this except the temporal sequence.
10.18.2008 2:59pm
Mike Keenan:
I guess it would require some pretty advanced technology to reduce the fraud. Like a photo ID or something. Maybe someday we will have the tech to do something like take a picture of someone and put it on a card and require them to show the card to vote.
10.18.2008 3:01pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ PC


"ed, are you still supporting a civil war? Would supporting a civil war be pro-American or anti-American? What do you think the sides should be in your civil war?"


Don't be a bigger dumbass than you're mother made you.

I don't -support- a civil war. But I do -see- a civil war brewing up. And one not of big armies marching in fields throwing lead at each other. But a civil war of assassinations, intimidation and pipe bombs.

While I'm sure some people are amused by the illegitimacy of our election system the very fact that it -has- become illegitimate makes things far worse. And the fact that the Secretary of State of Ohio can do this crap in public and in the broad light of day seriously concerns me.

What do -you- think happens when a substantial portion of a population believes that their participation in a democratic process has not only been made worthless but irrelevant?

What do -you- think happens when a substantial portion of a population is subjected to laws designed to silence and eliminate their political speech? Or are you going to try and posit that a Democratic controlled Congress and White House won't impose draconian limitations in a new Fairness Doctrine? Particularly since it's been in discussion on the Left for years now?

What do -you- think is going to happen when the Democrats finally try to eliminate the Electoral College? Doing so would practically automatically give the Presidency to any political group that controls the big cities where the majority population lives. That's the Democrats in case you're wondering. It also would automatically disenfranchise rural areas and smaller population states where conservatives and the GOP maintains it's power base.

What do you think happens when the election laws are rigged so that only one side could ever win?

Add to this the amount of violence that is accumulating within the existing political process, the polarization within the electorate and rising viciousness that is accelerating.

So laugh all you like about this. But civil wars have been fought before for far less. And right now I don't think anybody has considered just how dangerous a political environment will be created by an Obama - Pelosi - Reid - MSM intermixing.

IMO the first signs of outright warfare will be assassinations of Senators. They'll be easier to kill than the President and the impact of killing 1/100th of the Senate may shift voting power from one group to another. After that will be targeted assassinations of members of the House that belong to the opposite party of the sitting governor of that state.

Am I being a bit paranoid? Sure. But being paranoid doesn't mean you don't have a logical reason to be paranoid.
10.18.2008 3:05pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

"Don't be a bigger dumbass than you're mother made you. "

Ugh. Never post a comment prior to the first cup of coffee.

That should be "your" rather than "you're".

Oh hell with it. Ignore spelling errors please.
10.18.2008 3:07pm
T Gracchus (mail):
Anthony A:
Accusations are not proof. The Washington outcome may have been affected. The Daggett County outcome was affected. So, to be clear, (1) "potentially fraudulent" is not fraudulent, and (2) actual fraud appears to be very rare.
10.18.2008 3:14pm
CB55 (mail):
The Republicans (and it is truly solely the Republicans right now) are screaming about voter registration fraud as if it is a massive problem that threatens the core of our electoral system. If this were truly the case, Republicans could just as easily tilt the election in their favor with similar means.

The fact of the matter, though, is these charges are both highly spurious and, more importantly, a distraction.

The Republicans (and, again, it is solely Republicans) are setting the stage to commit massive voter suprression through a questionably legal moves called vote caging and voter challenging.


Here is how it works. Through a series of often highly dubious means, a list of individuals is generated before the election and these individuals are struck from voter rolls. This is voter caging.

For instance, the Republican chairman in Macomb County, Michigan planned to generate a list of all individuals that had foreclosed homes, then try to prevent these individuals from voting at the polling place linked to their old address.

Another method is through direct mailing, from which the term "caging" is derived--a letter is sent to a potential voter. If they do not reply, there name is flagged and/or struck from the roles--even if the individuals are students off at college or soldiers serving abroad, say in Iraq or Afghanistan, yet otherwise have a complete legal right to vote.

If these individuals show up to vote, even if they really, truly are legal voters, they can only cast a provisional ballot. The mayhem leads to bottlenecks and disruptions in voting lines, forcing some people to give up before ever getting to cast a vote.

Republican operatives also set up at polling places as "election challengers," where their role is not only to watch the poll workers, but also to challenge any potential voter based on a subjective belief that that person may not be eligible to vote. Again, the process creates a bottleneck and long lines, the goal thereof to disrupt the election.

How is this related to the charges of registration fraud? By creating a false sense of urgency in preventing non-exsistent voter fraud. When called on it, they will fall back and say they are only trying to protect the integrity of the voting system. The truth of the matter is they are keeping perfectly eligible people from voting through intimidation, vote disruptions, and other means.

They did it in 2004 and they are setting the stage to do it in a much grander scheme in 2008.
10.18.2008 3:18pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

1. Please note that I'm not saying the Republicans will start it. It could easily start from either side.

2. Additionally note that the liberal Left has always had a militant activist component. Whether they call themselves SDS, Weather Underground, ELF or what have you there is a distinct component of the liberal Left that doesn't see murder as an unacceptable part of political thought.

3. In the 1960's the militant Left were in opposition to the Establishment and the Establishment's control of the political process and sought to overthrow it by violent means.

In the 2000's the militant Left -is- the Establishment.

Frankly that should give anybody pause.
10.18.2008 3:18pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ CB55

"The fact of the matter, though, is these charges are both highly spurious and, more importantly, a distraction. "

Then you'd be in favor of an experiment then?

A post-election process where every single vote cast is investigated and linked to a living breathing legitimate voter?

So we can all finally see just how many fraudulent votes were cast?

Or are you terrified of this as well?
10.18.2008 3:20pm
Syd Henderson (mail):

Russ (mail):


You may want to check out the three previous posts on the site, the endless Ayers discussion, or the long discussion on the sad case of Joe the Plumber.

I would like to know the number of questionable ballots in the Republican primary as well as the Democratic, and I'm certainly not going to take the word of the state GOP as if they are somehow non-partisan.
10.18.2008 3:22pm
news reader:
When did it becmoe a partisan issue to care about voter fraud?


From 1973 to 1994, J. Gerald Hebert served as an attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. He spent 15 of those years in Voting Section, where held a number of posts, including Acting Chief and Deputy Chief for Litigation. Here's his view:

Contrast, for example, the Department of Justice's efforts in 1990 in North Carolina under President Bush's father to the Department's actions in the 2004 election cycle in Ohio. In 1990, the North Carolina Republican Party and the Jesse Helms for Senate campaign engaged in vote caging by sending 44,000 postcards to black voters, giving them incorrect information about voting and threatening them with criminal prosecution. The plan was to use the mailing to compile a caging list. In response, the Bush I Justice Department, where I served at the time as a federal prosecutor of voting discrimination cases, filed a federal lawsuit against the GOP and Helms' campaign and obtained declaratory and injunctive relief. In 2004, when the Ohio Republican Party was sued by voters prior to the election to stop what appeared to be a similar vote caging scheme in progress, the Bush II Justice Department did not file its own lawsuit to stop the vote caging but instead intervened in a highly unusual manner on the opposite side: by writing a letter to the federal judge overseeing the case and coming to the defense of the Ohio's GOP efforts! The judge appears to have ignored the letter, which was totally unsolicited and contrary to the Department's tradition of avoiding intervention in pre-election litigation.


So, it appears to have become a partisan issue sometime after the first Bush administration.
10.18.2008 3:23pm
trad and anon:
But you're ok with having a dozen illegal aliens, ineligible felons and people engaged in deliberate vote fraud casting votes that completely invalidates your vote?
I think there's a difference there. Preventing a legitimate voter from voting disenfranchises a specific person in violation of that person's constitutional rights. Voter fraud does not; it diminishes the value of the votes of those who voted the other way by an infinitesimal amount. The two aren't the same.

In any case the number of people who would be disenfranchised by anti-voter-fraud measures would be vastly greater than the number of actual votes cast via voter fraud. The difference between the parties on this issue is that Democrats consider voter disenfranchisement a serious bug, and Republicans consider it a feature, because the disenfranchised voters are disproportionately Democrats.
all you need in order to vote, other than the signature, is picture ID (how much more trivial is it to get a fake ID than it is to manage to "nearly" match someone else's name/SSN combo by accident?) You don't even need to prove your address, or at least you didn't the last time I voted.
It would be completely trivial to produce a fake bill from the utility company. Anyone who's going to go through the effort of getting a fake ID to cast a fraudulent vote would be willing to take two minutes to write up a fake utility bill. What do you want, notarized documents under seal?
10.18.2008 3:24pm
PC:
ed, I'm glad to hear you don't support a civil war. I have heard of people supporting just such a thing in some of the loonier fringes of the web (Free Republic), and the irony of the US having a civil war if a lawyer from Illinois is the sitting president is not lost on me.

As to the illegitimacy of the election, you need to ask yourself who is projecting that appearance? To me, there is coordinated campaign by Republicans to make this election appear illegitimate. Everyone can look at the polls (which I guess are also biased) and see that Obama is leading McCain. In the face of this Republicans are running around and saying that there is some massive conspiracy of voter fraud. Accusations are abundant, but there is no proof.

After the 2004 election the DoJ was tasked with investigating widespread voter fraud. They found nothing. So if there is a civil war based on perceived disenfranchisement, it will be a civil war created by Republicans.

As to the Fairness Doctrine, it's asinine. Luckily I have not seen a single Democratic politician support it. If you have seen some that support it, please point them out. I'll do everything I can to oppose it.

I'm of the same feeling about the Electoral College. While good arguments exist on both sides, I don't see why we should change the status quo. Were you similarly concerned when Republicans in California attempted to get the state to split the EC vote?

And yes, I think you are being paranoid. I also think people who believe there is some nationwide conspiracy by ACORN to steal the election are being paranoid. I think the people who believe Diebold stole the 2004 are paranoid. Paranoid conspiracy theories cross party lines.

It's just sad that law professors like Prof. Adler buy into the conspiracy theories.
10.18.2008 3:25pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ trad and anon

"I think there's a difference there. Preventing a legitimate voter from voting disenfranchises a specific person in violation of that person's constitutional rights. Voter fraud does not; it diminishes the value of the votes of those who voted the other way by an infinitesimal amount. The two aren't the same. "

Frankly that's a ridiculous assertion.

If I'm a legitimate voter and I vote Republican.

And then a dozen illegal aliens, felons and such vote Democrat how isn't my vote -completely and overwhelmingly- eliminated?

So what if my vote is counted when it is totally supplanted by 12 votes for the opposition?

An "infinitesimal amount"? Ridiculous.
10.18.2008 3:28pm
trad and anon:
What I thought was curious about that election was the sheer number of times the Democrat run election system could "find" boxes of new votes. What was it? About 7-8 times they recounted, found the Republican had won and then then Democrats announced they "found" yet another set of boxes of "votes", in a closet no less, that swung the election to the Democrat.

Amazing number of closets there.

Astounding that all of those "found" votes were magically Democrat and ... found by Democrats.
If you're representing this accurately, it's a problem. But ballot-stuffing by poll workers is completely different from voter fraud by people not eligible to vote. Ballot-stuffing by poll workers is relatively easy (probably too easy) since a small number of poll workers can cast a large number of fraudulent votes without needing any centralization. In voter fraud, each illegal voter only casts one vote at a time and has to go somewhere else to cast a second one. So getting a significant number of votes by voter fraud takes a large number of illegal voters plus more people to organize them, create fake registrations for them, and take them to multiple polling places. A conspiracy involving a thousand people is impossible to keep quiet: someone is going to spill the beans.
10.18.2008 3:35pm
PC:
A conspiracy involving a thousand people is impossible to keep quiet: someone is going to spill the beans.

I wonder if ed thinks "9/11 was an inside job"?
10.18.2008 3:38pm
trad and anon:
I wonder if ed thinks "9/11 was an inside job"?
You mean it wasn't?
10.18.2008 3:44pm
Angus:
T Gracchus obviously doesn't know about the 2004 Washington Gubenatorial election where the number of duplicate and otherwise potentially fruadulent votes in King County (Seattle) was larger than the Democrat's margin of victory.
I think it's hilarious that Republicans keep bringing this up to attack Democrats, when the ensuing investigation and trial found that the only provable illegal votes had been cast in favor of the Republican.
10.18.2008 3:46pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ PC


"ed, I'm glad to hear you don't support a civil war. I have heard of people supporting just such a thing in some of the loonier fringes of the web (Free Republic), and the irony of the US having a civil war if a lawyer from Illinois is the sitting president is not lost on me."


Yeah isn't that the truth. And the racial component, a black lawyer from Illinois as sitting President, plus the cultural aspect with many conservatives living in the South. The irony becomes a bit thick.

But I wouldn't focus on Free Republic. A lot of people have given thought to Alaska's AIP and it's seccession efforts have forgotten about Democratic Vermont and their dabbling with the same. And don't forget the swilling madhouse that is Democratic Underground and DKos.

Whatever craziness you find in Free Republic, you'll find double in DU and DKos.


As to the illegitimacy of the election, you need to ask yourself who is projecting that appearance? To me, there is coordinated campaign by Republicans to make this election appear illegitimate. Everyone can look at the polls (which I guess are also biased) and see that Obama is leading McCain. In the face of this Republicans are running around and saying that there is some massive conspiracy of voter fraud. Accusations are abundant, but there is no proof.


Let's see now.

1. How about 8+ years of liberal Democrats screaming about election theft and how stealing elections have now been legitimized. How about the SoS of Ohio brazenly stealing the election there. How about ACORN and it's multi-state efforts to steal elections?

Whether it is one party or another or just the crazy-ass fringe is irrelevant. People forget that the vast majority of the King's subjects in the American Colonies weren't in favor of revolution. It was the crazy-ass fringe that put it into motion. And so here we are.

2. The polls -are- biased. They largely have been. Look at the underlying numbers.

Or are you going to try and argue that Kerry in 2004, who lead the polls, somehow won?

3. "but there is no proof"

I offer SoS of Ohio.


"After the 2004 election the DoJ was tasked with investigating widespread voter fraud. They found nothing. So if there is a civil war based on perceived disenfranchisement, it will be a civil war created by Republicans."


And it will be because Democrats will act to consolidate their political gains and make it impossible for Republicans to -ever- regain power.

And it will be because Democrats will undertake political actions to punish Republicans in and out of office. The former to further consolidate Democratic power. The latter to criminalize Republicans in office.

Or have you not been hearing of efforts to indict President Bush, and his entire administration, when he leaves office?

Or haven't you been noticing how Republicans have been indicted by Democrats for fake "crimes"? I offer Tom Delay who was indicted by a Democrat for violating a law that wasn't even a law when the "crime" was committed.

Oh yeah that won't get the ball rolling.


"As to the Fairness Doctrine, it's asinine. Luckily I have not seen a single Democratic politician support it. If you have seen some that support it, please point them out. I'll do everything I can to oppose it."


Are you completely blind?

Read the Washington Times, Paul Greenberg, for a start.

Then open your eyes. The Left has been talking of nothing -but- imposing a new Fairness Doctrine. And who? Obama. Pelosi. Reid. And nearly every other Democrat in office, in DKos, in DU and nearly every other blog.

And in the MSM.

Christ on a crutch. You must be joking.


"I'm of the same feeling about the Electoral College. While good arguments exist on both sides, I don't see why we should change the status quo. Were you similarly concerned when Republicans in California attempted to get the state to split the EC vote?"


Yes I am totally opposed to splitting the Electoral College vote based on popular votes. It violates a necessary aspect of the EC in that doing so dilutes the effectiveness of the EC itself and will make it irrelevant.

And it bothers me a great deal that so many states have already implemented splitting the EC.


"And yes, I think you are being paranoid. I also think people who believe there is some nationwide conspiracy by ACORN to steal the election are being paranoid. I think the people who believe Diebold stole the 2004 are paranoid. Paranoid conspiracy theories cross party lines."


Then explain why every other group out there that are helping to register voters have problem registrations that number less than 10 while ACORN ends up with tens of thousands?

Then tell me why the Obama campaign gave $800,000 dollars to ACORN but told the FEC that it was for "lighting"? Something that ACORN doesn't do?


"It's just sad that law professors like Prof. Adler buy into the conspiracy theories."


It's a conspiracy theory until it's proven true.

Let me put it another way.

Would you believe the USAG would advocate using an -exploding cigar- to assassinate the political leader of another country?

Robert F. Kennedy did.

Would you believe the President would embellish a minor and irrelevant incident in order to stampede Congress into giving permission for open warfare involving the USA and a third world nation?

Lyndon Johnson did.

Would you believe a sitting President would give assurances of support to patriots wanting to overthrow a vicious dictator that governed their nation with an iron fist and then, at the actual moment of rebellion, leave them unsupported and left to die?

John F. Kennedy -and- Bush41 both did.
10.18.2008 3:57pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ PC

"I wonder if ed thinks "9/11 was an inside job"?"

Don't be an asshole.

Of course I don't think it was an "inside job". The idiots who think that are largely on the Left.
10.18.2008 3:58pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
For any of you who might wonder what Rick Hasen looks like, here he is. Interviewed by Judy Woodruff, discussing this topic. 6 minutes.
20081017 Rick Hasen on NewsHour
10.18.2008 4:00pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ Angus


"I think it's hilarious that Republicans keep bringing this up to attack Democrats, when the ensuing investigation and trial found that the only provable illegal votes had been cast in favor of the Republican."


That's because a judge ruled that the state GOP could not challenge -any- of the votes found by the Democrats in King County.

When you're legally barred from investigating even the possibility of fraudulent votes -and- the Democrats are, then of course the only fraudulent votes found will be Republican.

Frankly all you've done is prove the case.
10.18.2008 4:02pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
byomtov (mail):

Do you think statements like this really contribute to the discussion?

I think they are as useful as the post.


So your response to a useless post is to make another useless post? Again I don't see how you contribute to the discussion with snarky comments that carry zero content.

The question as to whether the Republicans are the actual cause of vandalism of the ACORN offices is a legitimate topic. But the article you link to provides no evidence of that. It merely repeats allegations based the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc. One would have to believe that merely accusing ACORN of registration fraud constitutes incitement to violence. If we could find GOP operatives saying something like Michael Pfleger's (Obama associate) famous statement: "We're going to snuff out John Riggio, we're going to snuff out legislators that are voting ... against our gun laws and we're coming for you because we are not going to sit idly," then we have evidence of a causal link.
10.18.2008 4:09pm
Helene Edwards (mail):
@From Texas:

I think you meant Bobby Jones. As in, "He [Nicklaus] plays a game with which I am unfamiliar."
10.18.2008 4:11pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ trad and anon


1. "If you're representing this accurately, it's a problem."


I offer Wikipedia.org, which I do so because it is a bastion of the Left. So consider what is there in that light.

WikiPedia.org

Frankly I don't trust anything in WikiPedia because it is so overwhelmingly controlled by the Left. But in this case it is acceptable because it offers the best case scenario from the pov of the Left.

Which should definitely give you pause.


2. "But ballot-stuffing by poll workers is completely different from voter fraud by people not eligible to vote. Ballot-stuffing by poll workers is relatively easy (probably too easy) since a small number of poll workers can cast a large number of fraudulent votes without needing any centralization."


Ahhhh. No it isn't.

If election workers stuff the ballot box then what -precisely- are they stuffing it with? Votes right?

But any serious recount should show these ballots as illegal right?

What if they're all linked to voter registrations that hadn't, for whatever reason, been eliminated? Do you have the resources? The time? The people? To assess whether or not a particular **registered voter** is legitimate or not?

Or do you simply compare the vote against the voter roll?

The problem with your assumption is that you're thinking of ACORN and ballot stuffing as -two- separate actions that are independent of each other.

It works if you consider ACORN and it's massively fraudulent voter registration efforts as laying the groundwork for later ballot stuffing.
10.18.2008 4:12pm
PC:
ed, I've seen the craziness at DU too. Both sides have their fringe nut cases.

How about 8+ years of liberal Democrats screaming about election theft and how stealing elections have now been legitimized.

I have seen the shrieks of election theft coming from some members of the left, but I haven't seen it coming from Democratic leaders. This time around there is a coordinated campaign by Republican leaders to push the election theft narrative. If violence occurs because some of perceived theft, the Republicans get to own it. If violence had occurred following the 2004 election, Democrats would have owned it.

How about the SoS of Ohio brazenly stealing the election there. How about ACORN and it's multi-state efforts to steal elections?

These are conspiracy theories.

2. The polls -are- biased. They largely have been. Look at the underlying numbers.

I have. Could you point out the specific bias you are seeing? Is it a problem with weighting, sample size, etc.?

Or are you going to try and argue that Kerry in 2004, who lead the polls, somehow won?

Ah, maybe this is your confusion. The pre-election polling was actually quite accurate. The exit polls had problems.

I offer SoS of Ohio.

Still a conspiracy theory.

And it will be because Democrats will act to consolidate their political gains and make it impossible for Republicans to -ever- regain power.

So you are worried that the Democrats are going to try to do what the Republicans tried to do? I wouldn't doubt their attempts, but I think the results will be the same.

And it will be because Democrats will undertake political actions to punish Republicans in and out of office. The former to further consolidate Democratic power. The latter to criminalize Republicans in office.

Like Don Siegelman? For some reason you think the Democratic Party is much more competent than I do. When one party overreaches they tend to be punished by the electorate.

Read the Washington Times, Paul Greenberg, for a start.

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll take a look at his work.

Then open your eyes. The Left has been talking of nothing -but- imposing a new Fairness Doctrine. And who? Obama. Pelosi. Reid. And nearly every other Democrat in office, in DKos, in DU and nearly every other blog.

Could you please provide cites where Obama, Pelosi or Reid have talked about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine? If it is in Mr. Greenberg's work I'll find have a chance to read them, but I haven't seen anything so far. As for DKos and DU calling for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, I think they are about as credible as Red State and Free Republic, i.e., not very.

Then explain why every other group out there that are helping to register voters have problem registrations that number less than 10 while ACORN ends up with tens of thousands?

Prf. Adler has a new post that suggests otherwise.

It's a conspiracy theory until it's proven true.

Let me put it another way.

Would you believe the USAG would advocate using an -exploding cigar- to assassinate the political leader of another country?

Robert F. Kennedy did.

Would you believe the President would embellish a minor and irrelevant incident in order to stampede Congress into giving permission for open warfare involving the USA and a third world nation?

Lyndon Johnson did.

Would you believe a sitting President would give assurances of support to patriots wanting to overthrow a vicious dictator that governed their nation with an iron fist and then, at the actual moment of rebellion, leave them unsupported and left to die?

John F. Kennedy -and- Bush41 both did.


Now you are really starting to sound like a Truther.
10.18.2008 4:26pm
DangerMouse:
ed,

One thing that you haven't noted in your post on the possibility of another civil war is the political use of eminent domain against Republicans. In New Jersey, eminent domain has been used to enrich corrupt local politicians by condemning valuable land to be taken by the government and given to political supporters of the Democrat politicians, who then receive kickbacks. It's not for nothing that many suspect that the land being condemned by eminent domain has been the lands, and houses, of vocal political opponents.

Basically, the corrupt Democrats are stealing people's houses for speaking up against them.

And PC's idea that no democrat is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, or as I call it, the Thought Police, is ludicrous. Of course they favor it. They want to destroy Rush Limbaugh and others like him. Obama's campaign just the other day suggested that the government should prosecute and jail people who even speak about possible voter fraud. ALL people on this blog talking about that subject would be criminals in an Obama administration.

When you can't vote them out because your vote is swamped by thousands of fraudulent votes, when they silence your voice, steal your house, and throw you in jail for speaking out about these problems - you can bet people will get angry and violent.
10.18.2008 4:27pm
PC:
ed, I Googled for Mr. Greenberg and the Fairness Doctrine and while his article states why restoring the Fairness Doctrine would be harmful, a position I agree with, I don't see where he points to any Democratic leaders that have said they want to do so.
10.18.2008 4:35pm
trad and anon (mail):
If election workers stuff the ballot box then what -precisely- are they stuffing it with? Votes right?
Right, you take a bunch of blank ballots, fill them out, and dump them in the box. In fact, this is exactly how you "discover" a bunch of "lost" boxes of ballots. It doesn't require (or involve) the involvement of a bunch of fake voters.
But any serious recount should show these ballots as illegal right? What if they're all linked to voter registrations that hadn't, for whatever reason, been eliminated? Do you have the resources? The time? The people? To assess whether or not a particular **registered voter** is legitimate or not?
We have a secret ballot in this country, [insulting comment regarding your intelligence deleted]. There's no way to link a particular ballot to a registration.
10.18.2008 4:38pm
PC:
DangerMouse, perhaps you and ed could start the "2008 Election Truth Movement." If you act quickly you should be able to get a good domain name.
10.18.2008 4:41pm
DangerMouse:
Pelosi supports revival of the Fairness doctrine.


Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.

"So I don't see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor," Pelosi said.

"Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'" I asked.

"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation.
10.18.2008 4:42pm
DangerMouse:
PC,

I've got to leave now so I can't comment again in the immediate future. But before I go I'll say that your selective ignorance about leftist attempts to silence people's freedom of speech only shows how you support such efforts. Obama wants to jail people who discuss voter fraud. Pelosi wants to bring back the fairness doctrine. Numerous universities have prosecuted conservative speakers and have tried to destroy their educational careers, because they don't like such political speech.

So the only people that wants do destroy freedom of speech are people like you. And if you think that the left will get away with it in the long run, you are deluded.
10.18.2008 4:46pm
cinco:
So what if my vote is counted when it is totally supplanted by 12 votes for the opposition?

An "infinitesimal amount"? Ridiculous.


It's not their 12 votes vs. your 1 vote, it's their 12 votes vs. the millions of legitimate voters. As others have pointed out, it would take a ridiculously large conspiracy in order to have enough fake voters cast votes to have any impact.
10.18.2008 4:49pm
jfc (mail):
It seems that all ten of the 'fake' voters presented at the press conference have been reached. All have proven to be valid voters.
10.18.2008 4:53pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
I believe this election will have NO legitimacy whatsoever. It's a coup de tat - I will not recognize the new government. They want Civil War II - bring it on.
10.18.2008 4:55pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ PC

"I have. Could you point out the specific bias you are seeing? Is it a problem with weighting, sample size, etc.? "

How about the significant oversampling of Democrats?

America largely breaks down into 1/3rd Republican, 1/3rd Democrat and 1/3rd independent.

Until you get into polling where the percentage Democrat can reach over 50%.
10.18.2008 4:56pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ cinco

"It's not their 12 votes vs. your 1 vote, it's their 12 votes vs. the millions of legitimate voters. As others have pointed out, it would take a ridiculously large conspiracy in order to have enough fake voters cast votes to have any impact."

Are you seriously assuming that the -only- fraudulent votes in an entire election were -12-?

That was not the scenario I was positing so I have no idea where you got this.
10.18.2008 4:57pm
cinco:
Are you seriously assuming that the -only- fraudulent votes in an entire election were -12-?

That was not the scenario I was positing so I have no idea where you got this.


Read the second part of the paragraph:

As others have pointed out, it would take a ridiculously large conspiracy in order to have enough fake voters cast votes to have any impact.
10.18.2008 4:59pm
Angus:
Ed and DangerMouse have a case of VDS. Voter Derangement Syndrome.
Numerous universities have prosecuted conservative speakers
Universities have the power to prosecute people? New to me...

Ed suggested reading the Washington Times. I will do so the day it is no longer owned by a freaky religious cult.The Moonies
10.18.2008 5:00pm
PC:
DangerMouse, I see that you also want to foment a civil war. If people start bombing things because they believe the election was stolen, would you consider them patriots or terrorists?
10.18.2008 5:05pm
Angus:

America largely breaks down into 1/3rd Republican, 1/3rd Democrat and 1/3rd independent.
There have always been more registered Democrats than Republicans. It's closer to equal than it was, say, in the 1970s, but the gap still exists.
10.18.2008 5:06pm
PC:
ed, are you saying Fox News is running a poll biased in the favor of Democrats?

EIDE_Interface, why should I believe your accusations of a conspiracy any more than I believed the accusations of a stolen election in 2004?
10.18.2008 5:10pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

@ Angus

"Universities have the power to prosecute people? New to me..."

Quite a few things -are- new to you.

I'd suggest searching through this website's archives.
10.18.2008 5:14pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

@ cinco

"As others have pointed out, it would take a ridiculously large conspiracy in order to have enough fake voters cast votes to have any impact."

I see the concept of election workers stuffing ballots hasn't percolated through yet.
10.18.2008 5:15pm
Angus:
Quite a few things -are- new to you.

I'd suggest searching through this website's archives.
I could look through all of the archives of all of the websites in the world and I still wouldn't find an example of a University prosecuting a conservative speaker on campus.
10.18.2008 5:18pm
PC:
10.18.2008 5:23pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

@ PC


"DangerMouse, perhaps you and ed could start the "2008 Election Truth Movement." If you act quickly you should be able to get a good domain name."


Frankly your opinion is of no value to me whatsoever.

This rhetorical sparring is an interesting way to pass a couple hours before I have to meet with some friends for an online raid. But otherwise it's irrelevant.

That you don't see the danger implicit in a Democratic supermajority is your problem. We can all hope that such a scenario as I have posited doesn't come to pass but the warning signs are out there and easily seen.

And while people might like to think America wouldn't devolve into widespread violence it hasn't been that long since such violence has overtaken portions of this country. An example is the violence associated with efforts to unionize. During that period of early unionization efforts assassinations, pipe bombs and kidnappings happened quite often.
10.18.2008 5:24pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

@ PC


"ed, are you saying Fox News is running a poll biased in the favor of Democrats? "


1. You make the same mistake that many liberals do. You assume that FoxNews, because it is not incredibly biased in favor of liberals, is somehow biased in favor of conservatives.

2. The current poll by FoxNews could possibly be credible. I don't know because I don't know what weighting they are using nor the breakdown of the people being polled or the size of the sample.

3. There have been many outlier polls in the past few months where Rasmussen had a difference of only a couple points while the outliers, I think USA Today was one example, had Obama ahead by double digits.

In all such outlier cases the primary engine was oversampling of Democrats and excessive weighting.

...

Frankly the reality is that polling is mostly wild-ass-guessing.

4. The issue with Kerry in 2004 wasn't pre-polling, but rather polling during the election. Remember? According to the election day polls Kerry was going to win? And then didn't.
10.18.2008 5:30pm
cinco:
I see the concept of election workers stuffing ballots hasn't percolated through yet.

It's a separate issue. I was only addressing the "12 illegal immigrants" school of alleged voter fraud.
10.18.2008 5:32pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

@ PC


"Stay classy Republicans."


You too.

I could list all of the various liberal Democrats who have carried signs calling for soldiers to shoot their officers and 'f--k the troops' and what not.

But I'd be here for another 10+ hours and the resulting post would be enormous.
10.18.2008 5:33pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

@ Angus


"I could look through all of the archives of all of the websites in the world and I still wouldn't find an example of a University prosecuting a conservative speaker on campus."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_court

There. Ignorance cured.
10.18.2008 5:34pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

Time to go.

I'll check back either in a few hours, if the raid goes badly, or tomorrow.
10.18.2008 5:35pm
Angus:
An example is the violence associated with efforts to unionize.
True, but most of the violence came from those who opposed unions.

1. You make the same mistake that many liberals do. You assume that FoxNews, because it is not incredibly biased in favor of liberals, is somehow biased in favor of conservatives.
It's not a mistake if it is true, which it is.
2. The current poll by FoxNews could possibly be credible. I don't know because I don't know what weighting they are using nor the breakdown of the people being polled or the size of the sample.
It took all of 30 seconds to find that information. 41-34% D-R breakdown, which is in line with other pollsters and with the D advantage in registrations over R. PDF of Fox Poll
In all such outlier cases the primary engine was oversampling of Democrats and excessive weighting.
10.18.2008 5:39pm
PC:
ed,

Frankly the reality is that polling is mostly wild-ass-guessing.

You make the same mistake that many anti-intellectuals do. You assume that polling isn't based on scientific methodology. Go take a look at RCP's poll for the 2004 election. Compare that to the actual outcome. Or take a look at the 2004 CNN poll I linked earlier. Pretty good for "wild-ass-guessing."

4. The issue with Kerry in 2004 wasn't pre-polling, but rather polling during the election. Remember? According to the election day polls Kerry was going to win? And then didn't.

How is that different from what I said earlier? The polls leading up to election day were accurate. The exit polls were not.
10.18.2008 5:39pm
Angus:

In all such outlier cases the primary engine was oversampling of Democrats and excessive weighting.
Rasmussen is the only pollster in the U.S. that weights by party ID. The rest just go with the partisan makeup of their sample.
10.18.2008 5:40pm
PC:
ed, I'll make the same recommendation to you that I do to everyone that says the polls are wildly inaccurate. Go over to Intrade and put money on McCain.
10.18.2008 5:43pm
Angus:
Want even more evidence of how reliable polls are? In 2004, the RCP final poll average correctly predicted 49 out of 50 states. The only one it missed was Wisconsin, where Bush had a 0.9% poll lead and ended up losing by less than 1%.
2004 RCP prediction map
10.18.2008 5:45pm
PC:
Angus, numbers have a well known liberal bias.
10.18.2008 5:51pm
DangerMouse:
DangerMouse, I see that you also want to foment a civil war. If people start bombing things because they believe the election was stolen, would you consider them patriots or terrorists?

Back for a brief moment. I notice that you tend to respond to posts not with answers, but with your own questions. Nice attempt at misdirection, PC. I know how your game is played, so it won't work with me.

I just want Obama to take his boot off the face of the opposition. You're supporting him. I guess you support his promise to throw people in jail who discuss voter fraud. I suppose you also support Pelosi's attempt to re-institute the Thought Police doctrine. Sad.

I will say that I will resist all attempts to suppress my freedom of speech. If your leftist thugs try to use eminent domain on my house or my friends' houses, then that's not going to go down very well. Nor will attempts to throw people in jail for discussing voter fraud, or to silence people like Rush.

You're basically an enemy of freedom and the only way you can defend yourself is to point to people and say: "HEY! YOU'RE FOMENTING CIVIL WAR BECAUSE YOU WON'T ACCEPT MY TYRANNY OVER YOU!"

Now you'll probably respond by asking another question, probably in a snarky tone, never acknowledging that your Messiah Candidate is a thug, who hung out with thugs, was trained by thugs, and is using thugs to steal the election. That's because you are fine with being a thug.
10.18.2008 5:53pm
Angus:
I guess you support his promise to throw people in jail who discuss voter fraud.
Except that he hasn't done so. What he did was send a request to the DOJ asking them to make sure that partisan "investigations" of voter fraud did not lead to real voters losing their right to cast a ballot.
10.18.2008 5:58pm
PC:
DangerMouse, I have already stated that I don't agree with the Fairness Doctrine and do not want to see it reinstated. But I'll stick to my earlier suggestion: you and ed should start the 2008 Election Truth Movement. If you can gather up a few dozen more wingnuts (Free Republic is a great place to recruit) you should be able to make your case on The Alex Jones show.

I'll even help your nascent movement by providing a catchy slogan: "2008 was an inside job!"
10.18.2008 6:04pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
pc:

Stay classy Republicans


More classy Rs can be seen in this video, which has now been viewed 1.2 million times. I like the part about how "the black will take over" if Obama wins.
10.18.2008 6:06pm
Benjamin Davis (mail):
Just a note that voter fraud being alleged to be done by minorities is an old trope - it goes back at least to D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" (the persons playing the blacks were white men in blackface) about voting during Reconstruction. Of course, those screaming voter fraud now play the "virtuous" role of the Klansmen in that old movie. Of course, the voter suppression aspects of then or now are not seen. Did anyone see the Time cover with Obama in whiteface? - Another old trope.
Best,
Ben
10.18.2008 6:12pm
pete (mail) (www):

Want even more evidence of how reliable polls are? In 2004, the RCP final poll average correctly predicted 49 out of 50 states. The only one it missed was Wisconsin, where Bush had a 0.9% poll lead and ended up losing by less than 1%.


And Wisconson probably would have gone for Bsuh if you only counted the legitimate votes. There was massive fraud in Milwaukee in 2004 that probably swung the state for Kerry. See the long pdf report here from the Milwaukee police about the fraud. Bad record keeping by the elections officials is partly to blame.
10.18.2008 6:48pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

There was massive fraud in Milwaukee in 2004 that probably swung the state for Kerry.

As I read the report, there might have been, a small amount of fraud, that was unlikely to swing the state for Kerry, unless he won by 100 votes or so. Most of the discrepancies cleared themselves up (Father and son with same names, recording mistakes by poll workers, etc.)

In other words, much ado about nothing.
10.18.2008 7:17pm
byomtov (mail):
One would have to believe that merely accusing ACORN of registration fraud constitutes incitement to violence.

I believe that continual attacks on ACORN, including the accusation that they are "destroying the fabric of society" are more than an "accusation." Couple that with the constant refrain of how the Democrats are anti-American, (see Palin in NC, Michele Bachman, the Mccain camps robo-calls, ) and you do have some incitement to violence. There's lots of crazies out there, and the nastier McCain gets, the greater the danger. Then he's going to be shocked, of course, that anyone took his accuations seriously.

And I'd lay off the guilt by association, by the way. Both Palin and McCain have some pretty shady characters around. Neither Obama nor Biden is married to a secessionist, and unlike McCain there are no Saddam Hussein lobbyists deeply involved in Obama's organization.
10.18.2008 7:26pm
news reader:
As I read the report...


Tony,

If you're a fast reader, you might want to take a look at the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 2006 Election Crimes Report: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Further Study. Particularly, the literature review contained in Appendix 2 - Summaries of Books, Reports, and Articles.

Quoting from the main body of the EAC report, on p.7 (p.8 in PDF):
During our review of these documents, we learned a great deal about the type of research that has been conducted in the past concerning voting fraud and voter intimidation. None of the studies or reports was based on a comprehensive, nationwide study, survey or review of all allegations, prosecutions or convictions of state or federal crimes related to voting fraud or voter intimidation in the United States. Most reports focused on a limited number of case studies or instances of alleged voting fraud or voter intimidation. For example, "Shattering the Myth: An Initial Snapshot of Voter Disenfranchisement in the 2004 Elections," a report produced by the People for the American Way, focused exclusively on citizen reports of fraud or intimidation to the Election Protection program during the 2004 Presidential election. Similarly, reports produced annually by the Department of Justice, Public Integrity Division, deal exclusively with crimes reported to and prosecuted by the United States Attorneys and/or the Department of Justice through the Public Integrity Section.

It is also apparent from a review of these articles and books that there is no consensus on the pervasiveness of voting fraud and voter intimidation. Some reports, such as "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections," suggest that there is little or no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S.elections or of multiple voting. This conflicts directly with other reports, such as the "Preliminary Findings of Joint Task Force Investigating Possible Election Fraud," produced by the Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office. That report cited evidence of more than 100 individual instances of suspected double-voting, voting in the name of persons who likely did not vote, and/or voting using a name believed to be fake.


Do note that the EAC generally, this report especially, and very specifically the first sentence in the second of the quoted paragraphs above, have all come in for quite a bit of criticism. You can Google for it.

I don't personally endorse the views expressed in report, or the summaries in the literature review appendix. But it is kinda required reading for serious students.
10.18.2008 8:12pm
just me (mail):

This is interesting. It isn't ACORN but another group of people, and apparently some of them have already voted in Ohio despite the fact that they aren't residents and do not meet the criteria to qualify to vote.

The report does point out that intent has a lot to do with whether the votes are criminal fraud or will just have to be thrown out, but it is interesting as far as this topic is concerned.

My guess is that there is probably a lot of voter fraud out there-and we don't know because we aren't looking for it, and it is hard to catch. Whether it is enough to change an election is another discussion, but even if it doesn't change the election it is wrong and should be stopped and/or prosecuted.
10.18.2008 9:26pm
kietharch (mail):
I have slogged through the above discussion and no one has mentioned voting by mail as a threat to the integrity of elections. When I go to the polling place (Washington State) I am required to confirm my address, sign my name and show a picture ID. The picture ID is obviously not a requirement for mail-in ballots and it seems clear that this diminishes the certainty of the validity of the vote yet this appears to be the wave of the future in King County and is, I believe, endorsed by most politicians.

It is, of course, convenient.
10.18.2008 10:13pm
PDXLawyer (mail):
Angus wrote:

"I think it's hilarious that Republicans keep bringing this up to attack Democrats, when the ensuing investigation and trial found that the only provable illegal votes had been cast in favor of the Republican."

That's true if you rely on the testimony of the convicted felons who admitted under oath to having fraudulently voted. They were testifying at the behest of the Democratic candidate.

When you're reduced to relying on the testimony of convicted felons about exactly *how* they committed a second crime, maybe you should reexamine your position.
10.18.2008 10:23pm
Greg Q (mail) (www):
BruceM writes:
Like republicans don't do the same thing.

Ah, yes, the last refuge of the caught crook "eveybody does it."

Bullshit.

There's one Party that has been consistently fighting to cut down on vote fraud in the US. That's the Republican Party. There's another Party that has consistently fought to make it easier to commit vote fraud in the US. That's the Democrat Party.

"Everybody" doesn't do it. Democrats do it.

You don't like being tarred with that brush? Great.

Start advocating policies that will make vote fraud harder to do and easier to catch.

You're not willing to do that? Then you are a member in good standing of the Party of Vote Fraud.

"Poor people don't have photo IDs" isn't a reason to not require photo ID to vote, it's a reason to assist poor people who are legal residents of the US to get photo IDs. The same is true for every other objection members of the Party of Vote Fraud have raised. If you weren't a fan of vote fraud, you'd address the problem, rather than use it as an excuse.
10.18.2008 10:34pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
byomtov:

I believe that continual attacks on ACORN, including the accusation that they are "destroying the fabric of society" are more than an "accusation."

I see campaign hyperbole, but no nexus to vandalism against ACORN. The stock phrase "destroying the fabric of society" is hardly a call to violence. Are you proposing self censorship because some nut might get set off?


"And I'd lay off the guilt by association, by the way."


I quoted Pfleger because he did incite people to violence. Is there a McCain or Palin associate that has similarly called for a specific person to be killed, and said that in front of a mob? Let's stay on topic.
10.18.2008 10:45pm
trad and anon:
"Poor people don't have photo IDs" isn't a reason to not require photo ID to vote, it's a reason to assist poor people who are legal residents of the US to get photo IDs.
Oh, that explains why every photo ID law has extensive provisions making it much easier for Democrat-trending poor voters to get photo ID's. And why they all have provisions making it harder to commit voter fraud via Republican-trending absentee-ballot.
10.18.2008 10:47pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Do Democrat politicians ever explicitly solicit vote fraud? Yes they do.

Speaking before a Latino crowd, Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District said, "You don't need papers for voting." Later she tried to recover by saying she misspoke. But someone recorded her, she said,
"Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help."
Unfortunately the link to the audio recording of her making that statement is now dead.
10.18.2008 11:09pm
Brian K (mail):
I have slogged through the above discussion and no one has mentioned voting by mail as a threat to the integrity of elections.

that because absentee votes tend to lean republican. it's as simple as that.
10.18.2008 11:22pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Zark.
A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.
10.18.2008 11:36pm
Reality-over-Delusions (mail):
"I have slogged through the above discussion..."

LOL....me too.

The assertion in several comments that vote-fraud does not destroy legitimate votes on a one-to-one basis is LUDICROUS.

It doesn't matter whether it's an illegitmate voter or some other cause. One 'wrong' vote, from ANY cause, DOES cancel out one 'real' vote.

The repeated denial that many of the most powerful so-called 'liberals' do indeed want to install the Orwellian-named 'fairness doctrine' is again, LUDICROUS. The evidence of such in public speech and writings is voluminous.

Finally, it is again LUDICROUS to constantly assert that only 'republicans' are frightened by the horrific unquestioning cult-level 'belief' this election-cycle. I've been an independent my whole adult life; who voted mostly democrat for 25 years, and libertarian the past 10 years; and I too am truly, sincerely, frightened of how you are acting these days. It is right in line with Red China of the 50's-60's.

In an aside off-topic to the OP, but related to the civil breach discussed in the comments, I'll offer the following observations (for the purpose, consider 'conservative' to refer to PEOPLE, rather than the GOP, who does not represent real conservative people at all)...

There are several MAJOR societal fault-lines cracking wide-open in recent years. It is important to recognize that none of them were instigated or deepened by conservative people.

First, a major (and rightful) cause of resentment and frustration has been the loss of any semblance of balance in representation in mass-media. Liberals love to scream that's not true; which blows my mind because it's so BLATANT these days. But in any case, facts speak louder than denials; and the fact is that it's inherent in the current sociopolitical milieu

1) the MSM's whole focus is on 'making a splash', so they're always hyping things; and they're always jumping on every "politically correct" FAD that they can hype the hell out of.

2) Conservative folks, by their very nature, simply don't create any such fads to be hyped.

3) Conversely, virtually ALL such "PC" feel-good fads are created by so-called "progressives" and self-styled "intellectuals". This is simply undeniable fact. A diesel-mechanic in a small town does NOT create wild-eyed PC feel-good fads for cause-junkies.

4) Thus, regardless of who happens to own media-company stock these days, the majority of MSM content inherently pushes the 'liberals' agenda.

5) And finally, the MSM/government/corps are connected at the hip; acting like a giant machine keeping people 'worked up' and not analyzing any of the glorious PC crap for themselves. Further, every MSM article is subtly structured to get across the idea that more gov is good, 'authority' is to be followed, depend on the 'experts' and don't try to think for yourself, etc..

This entire propaganda-package is exactly in line with the underlying basis of 'progressive' elitist attitudes/program of enlarging government power and control over individuals.

In sum, the MSM indeed DOES push a 'liberal' agenda, absolutely, no question about it; no matter who happens to own the stock at the moment. This lack of fair and accurate representation of conservative views by MSM is a large and constant source of anger, frustration, and realization of their disenfranchisement.


Secondly, there is an increasingly sharp and widening between urban and rural. So-called 'progressive' agendas have decimated rural economies, rural towns, and rural people; for 30+ years.

Hollywood/TV propaganda continually trivializes and demonizes rural people and values; while constantly hyping urban rat-warren life and the 'liberal' agenda.

Increased illegal-immigration into almost exclusively cities; coupled with declining rural populations because of the socioeconomic destruction wrought by 'progressive' agendas, have tilted the population balance so far that rural people almost never win an issue in their 'representative' political-system any more.

So here we have another long-term and continuously worsening disenfranchisement, another undeserved continuous insult, another decades-long and worsening trail of real damages done to conservative people.

Third, there is a similar increasingly sharp and widening fault-line between those focused on the real physical world, and those dealing with paper/computers and totally ignorant of the world around them. Or, call it the white-v-blue collar fault-line.

Here again, the liberal media and tv/movies misrepresent and generally sneer at a mechanic, plumber, or farmer, as some sort of sub-human who simply MUST have a lower-IQ than you, simply because he doesn't study socilalist-ideology and write html-code every day, right?

This notion that rural or conservative people are somehow of lower IQ is of course stupid. We're all the exact same genetic-stock. Many of today's urban-leftists were born of the exact same small-town people they now pillory and harm daily.

These fault-lines are worsening daily; again, due solely to self-styled 'progressive' attitudes and actions. Now that we've come to the point where it is impossibile for rural/conservative people to protect their lives and interests via the political-system (urban/rural vote imbalance); 'progressive' programs will become even more ill-conceived due to lack of any effective opposition, debate, slowing-down for further thought....and the harm they do will grow exponentially.

It's self-delusion to believe that this rapidly increasing disenfranchisement won't increase frustration and anger.

Despite the ugly frothing excoriation spewed by the left daily, conservative folks aren't any more 'dangerous' than 'liberals'. Most conservative people just want to be left alone to farm, go fishing, sail their boat, or whatever.

So while violent clashes are possible, there are other possible futures as well. For one thing, as you finish destroying their lives and livelihoods, they may simply take the John Galt path. Give up.

No doubt that makes many of you grin with anticipation; but I'd suggest considering how much the entire liberal/paper/gov/computer/academic class is nothing but a froth floating on a sea of physical reality; as embodied in farming, logging, metalworking, transport, repair, plumbing, roadwork...

Conservative, rural, and blue-collar people can mostly get along just fine without a single gov-drone paper pusher or self-delusional academic 'progressive'....but the reverse is patently not so.

Perhaps John Galt's time has come again...
10.18.2008 11:59pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Reality-over-Delusions:

Do not despair. The "liberal/paper/gov/computer/academic class" time is running out. Their continuing livelihood critically depends on affluence, which in turn depends on productive capacity. Iceland has learned this the hard way. They gave up on their real economy (fishing) for the symbol economy and their symbol economy just died. That class lives the symbol economy, which they have come to believe is the real economy instead its overhead.
10.19.2008 12:15am
PC:
That class lives the symbol economy, which they have come to believe is the real economy instead its overhead.

Oh hi culture war, good to see you again.
10.19.2008 12:44am
markm (mail):

CB55
Here is how it works. Through a series of often highly dubious means, a list of individuals is generated before the election and these individuals are struck from voter rolls. This is voter caging.

For instance, the Republican chairman in Macomb County, Michigan planned to generate a list of all individuals that had foreclosed homes, then try to prevent these individuals from voting at the polling place linked to their old address.

If they don't live at that address anymore - and they certainly wouldn't after a foreclosure went through - then they do not have the right to vote under a registration based on that address.

So to you, preventing fraudulent voting is "voter caging".
10.19.2008 2:02am
PDXLawyer (mail):
markm:

I agree with you that the idea of PC et al that it is better that 100 fraudulent votes get counted than that one potential legal vote be deterred is wrong. Democrats are stuck in the "narrative" of 1962, in which the racist white folks are keeping the blacks from voting. Since the voting fraud of 1962 (or at least the kind they "remember") involved vote suppression, they assume that suppression must be the only important issue. On the specific issue of foreclosures, though, it is more complicated.

First, foreclosure is very far from an instantaneous event. After a judgement of foreclosure is entered, there still has to be a foreclosure sale. And, after that, to get a recalcitrant former owner out, you have to evict 'em.

Second, in the real world things don't always get this far. For example, sometimes after a judgment of foreclosure is entered, folks can work out a deal. For example, the creditor could pick a realtor, and the debtor could agree to cooperate with the realtor, keep the place up, pay the utilities and help show it. If handled right, this can make both sides much better off.

So, a judgment of foreclosure is not proof positive that somebody has moved. by election day.
10.19.2008 2:51am
Tony Tutins (mail):

If they don't live at that address anymore - and they certainly wouldn't after a foreclosure went through - then they do not have the right to vote under a registration based on that address.

Well, they didn't give up their US citizenship, did they? Citizens can vote for President and Vice President no matter where they live on this planet.

Further, voters have always had the right to vote from their old address, if they moved within the 30 day window to reregister at their new place.

Mother Jones magazine has a fascinating article on voter suppression in the current issue. A Kentucky woman who moved to Arizona spent nine months trying to register; at 97 years of age, she lacked the paperwork proof her new home required, even though she's voted in every Presidential election since Hoover lost. Those who worry about illegitimate voters diluting their vote should consider that touchscreen voting machines in Sarasota, Florida lost some 18,000 votes in 2006, in a Congressional race decided by fewer than 400 votes.
10.19.2008 4:13am
Tom Perkins (mail):

Well, they didn't give up their US citizenship, did they? Citizens can vote for President and Vice President no matter where they live on this planet.


If they have their actual address on the paperwork, yes.


Further, voters have always had the right to vote from their old address, if they moved within the 30 day window to reregister at their new place.


Is that federal or per state?


Those who worry about illegitimate voters diluting their vote should consider that touchscreen voting machines in Sarasota, Florida lost some 18,000 votes in 2006, in a Congressional race decided by fewer than 400 votes.


Which is why butterfly ballots are just fine.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
10.19.2008 5:38am
just me (mail):
"Poor people don't have photo IDs" isn't a reason to not require photo ID to vote, it's a reason to assist poor people who are legal residents of the US to get photo IDs.

Perhaps ACORN should pay its workers to get poor people to places that provide a an ID instead of filling out fake registrations.

The whole "poor people don't have ID" argument is pure BS. You can't do anything in this society from renting a movie, buying beer, or writing a check wihtout a photo ID. I just don't believe the argument that there are huge swaths of poor people out there without a photo ID.

ACORN would be better served by helping them get an ID than filling out fake forms, but I bet they are among the first to make the "poor people don't get ID's" argument.
10.19.2008 8:40am
PC:
It looks like the GOP's Get Out The Hate campaign is working. Big, strong, manly man decides to beat up on a 58 year old woman while screaming about ACORN. Good job Republicans.
10.19.2008 11:40am
Tom Perkins (mail):
One of hundreds. Like this.



And this
.

And of course there's the fake "kill him" meme.

The Obama command to persecute vote fraud whistleblowers; part of a larger pattern of speech suppression on the part of Obama that is far worse in practice than McCain-Feingold has been.

And there's always the dead people voting for Democrats.

Oh, were you saying something PC?

No. You weren't. Not really.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
10.19.2008 1:30pm
Tom Perkins (mail):
What I should add PC, is you weren't saying anything. Obama just yanked the pull--cord coming out of your back.

No actual volition was involved on your part.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
10.19.2008 1:31pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
perkins, let us know when you're in a position to show proof that ACORN's work has ever led to a single fraudulent vote. And then you can explain how it's something other than blatantly irresponsible hyperbole for McCain to say that ACORN was "maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy," given that the number of proven fraudulent votes from their work is zero.

It's his statement that is "destroying the fabric of democracy." Since he knows he can't win, his plan is to delegitimize Obama's victory even before it happens.
10.19.2008 4:53pm
Greg Q (mail) (www):
trad and anon and Brian K briefly pretend to care about vote fraud, and ask why no one's complaining about "Republican Trending" absentee ballots.

1: You guys are way behind the times. The Democrats have started using absentee ballots for their fraud in a big way.

2: I addressed that yesterday, in the Registration Fraud thread. Specifically

Oh, while we're at it: end the "no-fault" absentee voting. You can only vote absentee with a legitimate reason (doctor's note, moved and couldn't re-register in time).

Nice try, no dice. Democrats are the Party of Vote Fraud. Until they're willing to stop that, no Democrat election win is ever legitimate.
10.19.2008 5:54pm
Jim Miller (mail) (www):
If you are interested in knowing more about this subject, I would suggest reading Fund's "Stealing Elections". The book isn't perfect, but it does list many cases.

Those who want to know more about the problems in Washington state's gubernatorial election might want to start with the posts here and here. (Full disclosure: Stefan is a friend of mine, and I contribute to Sound Politics myself, from time to time.)

And there is this embarrassing fact: In the trial, Judge Bridges ruled that there were 875 more votes in Democrat-controlled King County than there were voters. And 540 more votes than voters in the rest of the state. (If I recall correctly, most of those extra votes also came from Democrat-controlled counties.

And if you don't want to buy Fund's book, let me immodestly suggest that you start with the collection of posts on vote fraud on my site. (Look in the right hand column.) I have many more than those in that list; I didn't begin to keep a list until 2006, and I haven't gone back to add the older ones yet.

I haven't done any fancy searching to find those cases. As often as once a week, I search Google news with this string: "vote + fraud". And I always find new examples. Always.

A few of them, such as the Daggett County case, are indeed Republican, but only a few. Typically, vote fraud, at least the vote fraud that gets into our newspapers, is committed by Democrats in poor areas, usually with absentee ballots. And when there is enough information to check, it usually turns out that vote fraud in the area has gone on for years. (Some especially bad areas: East Chicago, St. Louis, East St. Louis, Texas border areas, some counties in eastern Kentucky.)

Does it make a difference? Sometimes. And a few elections are thrown out because of fraudulent votes, notably a mayor's race in Miami.

And here's something that Democrats might want to think about: Vote fraud is at least as common in primaries as in general elections, as far as I can tell. And since the turnout is usually lower in primaries, fraudulent votes are more likely to determine the outcome in primaries than in general elections. I think that Democrats, even poor Democrats, have just as much right to honest elections as the rest of us -- but I have learned over the years that many Democratic officials do not agree with me on that point.

But few Democrats seem troubled by this endemic problem. You may recall the New York heiress who was caught in 2000, bribing homeless people to vote for Gore with cigarettes. She was fined by a Wisconsin court -- but as far as I know she is still welcome at Democratic gatherings, especially if she brings money.

Finally, returning to the original subject, New Mexico has had problems with vote fraud for many years. And George W. Bush lost the state in 2000 by just 366 votes.
10.20.2008 12:41am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
miller:

I would suggest reading Fund's "Stealing Elections"


I've been trying pretty hard to find proof that ACORN's work has ever led to a single fraudulent vote. Does he have any? Do you? Just curious.
10.20.2008 9:32am
Tony Tutins (mail):

Well, they didn't give up their US citizenship, did they? Citizens can vote for President and Vice President no matter where they live on this planet.

If they have their actual address on the paperwork, yes.


Why shouldn't homeless people vote, as long as they're citizens over 18? The property requirements for voters were eliminated in the mid-1850s.
10.20.2008 1:36pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Why shouldn't homeless people vote


Here's how one person answers that question:

I don't see what's so wrong with property requirements for voting; should people with no ties to a community and who pay nothing in taxes be allowed to vote to impose taxes on others?
10.20.2008 3:39pm
byomtov (mail):
Just in case anyone is still reading this thread, it seems that the 28 people in question have been determined to be legitimate voters.

Read all about it.
10.20.2008 5:53pm
anon345 (mail):
The non-insane/truthful/honorable people knew that even before it was confirmed.
10.20.2008 6:15pm